goss graves. "washington journal" is next. host: the supreme court still hasn't released its ruling on the constitutionality of the patient protection and affordable care act, but we're going to give you a chance to say how the justices' decision will impact you and your family once their decision is made. good morning, and welcome to this edition of the "washington journal." today is saturday, june 23. we're looking at numbers put out by the gallup organization that show americans are at best divided when it comes to support for the healthcare. we'd like for you to join in the conversation. here are the numbers. republicans, 202-737-0002. democrats, 202-737-0001.

independents, 202-628-0205. as always, you can reach out to us via social media. the address is there, twitter, @cspanwj. on facebook, it's facebook.com/cspan. you want to send us an email? the address is journal@c-span.org. this is the report that was put out by gallup, authored by frank newport, jeffrey jones with the headline, "gallup editors: americans' views on healthcare law."

host: we want to find out from you what you think the impact is going to be to you and/or members of your family regarding the supreme court's healthcare ruling. our first call comes from boulder, colorado. cheryl is on our line for democrats. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: hi. good morning, and thank you. i'm in a really difficult situation. i'm 61 years old. and i have several preexisting conditions, so i have not been able to get health insurance for the last five years. i just came out of the hospital with pneumonia and have almost $300,000 in medical bills, and i need to go back into the hospital for open heart surgery , and it's -- it's beyond bankruptcy is what it's going to do to my life. host: cheryl, have you been able to pay any of your medical

bills, and if so, how? caller: i am not able to pay anything. the most amazing thing is they couldn't qualify me for medicaid because i'm purchasing a mobile home, and you can't own any property and get help from medicaid, so my mobile home, which is worth less than $10,000, is keeping me from getting any help at all under the current system. i'm one of the people that has been rooting for some kind of universal healthcare, because i've already suffered one medical bankruptcy. host: so you say you're already $300,000 in the hole. what's going to happen to you if the supreme court comes back and finds that the healthcare law is unconstitutional? caller: i'm -- i don't know. i can't sleep at night. there's a lot of people like me that can't get insurance, couldn't afford it, and now i'm just -- i don't know what's going to happen. host: joe is on the line, on our line for democrats, calling from new orleans, louisiana, this morning.

go ahead, joe. caller: yes, as far as the impact of what's going to happen if they do rule against him, which i don't believe they will. you know, the whole patriot thing is in the healthcare law is really not so much the individual mandate. that's not a big issue. it's more the fact that we file these insurance companies to play fair, and i think that's what the republicans have the biggest problem with, the whole idea of them having to ensure people with the preexisting conditions and, you know, getting rid of the lifetime cap and those type things. of course it's going to cost insurance companies more money, but it's really just a more fair, fairer approach to healthcare. so that's the biggest impact. if we lose that, i think we'll go back to just insurance companies doing what they want to do to people.

host: mary is on our line for republicans, calling from washington, d.c., this morning. mary, you're on the "washington journal." caller: yes, i'm a long-time fan of the program. my opinion on this is the fact that it's very obvious that the bill has dealt or gone all the way around all of their aspects of it, and then they demand -- the bill demands that the catholic church will have to submit to the government as to how the finer points of the bill are interpreted. so therefore, the catholic church is being persecuted now by the government. host: mary, what's going to be

the impact to you if the law is found to be unconstitutional by the supreme court justices? caller: well, catholics everywhere are very upset about the fact that the government can come in and tell the catholic church how to teach on a certain subject, and i would be most upset, very upset about it. host: mary in washington, d.c. more from the article by frank newport, jeffrey jones, and lydia saad, americans no more likely to support the law now than when it was passed.

host: back to the phones regarding the healthcare decision. the ruling expected some time this week. cincinnati, ohio. dell ton on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: thank you for answering my call. i have a question. what does the u.k., britain, have to do with the universe although healthcare? what i want to know is that, do they have a universal healthcare program themselves, and i would like for the

american people to understand that, when it comes down to the political decisions of the constitution versus the citizens of the united states, especially when it comes down to the catholics, this is not a quite between the united states and the catholics. because in the end, the catholic religion headed by the pope is going to rule over any constitutional decisions made by this country for the simple fact they run the constitution via the u.k. i was wondering overall, does the u.k. have a universal healthcare of their own? that's going to decide whether or not any type of universal healthcare is going to be decided in this country. host: next up is ellen on our line for democrats. she's calling from quincy,

massachusetts, this morning. ellen, go ahead. you're on the "washington journal." caller: hi. i was listening to -- can you hear me? host: yes, ma'am, go ahead. caller: i was listening to that caller about the catholic church and having to pay health insurance for things that they don't believe in. what i'm calling to debate is, first of all, if these organizations don't want money from the federal government, then they don't have to play by the federal government rules, just like anyone else that applies for a federal program, the church has to go by the rule the federal government sets forth. if they want to be totally independent of the government, then they don't have to follow the rules and don't have to have the procedures that the government mandates anyone gets their funds received. host: from what you've been reading in the newspapers, what you've seen on television and heard on the radio, what do you expect from the supreme court

justices, and how is that going to affect you? caller: well, i am a federal government employee, so it will not affect me personally so much, because i will be coming to retirement if everything stays the same as it is. congress can pass a lot of different laws, but the way it will affect me is both of my parents have alzheimer's. i have three disabled people in my family. they're on social security benefits that are already very discriminated against because they have medicare. so, when they need certain procedures done, medicare does not want to cover it. like they would if they had private insurance. so it has an effect for the whole country. i would just say to the catholic who called in earlier, i'm a roman catholic, and i don't find the way she's talking very christian at all. host: steve on the independents line, go ahead. caller: yes, i just wanted to say that i've experienced

national health service in britain. you know, for the last 60 years. i also have blue shield coverage over here. and i don't understand why americans are so scared of nationalized medicine. if i had to have a choice for an operation procedure, i'd probably go back to england to have it rather than have it here. the gentleman that called in asking about universe although healthcare in britain, yes, they have a national health service. you can go to any doctor any time, anywhere. there's no fee. they track what happens to you better over there than over here. i was in a nasty car accident here, and there was no coordination between any of my doctors. the hospital, my regular doctor, my orthopedic doctor, no coordination at all. in britain, all of that is tracked, and much better care was afforded.

host: steven in carlyle, pennsylvania. more from the gallup report, americans see little impact of the bill on healthcare now.

host: we're talking to you, our viewers and listeners, about the impact of the supreme court healthcare ruling on you and your family once that decision is handed down by the justices. independent, month morks donald is our line for republicans. donald, you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. donald, turn down your television set. put that on mute, and it will help facilitate our conversation. caller: thank you for c-span.

the 34% that -- host: donald, put your television on mute or i'm going to move on to another call. caller: it's on mute. host: go ahead. caller: the 34% that said it makes little difference or not -- host: all right, we're going to move on to jan in new orleans on our line for democrats. good morning, jan, and welcome to the "washington journal." caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: jan, what kind of impact is the supreme court decision going to have on you, whether they find all of it constitutional, part of it constitutional, or all of it unconstitutional? caller: it will be enormous for me and my family. i am a retired 66-year-old female. i take care of my adult disabled daughter, who has a see sheer disorder, and her daughter, who is still not old

enough to drive. and i am 9 only driver in the family. i have progressive cornea disease, which i was turned down for cornea transplants year after year after year because i had no insurance, could not afford any, did not qualify, preexisting condition. just two months ago, i received a left cornea, which has allowed me to continue driving for this family. i am the only driver in the family. if they delay this healthcare, then my right eye will not be done. i'm on a waiting list of about 20 people, and they do about 20 a month. this has changed our world. i drive my daughter and granddaughter to school and doctor's appointment. before i had to hire people. i had to try to get them do favors or barter just to get to a doctor's appointment. so, this is impacting me and my family enormously, and i am so

grateful for this healthcare that we have now. host: more reporting on the situation regarding the supreme court ruling, the expected ruling coming this week hopefully. it comes from "the washington post" with the headline, "healthcare ruling is likely to have long-term fallout."

host: minneapolis, minnesota, jack is on our independent line. jack, you're on the "wall street journal." what is the impact of the supreme court decision, if it comes down this week, what's the impact going to have on and you your family? caller: it will have a big impact. and i believe they should be -- host: let's move on to north carolina. mike is on our line for republicans. go ahead, mike. caller: good morning. how are you doing, sir? host: mike, what kind of an impact is the supreme court decision going to have regarding your healthcare if that ruling comes down this week? caller: ok, a little background. several years ago, my wife went to work for a company that offered health insurance.

that was the reason she went. she left the company, and she cobraed out. after cobra pay was over, we went and got private insurance. $2,300 a month. that was our cost for the insurance, ok? we went into a state program called inclusive health. people have no idea how difficult it's going to be to try to talk to someone about your insurance program. 50 phone calls, 30 faxes later, we had to call the north carolina senate to work with us to give us this insurance. what we've got, or what america will have, somebody in a cubicle. you're going to try to converse with them, and they really don't care about you, because

as soon as 5:00 comes, they're gone. and this is what america is facing. you'll have people that really have no consequence to them whether you get insurance or not. and america better understand that this is not the -- with president obama's healthcare, it will not fix everything, because you've got people that really don't have your best interest at heart. host: so, mike, you agree with the republicans in congress here in washington that want to try and repeal the president's healthcare bill? caller: yes, i do. host: all of it or part of it? caller: well, it's against the constitution. host: michael is our line for independents, calling from madison, indiana. go ahead, michael. caller: hi, yes, i'm more concerned about the

affordability of it. originally they said that the insurance companies will get online with it, which they haven't that i'm aware of. and then the penalty for not having it, there are rumors that the fine would be half the cost of a year's insurance. i think if people could afford insurance, they would have it. i don't see how they could force it or get the insurance companies to come on line. i'm uninsured right now. so is my wife. i'm 57. she's 50. and, you know, we'd love to have insurance. we just can't afford it. host: and there's no part of the affordable healthcare act right now that can provide you with healthcare assistance?

caller: well, when they did away with the universal, i just thought it was a sham, they did away with universal. the insurance companies, pro and cons for it. they're going to make out either way it goes. so, unless the insurance companies get online, i don't see how your averaging working guy is going to afford it. host: there's a story on the front page of the "new york times" this morning talking about an oregon study that shows benefits and a price tag for the newly insured. they write out of portland --

host: that's on the front page. "new york times." back to the phones. bowie, maryland, and virginia is on our line for democrats. caller: yesterday john boehner was saying that after the decision came down, there should be no spiking of the ball. a republican candidate out midwest somewhere already has

an ad out praising the decision. and i wonder if that means that somebody on the court has given the republicans some indication of how they're going to rule, because you only spike the ball if you win. and john boehner clearly said there would be no spiking of the ball after the decision comes down. host: you don't think he was just trying to prepare his members to lay low and sort of keep focus on this? caller: you spike the ball if you win, not if you lose. they should have had the decency to wait until next week after the decision comes down. that means to me they've gotten some kind of advance notice. host: you know, virginia, everybody in this issue wants to win regardless of what side you're on. caller: except you don't spike the ball till after you won. i don't see any reason why they should tell them not to spike the ball. i think that's some kind of advance notice.

host: we've got an email from d.w. in seattle, washington, who writes the impact of the high court ruling in relation to the healthcare law will not affect me. i maintain health insurance only so that i will be able to get access to treatment in the case of intense physical trauma, in the case of normal healthcare. i use acupuncture, herbs, and qigong, none of which are affected by this bill. i don't really trust institutional medicine to deal with anything other than battle field style injuries. the body is not a machine. it is an information system. that's from d.w. in washington. norah on our line for independents from new york, new york. go ahead, norah. caller: yes, i really don't think the people realize the whole entirity of this insurance and the benefits of it. we're the only industrialized nation that does not have a national healthcare system. and looking at people that have preexisting conditions, like

myself, this healthcare law really helps us and also children that have preexisting healthcare. women need preventive health f. we have preventive health, we can stop a lot of people from having diseases and the progression of those diseases, because they can get treatment and preventive healthcare is paramount. i also think that it will hold down the court. i had a hard time in getting insurance after i retired and my cobra only lasted for 18 months, and i was able to acquire health insurance that would cover me, so i would be able to see the doctors that i have to see. host: were you able to get that insurance as a result of the affordable care act? caller: i wasn't denied it because of my preexisting condition, and i think that that's very, very important. and, you know, preventive health, if you can stop something in the tracks, it means a lot to people, and i really think that this is important. i mean, i don't think that they

did a good job in informing people of all the benefits, and still, a lot of aspects of the law does not come into effect until 2014. and you also see that there's people there are going to get rebates because the insurance companies have to provide 80% of their courts have to be not administrative courts, but for treating people for actual healthcare. host: let's move on to nancy on our line for republicans, calling from santa cruz, california. go ahead, nancy. caller: yeah, all these people are very confused. the woman who had the call in who said she's $300,000 in debt, you know, and all she has is a mobile home, and yet she was treat in the hospital to the tune of $300,000, or the woman who had a corneal transplant, the woman who's afraid of losing -- doesn't know what's going to happen, she's going to get care under medicaid without obama care. obama care has put senior

advantage and all the advantage programs by $500 billion. the woman who wants the corneal transplant already had one corneal transplant, has anything to do with obama care. it hasn't kicked in yet. you have to look at what he said. he lied all over america. you do not get to keep your insurance if you like t. all over america, people are going broke trying to pay for the things that have kicked in about -- every day, i work in the insurance, you know, industry, and i'm telling you, people are calling every day saying, you know, these are people over 65 who are calling in and saying, i normally get this test done for nothing under my medicare, and now they say because of obamacare i have to pay the $50. host: nancy, what's going to be the impact to you as a person who works in the insurance industry if any or all of this healthcare law is found to be unconstitutional? caller: as far as my work, it's not going to be affected at all.

as far as my life as a 65-year-old american, i'm screwed, and so is my husband. and we've paid into private -- we've paid for our own plan, and we're just going, at 65, going to be able to get care, and obama doesn't want us to get care. the thing that you have coverage, saying that you get care is ridiculous. the gentleman who's here from england, we know people all the time that are coming here for their heart surgeries, and he said if he had to have surgery he'd go back to england. well, why doesn't he go back to? did you in with severe heart problems in england, and they tell you, oh, yes, you're covered, you're going to be taken care of, but it's going to take seven months n. meantime, you're going to die and they don't have to worry at all. host: nancy in santa cruz, california. we're going to look at other items in the news as we continue our discussion regarding the impact of the supreme court's expected decision on the healthcare law. that is expected to come sometime next week. but first, a couple of other items in the news this morning, this from the baltimore more

suns, drones deployed in drug war, the headline. fleet expands into caribbean and the gulf of mexico. this is by brian bennett of "the tribune" -- host: leaders at odds over intervention. they write leaders of the eurozone's four largest and hes pledged yesterday to boost growth and defend common

currency, although germany continued to resist proposals to issue common debt and use bailout funds to stabilize financial markets. host: back to the phones and our discussion regarding the impact of the supreme court's expected decision on the healthcare law and how it will affect you and your family. trenton, new jersey. frazier is on our line for democrats. frazier, you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning to you.

many more will have to suffer. many more will have to die. don't ask me why. thank you very much for your time. thank you vy much for your time. host: our next call comes from craig on our line for independents. craig is calling from san diego, california. go ahead, craig. caller: yeah, i think all americans should get the same healthcare that the congress gets and the supreme court gets . you know, if they get such good health coverage, we all should too. host: and if the supreme court dechairs or finds that any or part -- any or all of the current healthcare law is unconstitutional, what kind of an effect would it have on you, craig? caller: i have good health coverage now, but i think all

americans should get the same health coverage as all the senate and house representatives. they get healthcare for life, and, you know, we should too. we should get the same healthcare they have. host: turning to the campaign trail, we've got this item from the "new york times" this morning. the headline, obama draws contrast with romney -- in his turn before hispanics. peter baker writing out of florida --

host: also in campaign news this morning from the other side of the aisle, this is in "the wall street journal," romney tailors ads by state. this is by neil king, who's writing in "the wall street journal" --

host: back to the phones, our discussion regarding the impact of the supreme court's expected decision on the healthcare law and how it's going to affect you and your family. fairfax, virginia, curt success our next caller, coming on our republican line. curtis, you're on the "washington journal." caller: yeah, i'd like to address the issue of how it's going to affect me. it will be a good thing if it's ruled unconstitutional. because it's going to do nothing but bad for me.

i wrote a letter to my representative, gerald connally of virginia, and i told him if he voted for the law, we were not going to -- we were going to vote him out of office. and he said he would let her back and vote for it only because it would lower the rates, that we could keep what we already had if we wanted to, that it would lower the deficit, better quality care. and i said every one of those are going to prove to be a lie. and if it is. every one of those has been -- my premiums have went up. everybody's premiums have went up. the deficit is now projected to go higher. the cost. healthcare law is projected now to be twice what he said it would be. it will be a good thing if it's rejected. host: one more item that we want to mention in regards to activity on the campaign trail and the coverage of said activity by c-span, we're talking about road to the white house, and in the upcoming he

addition of "road to the white house," we're going to talk with president obama's political and media strategist, david axelrod. we'll have a look at the obama for campaign with the campaign's david axelrod and press secretary ben labolt. they'll talk about operation vote, the effort to target key voters in battleground states. also, they'll be discussing the day-to-day obama political operations, how the campaign is using social media, local news markets, and cable, and we'll also take a look inside the obama re-election chicago headquarters. all of that is on the next edition of "road to the white house." you can see that on sunday at 6:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span. you'll also be able to listen to it on c-span radio. you want more details about "road to the white house" or any other programming, find it on our website, c-span.org.

back to the phones. golds brow, north carolina. joyce is on our line for democrats. good morning, joyce. caller: good morning. host: what's the impact of the supreme court's decision going to be on and you your family regarding the healthcare law? caller: myself personally, nothing. i'm on medicare. i don't think it will affect medicare. but i do wish that there are members of the supreme court before they decide on other people's insurance would opt out of their free medical insurance. host: what about the supreme court opting out of its insurance plan going to help and you other people in america? caller: i think if they had to buy their own, they would be more understanding about what other people have to go through. i wish we had free medical for everyone, because so many people do get free medical care.

all of our senators and the supreme court, and a lot of retirees. now medicare, we do pay $100 a month for medicare, we pay $100 for our gap. host: what kind of percentage does that take out of your pocketbook every month? caller: what percentage? oh, ok. with my pension, and i draw a little over $20,000 a year. my husband draws a little over $20,000, and our insurance is $5,000. host: so what's that, about 10%, 20%? caller: yeah. and then, of course, tape host: if that's not 20%. caller: it's probably less than

5%. host: and is that causing you significant hardship? caller: no. no, i'm thankful to get it. host: we're going to move on to gerald, calling from michigan. good morning, gerald. caller: i think a lot of viewers are under the impression that this obama care has to be a single payer plan. it's not. nancy pelosi had come up when they had the senate, and she pulled it off the table right away. the a.m.a. controls that, which i think they had a lot of influence on that, to 15 doctors in congress, and those doctors are married to them. so you got the a.m.a., plus them, and this obamacare is not even close to single payer, and that's what we really need. but they had a golden opportunity to do that.

they had the house on the senate, and they didn't do it. that's about all i have to say about it, thank you. host: next subpoena georgia. dean on our line for republicans. dean, you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: yeah, i was going to remind everybody that when president obama went before the group of doctors when he was promoting the healthcare act, they asked him if he was going to include tort reform, and he basically said no, and then they all booed him. i don't know if you remember that. but i believe that's all we basically need, you know, being able to settle across state lines, tort reform. and then, you know, the free market will wash all the other problems out over the course of time, and i believe it would bring down healthcare for everyone, i really do, if they would do those two major things. host: we want to remind our viewers and listeners that later in the program, we're going to be talking about the 40th anniversary of title ix. it is the lead story in this morning's fourth section of the

"baltimore sun," and they talk about the case of lil shelton, a field hockey coach at severna park and coached her daughter and her granddaughter in field hockey. and it talks about three generations on 40 years of title ix, and the article says that -- host: title ix of the amendment education act of 1972, and while pioneers such as lil shelton applaud the effects of the landmark bill, which triggered the boom in girls' participation in high school sports from 300,000 to three million plus, she acknowledged that change didn't happen overnight or in a month or in a year.

host: back to our discussion regarding the impact of the supreme court's decision on the healthcare law, expected sometime this week. ohio, brenda on our line for democrats. brenda, you're on the "washington journal." caller: hello. host: go ahead, linda. caller: ok, i'm listening to the different viewers with their opinions about the healthcare reform, and it seems to me that people are not doing research for their own information, and they're listening to people and all this kind of stuff, like the one gentleman or woman who said they pay $2,300 a month for health insurance. what average person has that laying around unless you got a

lot of money? host: brenda, where do you do your research? caller: well, i go on the computer. i try to listen to informed people about this. host: and based on what you've heard and seen on the computer and on television, what's going to be the impact, do you think, on and you your family, your personal situation if the supreme court finds all or part of the healthcare law unconstitutional? caller: well, i have insurance. but it's going up, my share of it from being retired. more cost is coming out of my pocket, and i'm just looking towards the future, because pretty soon i'm going to pay more and more and more just like everybody else. host: brenda, we're going to leave it there. we got this item from "the new york post" this morning. george, one for the books, $9.8 million constitution, a copy of the constitution that r went for one mother of a price at auction yesterday --

host: our last call regarding the impact of the supreme court's decision expected this week on the healthcare law comes from detroit, michigan. pam is on our line for independents. go ahead, pam. caller: yes, good morning. i was just calling -- host: how is this going to impact you, pam? caller: hello? host: pam, are you there?

caller: yes, am i still here? host: yeah, tell me quickly how the supreme court decision is going to impact you if they find it all or partly unconstitutional. caller: once it gets in correctly in 2014, it will help everybody. host: pam, we're going to leave it there. pam in detroit, michigan. we want to let you know what's coming up in this edition of the "washington journal" -- a discussion on the future of the farm bill that passed the senate this week. later, dan isset will talk about the ruling on the f.c.c. indecency case. we want to let you know about "news makers" this week. congressman john kline of minnesota is going to be our guest. he's going to be talking about the student loan debate in congress and immigration and a lot more. you'll be able to see the entire interview with representative john kline on

sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. it's also available online at c-span.org. what we're going to show you right here, kline will be talking about the debate over student loans in congress. we'll be right back. >> he thinks it's a good idea for these rates not to double, not to jump up to 6.8%. the dablet is over how you pay for it. i think we're now in a position of needing the senate to actually do something so that we can have a real negotiation. >> how important, mr. chairman, is it that the house and senate meet the june 30 deadline, or when current law expires, what happens if this is not extended in the next several days? >> well, the rates would go up by law, put into place, i might add, by the speaker pelosi

congress. by law they jump up to 6.8%. but if you put it in terms of perspective, dollars for students, it's not a very big hit, frankly, right up front. it comes out to something like $7 a month. so i think we have time to get it right, but there's really no reason to drag it out. that's where the frustration is. we've already passed legislation. we offered other alternatives. we're ready to take action. and we're just not getting much real cooperation, frankly, out of either the senate or the president for a real solution. >> let me follow up. you have a lot of experience in washington, both as a member of congress, you're chairman of a committee that john boehner chaired before he became speaker, the education and workforce committee. before you came to congress,, as a marine, you worked in the white house, you dealt with president jimmy carter, with president reagan. you know your way around.

why is this still taking so long to get resolved? shouldn't this have been easy to do? >> well, this is a presidential election year. i'm sure that wasn't lost on anybody in this room or anybody watching this program. and i think that always complicates issues. as you know, the united states house of representatives and the senate are fairly closely divided, and so, the positions now are being staked out or being taken by governor romney and by president obama and those of us in the house and senate. but it ought not to be -- and that's what's frustrating, it ought not to be this difficult. >> "washington journal" continues. alan bjerga joins us to talk about the farm bill, which moves into the house next week. he's going to discuss the future and also talk about the spending bill, the programs that would receive cuts, and

what the bill ultimately means for american farmers. first, alan bjerga, tell us, what are some of the key elements of the farm bill? guest: when i think you're looking at senate, the main thing to look at is a reform to subsidy spending. there has been a program since 1996, which has essentially been a direct payment program for farmers. it's about $5 billion a year that goes to farmers of certain crops, regardless of price. that's been hard to defend as farm profits have reached record levels. so, as a result of that, it's been politically indefensible, and they've replaced it in this bill with more of an insurance-based program that is supposed to save the bill in total $23.6 billion over 10 years. there's questions as to whether this new program will end up costing more or less than that, but that's one big change. another big change is a reduction in conservation acreage. currently there are programs where farm considers set aside land to improve air and soil quality much that is being dropped. you've also seen cuts to the food stamps program, which is key, because when you look at

the actual spending in the farm bill, most of it really doesn't go to farmers. about 80% is nutrition programs for poor families. that is really one of the big controversies in this bill. host: you anticipated my next question, which is, why do they call a farm bill when 80% has nothing to do with farming? guest: well, it does in the sense that it's food and it's subsidizing, in a sense, consumption of food, which at some level will help farmers. really, the answer is historical. this bill dates to the great depression, when you were looking at farmers who are 1/5 of the u.s. population, really struggling. the roosevelt administration intervened with these programs to try to help them out. over time, as the percentage of farmers in the population has dropped from about 20% to about 2% today, you needed other constituencies in this coalition to keep passing the bill, big coalition, the food stamp program. you now have a group of urban lawmakers who are concerned about nutrition programs, along with rural lawmakers who care about the farm program, and that's what really gets us the

margins in the senate that you see. host: what are some of the differences -- what are some of the differences in how this bill is passed versus how other bills are passed in congress? guest: that's an excellent question, and that is a key thing for people to understand when they're looking at the farm bill. we always hear about red america, blue america, red, blue. take a moment and step back further. for the farm bill, think back more like the blue and the gray. because what you're really looking at here is sort of a war between the states. the commodity groups are still a driving power behind the lobbying of this bill. a lot comes down to northern crops and southern crops. it doesn't matter whether you have a d or railroad before your name. cotton hasn't declared a political affiliation f. you're from georgia, it doesn't matter what your party is, you're defending the interests of cotton. same thing with corn and soybeans in northern states. so this is not the typical partisan breakdowns you get. in a certain way, the farm bill

is almost a civics lesson. this is the way the framers expected it to work with the house and senate and people looking at their swilt interests and putting together a bill. sometimes almost regardless of party. host: we're talking with alan bjerga from bloomberg news, who covers agriculture policy for bloomberg news. we're talking about the farm bill, which has just passed the senate, moving over to the house next weekend. if you'd like to get involved with the conversation, the numbers are there on the screen. 202-737-0002 for republicans. democrats, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. weave got a fourth line for farmers, 202-628-0184. again, farmers, 202-628-0184. doesn't matter if you're farming cotton in the south or soy beenes in the north f. you're a farmer, we'd love to hear from you. our first call comes from merced, california, our line

for republicans. you're on the "washington journal." caller: hi, yeah, i was wondering, on the farm bill, how does it directly relate to the dairy farmers in california? guest: dairy is sort of its own world a. lot of these programs have different histories, and dairy is especially challenging, because it's really an industry that's prone to oversupply and undersupply. when you have a milk cow, that animal is going to be responding to market forces much more slowly than the market moves. if you're in a state like california, which is the number one dairy state in the nation, even surpassing traditional powers like wisconsin, you're dealing with price support programs that are meant to manage the supply and keep the price higher for the farmers. as far as california dairies go, you have lower profit margins, and that's sort of a supply management approach, going to have an impact as far as how many cows you have, how many productivity is going to be and your income.

host: next up is bradenton, florida, mary on our line for democrats. you're on the "washington journal." caller: yes, good morning. i'm calling in -- host: yes, go ahead. your question or comment regarding the farm bill. caller: ok. can you hear me now? host: yes, we can hear you. caller: i have two questions. one thing is that -- they're calling this the farm bill, but it has nothing to do with food stamps t. has to do with food stamps. they want to cut -- and two, i want to understand this. they want to get rich people money, give them a tax break, but they want to cut food stamps. i mean, this is -- this just isn't the america i grew up in. i just don't understand it. i don't understand congress -- they tell people lies about the healthcare law, affordable healthcare law.

they done just -- i feel sorry for the people. host: talk about the breakdown of the percentages, if you can, and what part of it is represented by the food stamp program. guest: it varies from year to year. the food stamp program is responsive to changes in the economy, which is part of the reason from 2007 to 201, is the amount of money spent on the snap program doubled in that period. and that has made, as a result, since it's the largest program in the farm bill, the farm bill has become a lot more expensive. the caller makes a really compelling point that's coming up a lot in this debate. you have arguments, especially on the house of representatives side, where the bill goes now, that the food stamp program simply is too much money, it's gone up too fast. now, contrast that with farmers who are having record profits, and you can certainly see the

point that the caller is making, which is, why would you want to be cutting nutrition programs while you're still maintaining this farm subsidy issue? that's the debate we're going to see before congress. host: we've got a pie chart that shows what's in the senate farm bill from 2013 to 2022. food stamps and nutrition programs, $768.2 billion. it represents just about almost 79% of the farm bill. crop insurance, almost 10% at $94.6 billion. conservation, $58 billion. commodity programs, $43 billion. and everything else is a tiny live there at $10.7 billion. quite a slight there. sioux falls, sdsed is, richard is our first farmer. richard, what kind of farming do you do in sioux falls?

caller: we do organic farming. i guess the problem i have with the whole farm bill, as it's called, if you take a look at the last pie chart you have, you're going to spend nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years for a type of people in america that are obese, and we need to actually provide nutrition for them. that's not what they need. what they need is jobs. the way to get jobs is return all this farm bill money back to the people. don't pass any farm bill. get refused the u.s. department of agriculture. let people fend for themselves. enough government. when will you people learn? the only people that benefit from this is the people making the laws and the people that are dumb enough and poor enough to believe that people in government really want to help them. host: richard, before you go, you say you're an organic farmer. what kind of crops do you grow? richard is gone. guest: and richard is from sioux falls, which i actually worked at the "argus leader,"

which was my first job. it's fun to hear from somebody there. the fact that richard grows organic is interesting in the context of the farm bill, because richard probably isn't getting a lot of help from the government. the commodity programs are very much set up for sort of your main staple crops, your corn, soy beenes, wheat, cotton, rice, and then other crops as well, including peanuts, etc. if you're an organic farmer, the programs are not necessarily as designed for you as much as the large commodity growers. i think what the caller is doing is arguing for more of a marketplace. organic has grown to 4% of the grocery sales today. an organic farmer would probably do very well in a free marketplace. this current farm bill, one of the issues is how do you encourage that type of production as well? host: florida, charlie on our line for democrats. charlie, you're on the "washington journal" with alan bjerga of bloomberg news.

caller: thanks i wonder if that gentleman can talk about the congress persons about these farm subsidies. charles grassley and for five other members get subsidies over the year from the federal government. michelle bachmann did something like put all her farm holdings in somebody else's name. they do everything they can to hide this stuff. it is probably not illegal but it just does not seem right that people are basically millionaires getting farm subsidies. guest: it is not illegal and not as common as a used to be. if you want more information, you could go to the environmental working group data base. that goes back to 1995 and you can get that information online.

if members of congress have farm operations, there is a good chance they will get subsidies depending on the crop they are growing korean getting back to direct payment -- the government is paying $5 billion for us to grow certain cross because they have that landham those are those crops. it will be interesting to see who gets what from where. another issue is payment limitations. members of congress make six- figure salaries and depending on their income levels, they could be affected by some provision of the bill but they will probably continue getting farm subsidies. host: you wrote on june 18 that they were voting on more than 70 amendments ranging from sugar subsidies to food stamps trying to pass a five-year reauthorization of all u.s. department of agriculture

programs. tell us briefly what kind of hurdles the senate had to go through to get this farm bill passed and give this a preview of what we can expect on the house side leg moves over the next week to. when you have this kind of gridlock on capitol hill, coming to an agreement on anything is a challenge. that article was 70 jimenez and there were 250 originally. -- fattah argolis 70 amendments and there were 250 originally. - that article mentioned 70 amendments and there were 250 originally. getting back to the war between

the states of fema is that you have some partisan boundaries that break down on this. debbie stabenow of michigan and senator pat roberts worked together to get this bill through. when you go into the house of representatives in recent years it has become more partisan than the senate, you're going to really see a heightened tension especially on issues like food stamps where north dakota will always have a disproportionate influence compared to california, here you have a lot of urban-suburban lawmakers who don't count farmers in their district and you have rural lawmakers to identify with agriculture and don't care as much about the numbers -- nutrition compounded. you will have sharper boundaries and will be a challenge that you have already seen some delays in the house process. they're wondering how they get this done before the law expires

september 30. host: how does the senate plan on getting this done? speakingally, we're about this stuff having to be done before the first or second week in august because then congress takes up for its summer break. >> the ideal calendar that the farm constituency is hoping for is on july 11 on the house agriculture committee when they do their markup of the bill. they're hoping in july that it can get floor time in the house which could be challenging. if you did that, you could hash out the bill of constituents and come back in conference in september and get something before september 30. many analysts think this is wishful thinking. this is not an immediate situation but you'll need either an extension are you will have a

reverse into a 1949 low which is an archaic picture of agriculture america that we would be governed by. you are putting our hopes on a lame-duck session. one analyst said with all the expectations on the lame-duck, they are hoping the duck can still walk when they're done host: back to the telephones. akron, ohio, our next call, on our line for independents. caller: thank you for receiving my call. i would like to thank mr. bjerga for giving the root cause of what is going on with what you all are talking about and that is basically that this is just a continuation of the civil war at how the north and south always fought over agriculture and production ideas. the only victims in the gray

areas between all the bickering back and forth in the senate and congress and house of representatives are going to be the poor people. it is only the food stamp program that will help the poor and they will suffer from all the bickering and the time they are taking to make a just decision. thank you for giving their route, historical beginnings. when people look at the story behind these things, it always goes back to the fight between the north and south. host: your response? guest: thanks to the caller for watching this morning and caring about this particular issue. folks have to understand about the farm bill is that it may be a mis-named bill. it tells a poverty issues, housing, it deals with economic development and it deals with

agriculture which is one of the stronger sectors of the american economy right now. host: next is the james, a farmer in sparta, tenn., what kind of crops are you raising? caller: i am a tree producer. i grow several acres of hay. if you will bear with me this morning, i have two or three points related to that. some of the revamping in the food stamp portion of the farm bill and you have things like ldp or crp or perhaps the dcp payments going directly to farmers. the biggest point is as far as the food stamp portion is that

the best way to have complete -- a problem in our society is for people to be hungry. people are hungry, history tells us from the french revolution that if they are truly hungry, our political system will break down. people will say to the streets and there will be a coalition of a mixture of everyone poor enough and underprivileged or disenfranchised. the politicians will have to run for cover because there will not be -- it will not be a safe place to be. my other point is in regard to the portion of the farm bill that dealt with crop insurance. crop insurance is a good thing if you are a rogue crop farmer but originally the payments for the program was a direct payment from the federal government to the farmer for a

natural disaster. they now have a program where they fund the insurance companies and the insurance companies pay the farmer. we have added an insurance company in the middle of the equation. the insurance company is for problems of the farmer getting less of a payment is costing the taxpayer more. that is not a good system. it is called free enterprise but there is nothing free about when you subsidize an insurance company. guest: i think the caller brings up a couple of important issues that are mentioned in this program but are not always be the dominant narrative. with food stamps, social stability, i don't think anyone will predict that the united states will turn into algeria or in asia where you had riots that led to the arabs spring or contributed.

or the french revolution, there is a big drought in france in 1788. the caller knows his history. there's a social stability component and what you have for the obama administration say is that this is money put directly into the economy. a person who gets a food stamp dollars spending betty -- that money on food and that frees up the dollars something else. d.c. is number one among the 51 administrative areas and mississippi as the number 12. that creates a real direct stimulus. the caller points out an interesting point about crop insurance. it is not a direct government and it. it is a partnership between the public and private sector. one of the criticisms is that because it is indirect, there is not the efficiency. there's an interesting study

done by an iowa state professor. would never be easier if the government just wrote a check? farmers tend to like the companies because the way they administer the program but is that what the government should be back doing in tight fiscal times? host: talk to me about the forestry programs. james said he was raising trees. talk to me about the forestry programs covered under the farm bill. >> is under the usda and it is a strange relationship. you have a national forest system with the usda is involved in but it is not agriculture, per se. you death and elsie in money to fight wildfires and environment -- you definitely see money to fight wildfires. it does little land rights and logging rights for timber companies of the farm bill will deal with those issues. that is more in the regulatory a

irina. >> previously, you worked with fecal nightridder fugs and started your career in minnesota and worked for the "sioux falls argus leader"and the wichita, kan. eagle. what did you raise under family farm? >> we started off with cattle and then went to sheep. we had a sure-fire way of getting profitability on the sheet. p.ller: ♪ my family stopped farming about 20 years ago. we still a lifetime supply of oil from the sheep. host: santa cruz, california, go ahead to. >caller: i have a question about the gmo's and the people may have full bellies that they're

not getting nutrition are they are getting something worse. how does the farm bill address the food stamp issue and the quality of food that these poor people are getting. just because they have full bellies does not mean that they will be getting nutrition. what does it say about that? host: what is safe gmo? caller: it is a genetically modified organism. guest: setting aside the gmo question and get into a question about nutrition and food stamp program -- you have seen efforts from stays like minnesota and new york who attempted to put nutrition standards into the food stamp program. there's a feeling that it is too lax. they tend to get swatted down with the idea that consumers

should still have a choice. you cannot buy all call or tobacco with the stance the other than that, it is wide open. the caller brings a bit broader issue in farm policy which is -- should the purpose of the farm bill to encourage agri-business which makes the u.s. the largest exporter of commodities in the world or should be looking more at nutrition and encouraging the food choices and cropp practices that might lead to a more balanced american plate. host: tampa, fla., are off -- on our line for independents. caller: good morning, the previous caller mentioned what i had in mind. if you eliminate processed foods andm the food stamp program ou items that cost over $5 per lb, it has a better chance of survival because we're running

out of money. i think the working poor cannot even qualify for food stamps. there is a lot of fraud in the program. when an average person sees someone buying stakes or lobsters did -- or lobster tails on food stamps, you will lose the constituency that pays for these things. guest: processed foods leads to another interesting issue that is the concept of the food desert. many folks in poorer areas are very underserved by grocery stores that would have fresh fruit and vegetables that would be best for their diet. many places you are using food stamps at places were processed foods are the only choice. farmers market and other grocery stores would be ways to get to that problem host: our line for

democrats, go ahead caller: thank you for taking my call. can you identify the difference between what is appropriated out for food stamp program and the nutrition program as to what was appropriate prior to the bill? was their money's not being used in the program that we are losing so we can understand how big of a drop this will be. can you identify any politicians that are viewed for the importance of the nutrition issue. guest: the usda has been very outspoken on the importance of the food stamp program and other programs like school lunches and nutrition initiatives that affect poor children and

children and the school system. they're looking at it as sundanese to be maintained. you look at the prevalence of obesity and our society and school lunch is often better than the convenience store lunch and that is an important thing. to keep this in perspective, when you're looking at some of the larger numbers that are thrown out in the paul ryan budget resolution of cuts of $33 billion over 10 years, this program is scored as $768 billion over 10 years and you're talking about a 5% cuts. that is a little bit of context for the senate bill cut $4 billion over 10 years. as a percentage, that is small. taking a look at why the numbers went up so much in terms of the preparations in the past, the food stamp program is a mandatory spending programs so it is done by a formula which makes the annual appropriation

does not have as much effect on what the funding is for it. a lot of the reason you have seen this increase is not just the economy. is the usda and the government really looking at getting people on the program with a confined to be eligible. the participation rates historical they have been in fifth -- and the 50% range and now it is in the low 70's so you have more people who unused the program along with more people qualify because of the economy. host: we want to remind our viewers that we have a special line for our farmers -- we would like to hear from some more farmers. define what is a farm? does it have to be a certain size or cropp? is it green acres?

what is a farm? guest: that is when the big issues for these programs because you cannot administer reform program unless you define what a farm is. the old definition was revenues of over $1,000. there are people who have urban chicken coops that can sell $1,000 of eggs per year. there are a lot of things going on in the urban agriculture. if you look at the farm structure in the united states, you'd gotten to a point where there is a little over 2 million farms in the u.s. about 1/10 of those grow the bulk of the food. you have these smaller farms, maybe part-time hobby farms, along with these larger multi million-dollar family businesses that are all being served by this program. that is part of what makes a complex.

host: what are we likely not to see and the farm bill when it comes back from the house that is in there now? guest: that's a good question. you'll probably see less money for food stamps because of the press around that. one thing you will likely see is some sort of preservation of the subsidy program based on cropp price. that is a way for the southern crops that feel they are not treated as well as the number crops. that gives them what they need. there are significant debits is between the two chambers on this bill. but someday it will get to congress. those of the issues that will have to be dealt with. host: our next call is from my not, north dakota. caller: i am 66 years old. i have lived all this business. i was born in 1946 and grew up

not only in north dakota but west river, north dakota. south dakota was the big divide. i was born in west river, north dakota and you cannot get in -- further in the sticks than that. i taught in northern minnesota so i have been around the block as part of the country. organics is what we grew because we did not have the pesticides and all that stuff. if my family is still forming organics in north minnesota. they have a big operation. we had a garden in south dakota near mitchell and i lived in bismarck and have a little

community garden. if i can grow all the vegetables i need a light tan by 10 plot, that's fine. it is organic in grew up organic because he did not have the stuff to put on them. if there is anybody who is committing a sin against the farmers, it is monsanto and the guys who put out the genetically modified stock. guest: i will minott and bismarck a couple of weeks ago city must be enjoying the view. when she talks about organic and smaller farms and such, this is something you see a consent -- a constituency forming on the farm bill. this is a chance for us to grow our own food, healthy food, and puts people in touch with the land. how can you encourage their production? a genetically modified crops, one of the big issues in that --

there was an amendment by senator sanders about labeling ofgmo commodities on food labeling. that failed resoundingly by one issue that will continue is how you can protect farmers who want to be organic farmers from contamination from their neighbors field? how you keep this market having the integrity that consumers want and encouraging it to grow so we can continue this diversity of agriculture that is a national strength. host: evansville, indiana, independent line. caller: you have not addressed the department of agriculture. my husband worked for 34 years with the department of agriculture. he ended up being the chief of rural housing for the state of indiana. they brought water and my husband made the first water

loan. america did not have water. they made loans to low income people but they had to refinance when he could get finance -- financial financing. they made the loans to the farmers. in men that worked with conservation, a man who won an award came up to my husband and thank him. he said you guys gave me the plans but the farmers some did the money. >host: is that housing program part of the $10 billion that comes under everything else? guest: it may be and that silver sliver is awfully small. >> $10.7 billion.

guest: one of the core missions of the usda is a world development. if you look at one of the achievements of that department, rural electrification, rural housing, taking part of a country that was falling behind urban areas and getting them on the grid was a major accomplishment. when you look at the housing programs, the usda is a major lender. there are a lot of loan guarantees for rural businesses. those old show the dollar amounts. if you really look at an engine for this country and a portion of the country that goes in rural areas, those programs are essential. >> bob is a farmer in wisconsin. what kind of crops are you raising? caller: corn and beans.

>> soybeans, what is your question? caller: the number of farmers that raise their food nowadays has really decrease. d. politically, they want to reduce payments to farmers. the farm bill is really miss named because you take away -- c somerp ground that will come out this fall. because of the regulations, it will get cracked. i will not put it back again. i pulled some of last year. it appears that what they want to do is reduce all these payments to farmers. it is not a political force anymore.

guest: 1 the caller refers to crp, he is referring to the conservation reserve program which allows him to set aside environmentally sensitive land. this proposal reduces that encourage and a lot is going into production. crop prices are so high right now that if you put that land into production, you can make a good profit. as far as the farm constituency calais is true that when you go from 1/5 of the population to 1/50th of the population, there'll be some political clout that will lost. farmers are true swing voters. they tend to vote economic interest and will swing elections base and what they do. there is still a lot of folks

with connections to the land. if they're not a farmer, they have someone in the family tree was. there is that sent the and awareness of those interests. cleveland, ohio host: on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. you look wonderful this morning. your one of my favorite host. s. i am a farmer and i grew up in southern ohio. in adams county and we had hogs and cattle and we formed a lot of our land to grow their feet and have a feed mill to support this. are there any statistics or any factual information that can be

obtained? i have done a lot of research and i'm being led to believe that a lot of so-called corporate farmers which never formed a day in their lives or corporate conglomerates have bought millions of acres of prime land across this country. my belief is that in southern ohio and all the agricultural appalachian areas, there are no longer farmers because of the price to farm. if people like millions of

acres, they're supposed to farmers but they never find a day and their life. guest: there is a data but you have reports of the biggest landowners in the u.s. and reports on foreign ownership of u.s. land. you certainly could start compiling data off of property records in corporate ownership depends on your definition. the big issue in agriculture is land values which have gone through the roof with higher commodity prices and the expectation you can get a better return on a farm land investment then you can in many other forms of investments. it is making a really hard for people who want to go into farming and are not born into it to acquire the land and the capital to start an operation very of because we have a small number of farmers and the farmers -- forms a redding --

getting larger, farming is becoming something in the united states that you have to inherit into. caller:alan bjerga covers agricultural policy for bloomberg news. thank you for being on the program. host: a recent addition of the" atlanta" dick- ic" -- on thursday, the supreme court reversed penalties the fcc had imposed an air force for profanity and nudity. we will be joined in a few minutes to discuss with the impact of this will have going forward. later, a discussion on title 9 on the late 40th anniversary of

law. we will speak with the national women's law center and we will be back after this break. >> here is a look at some books being published this week. it is written by a washington post senior journalist. the former executive editor of "congressional quarterly" looks

at how presidents have been ranked throughout history in " where they stand." journalist nancy millane covers five men convicted for murder that. and we have thoughts and higher education. a maryland native recounts or activists that stall and burned selective service records from baltimore in 1968. and they're succeeding court case. look for these titles in bookstores this coming week and watch for the authors in the near future on book-tv and book-

tv.org. >> how do you approach book interviews differently than news reporting interviews? >> i think of the book interviews as gathering history. interviewing when i'm working for the news side as gathering contemporary information. >> how difficult is it to remain partial in reporting and not dead caught up in a campaign or another. >> i will try to give people as full an understanding of what is happening in this campaign. it is not that difficult to put your biases to the side. >> how does social media change the nature of your work? >> twitter is now a primary new source for anyone who covers politics. it did not exist four years ago for all practical purposes. >> sunday night, perdue

university students interview dan balz on the presidential election sunday at 8:00 on c- span. >> "washington journal" continues -- >> dan issett is here to talk to us about the supreme court decision on the indecency rule that came down thursday. the court mysticism last week and threw out existing penalties that the fcc had imposed an air worse for nudity and profanity. it left the door for -- open for further policing. the group represented is the parents television council and they advocate for what they describe as responsible entertainment. let's go with that as the beginning. what would you define as responsible entertainment? guest: the parents of families have a good idea of that. we know that too much that exists out there is not

responsible entertainment particularly when we talk about the use of the publicly owned airwaves during the day when the children are watching. that is the issue as what is proposed. host: how much is on the broadcasters and how much are on the parents? guest: parents will always be the first land last line of defense. that does not absolve the entertainment industry. they broadcast a message to billions of dollars worth of profits of there's a tradeoff. it is a joint responsibility. the networks try to put all the onus on the parents and children. that needs to change. host: tell us about the decision handed down by the supreme court this week with the se\fcc

and the parents television council has filed an amicus brief in this case. guest: everyone expected to follow up in the supreme court over the last 30 years. this law has existed since the dawn of the media. it is almost 100 years now. unfortunately, the broadcast networks have argued that somehow blog is too big and they cannot be expected to abide by it anymore. there have been other forms of media that have cropped up. the courts to throw out a couple of old orders the fcc had done from going on 10 years ago on procedural grounds but let the policy and is underpinning stent.e host: this case has to do with

what happened at some awards shows? guest: there was one use of profanities at award shows and another had to do with an episode of "nba -- nypd blue" which gives you an idea of how long it takes for this to get through the court. it was nudity in front of a child and a court said that the fcc had made changes to its policy and did not give the networks enough time to make changes in accordance with that. they threw the finds out for procedural issues but did not do anything to the underpinning policy. part of the discussion revolved around the infamous wall drove -- wardrobe malfunction of the super bowl. that was not part of this case? guest: that case is being heard

in the district court in pennsylvania but that case was remanded in put on hold until spring -- supreme court restate decision in this case. it is conceivable that case will be taken up on similar grounds. host: based on the decision of the supreme court this week, what is the next move by the fcc. guest: they have around $1.6 million that a sitting before the commission that have piled up last several years because the fcc has done no enforcement in the past six years -- past four years. it is time to deal with the backlog of literally too many complaints. >> we're talking with the public policy director of the parents television council. if you like to know more brother or his reorganization, you can go to their website. we're talking for the next 45

minutes regarding supreme court rejection of the fcc indecency rule. tell us more -- if you want to get involved by the conversation, the numbers are air -- the members are there on your screen. you can also send us messages with email and twitter. our first call comes from austin, texas, on our lives for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to speak to the fact that it seems to be a common thread to take away the freedom of speech that people have. what has made this whole thing upsetting is the more they put

constraints on people and what they say and do, i am an access tv producer in austin, texas, is as napoleon said -- people who are able to say anything can be able to do anything. they are limiting what people can do and a lot of people shy away from the king in public. if they are worried about maybe saying a curse word and being charged for a fine. host: is this a first amendment issue? guest: not at all. the common misconception here is that there is a first amendment issue here. there is not. stations have to get a permit to operate with $10 billion or

the profits are so varied you can't access to our air waves and the note is a drubbing, -- profess decency is not something that is prohibited entirely. if the station wanted to hear something illegally, they have every legal ability to do so after 10:00 at night or before 6:00 in the morning. they have the free-speech ability to do that. host: what kind of decency standards exist now and how do you feel they have evolved over the last 25-30 years? guest: that is a huge question. the issue broadcast decency is narrowly tailored. as to do a patently offensive sexual or excretory content. there are a couple of other

subcategories. it is a very narrow subset of contents. you can be as violent and gori as you want on television. we're talking about sexual and excretory references. >> in terms of what the parents television council is advocating -- nudity and language are seen in a different light and violence? in terms of all law they are. >> some things are legal and decent and that is narrowly tailored. there's a broad swap that parents and families will be concerned about which would include vile language is was may not meet the definition of legal broadcast of decency. it can still be a concern for parents and families. in terms of what washington is concerned about, in terms of the

organization, you're concerned would be -- >> our job is to protect them from sex,. caller: this is perfect you guys were talking about that because that is what i have issue with. i wish the different various organizations including yours that deal with parental and family concerns when it comes to television and all entertainment is the whole violence thing has not been addressed. you mentioned it was not against all wall. - - aginast the law. i think it should be against bill law when it comes to agency rules that there should not be the violence.

this is six or seven years ago, one of the major networks at 8:00 at night, had on one of the diehard movies. i had to chuckle because they showed the actor in the die hard movies and was rolling are browned on the ground shooting his gun. at one point, someone had their throats cut. they looked away from that scene quickly but the whole entire time, it is 8:00 in the evening and i have little ones and we changed the channel but i had to chuckle because as he's doing all this, he is going "shoot" instead of the other word. that was taken out. somehow it was ok to show the throw to be in cuts. ing cut and bullets and gunfire.

i had to scratch my head and think that someone is not thinking clearly. instead of a breast cheer or a bug there, what is really bad for our society is this violence. you could also go into hell violence really segues into pornography that's available on the web. guest: if you're looking to made to dispute the fact that violent content has an affect on people, you will find no argument from me. there are dozens and dozens of studies that look to the issues of media violence and the causes it has on people and children. it may have been a bit of a failing athol law. of the law.

the law has existed for nearly 100 years. when you're talking about the broadcast networks that use the publicly owned airwaves, they must broadcast and the public interest in order to maintain their licenses. of them would make a strong argument that a lot of this material is not in the public interest. also, this is all subsidized by advertising. people have a misnomer that if i'm watching a program, a customer of the network and nothing could be further from the truth. eyeballs are a commodity provided to an advertiser by the broadcast networks. advertisers are really the customers and ultimately they pay all bills. they have a responsibility as well. host: our next call is from connecticut. caller: there is so much sexual

content on the programs these days. it is so graphic. i am embarrassed and i could be all by myself and just shut off because it is disgusting. it is inappropriate. i know there is freedom of speech but i just don't approve of it and i don't watch programs when they get that graphic. host: are you watching television as more of a random thing or go through the television listings and pick out what you will watch? caller: i go through and pick out what i want to watch in advance. guest: i think that reflects the views of literally tens of millions of americans, particularly ones with children in them. this is a huge problem. even the best parents in the world feel like they spent their

lives light bear little dutch boy with their finger in the dow most of the time there when it comes to protecting their own kids, what is clear is that we need a better system. when need more help from the entertainment industry and the networks themselves in order to come up with better solutions. host: what about the rating icons that come on? does that help all? guest: it depends on who you ask. the ratings icons or nominated -- were mandatory with the vchip, the people who produce content are the same people who raise their own content on television. they have a built-in this amount -- economic disadvantage. they don't want people to actually watch the program but to watch the advertising.

in study after study, there are white inaccuracies in terms of what you see with those of ratings or the content descriptors. you might come across content that is not rated for doesn't show up in the ratings. if that happens and you reach a point in all system where nothing can be done -- host: we have a public policy director of the parents television council. mary on our line for democrats, good morning. caller: people got rights. they did not have them in the soviet union. sometimes they curse their kids. kids learned and they get beaten for it. i don't think that's fair.

i think that's the worst thing that ever was. i think the fcc should be broken down. i know that we have them anymore. i think is fair, not at all. guest: i think there is a difference between what an individual might say on their own home versus white broadcaster might say that as you make publicly granted access to every living on the country at a time day rheumatism is it so the bridge showed lee han. -- to everyone living in the country. what is at stake is what the law says in terms of what people who have enormous power to communicate have the ability to do. host: we're talking with a

public policy director of the parents television council who is responsible for advancing their mission to federal, state, and locally elected and appointed officials and the federal communications commission and promoting his goals with allied organizations including parents and media guide representatives. and you're dealing with the fcc, do you feel they are getting the message from groups like theptc? guest: if you looked at what people communicate to the fcc about, there's a huge swaths of -- swath of things they regulate. they unpack your day-to-day life for most americans who use these devices and watch television. the vast majority of complaints that are filed have to deal with this issue.

i was pleased on thursday after the ruling came out that there were strong statements from most of the commissioners at the fcc praising the court for its ruling and saying it is time to deal with this backlog of complaints and enforceable laws. i am very pleased that chair genachowski and the others saw it that way. i am pleased that they recognize the fact that this is a priority for the american people. host: you mentioned earlier about the seven dirty words decision that the supreme court upheld by 5-4 in the sec burst pacifica foundation. it was also referred to in the newspaper. he says --

talk to us about how the decision that came down on thursday is either different or advances the decision that was handed down in 1978? guest: the second circuit court in new york city issued a ruling that essentially invalidated federal broadcastors from lot. it would have done away with pacifica. that decision was vacated by the supreme court on thursday. keep in mind that the broadcast networks asked and have to ask for six years for the federal courts to do with these rules.

from an advocate of perspective, what the court did was validate indecency laws the says that we will not by the decisions our networks are making. host: back to the fonds, in maryland, a republican, you are on "washington journal." i just want to say that any time we abuse -- i'm sorry -- host: go ahead. caller: any time we abuse any of our rights, we will lose them even the right to speech. if we continue to abuse them, we will lose them. that's all i have to say. guest: you will find no argument from me on that.

i don't think this is a free- speech issue. this is a channeling of content that is inappropriate for kids and adults might find offensive. it is not a free-speech issue because there are lots of other types of speech we channel in that way. it is important that the court remains the status quo program. host: next is airline for independences. caller: i want to make a comment about how they are messing around with our free speech and saying our kids are not allowed to do stuff but we have violence all over television. i have always been worried about that one. host: how old are your kids? what kind of rules do have a near house about television viewing?

caller. them watchti don't let the adult cartoons even though i watched them. i try to keep it on the older cartoons that i grew up with. that's my roles. i have a child that is four and one that is eight, both boys. host: does the growing amount of variety in terms of what is offered in cable and on satellite offer some relief from parents looking to get away from violence and indecency in the broadcast networks? guest: in a certain respect, yes. there's a wide range of programs. there's no source of content.

the question broadly is what do we do with public broadcasting, the people have a license from the federal government to use literally billions of dollars worth the spectrum to communicate their message. there has been a fair trade struck in federal always says we'll give you access to the spectrum but you have to maintain the public interest in order to do it. unfortunately, the broadcast networks have argued that they have no public interest. they say is essentially theirs and not the public started the public is pushing back on the notion saying if you are going to use our publicly held resource, you have to do it in a responsible way. host: here is an emailed -- --

guest: i think that is a fascinating point. you have not heard an awful lot of so-called free speech advocates talking about situations like that where you will see them and educate -- agitate on decency. host: council bluffs, iowa, our line for democrats. caller: hello, nice to speak with you. i have a major problem with what is going on in the government nowadays. i am very conflicted in regards to what i can and cannot do and

what the children can or cannot do, what television can and cannot do. we vote for these both for thes. they allow foreign corporations to come into our country, as in fox, and they own newspapers and radio stations. i pay for this cable. these people cannot say anything on regular television. the f word and everything that goes with it. i am wondering why our government has not inspected those rules and regulations pertaining to those people. as well as anybody -- stop by a school and listen to what they are saying when they get out of school. i picked it is -- i think is --

this is against everything i believe in. you start small and get bigger. i am worried about that. thank you very much. host: ahead, dan isett. guest: there is no restricting putting an indecent piece of conte in front of a child. it is whether they can do it without. 's consent. this is an interesting dynamic because some people argue if you hang out on the playground, you will keep these words and see the behavior. they may exist but i do not know many people who actually say these things and things like that in front of their own children. the average kid spend nine hours a day with media, whether it be television or internet. they consume several different types of media at the same time. that is more time than the

average child will spend in school or with their parents. clearly, media functions as a super parent. it exists outside of the scope of everything. this generation is facing the media-saturated society like we have never seen before. i just turned 39. there was not this much media when i was a kid. kids now are faced with a 24-7 saturated environment and they will pick up on these things whether you are the best parent or not. host: we want to apologize to our viewers and listeners who may have been trying to reach out to us via twitter and facebook. we have been having some problems with electronics today. you can get to us by e-mail, journal@c-span.org. we have this e-mail from jeff in georgia.

guest: a couple of things. in terms of the time manner approach, at 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 a.m. -- that was established by the supreme court. there are people who argue that that is somewhat arbitrary and it should not be that way. it is what it is. that is what the law says. if you look at numbers, there is a huge dropoff in terms of children watching tv at that hour versus those other times of day, particularly the early prime-time hours have huge numbers of children watching. 8 a.m., 7:00 a.m. second, in terms of the astroturf, nobody can force

somebody to file a complaint with a federal agency. the idea that this is somehow invalid because they found out about the show after read. and they felt like it violated their community standards of decency is absolutely ridiculous. free-speech cuts both ways. and you have the right to petition your government. that is just as much inherent to the first amendment as the rest of this discussion. host: a statement released this week from your organization, the parents television council, quoting from your president -- "the supreme court has ruled against the networks in their year-long campaign to obliterate broadcasts decency standards contrary to some erroneous reports, the court today is not striking down the fcc broadcast decency policy, but only rules against the timing and order of the events related to the fcc's

enforcement. >> that is -- guest: that is true. it only reported half the story, the newspaper. it went on to a firm that continued legal authority of the fcc, they enforce the law. a great many stories that i read particularly early on thursday failed to create that connection there. what we have been afraid of, organizationally and broadly, is that people will read the headline and say i guess the supreme court threw out indecently laws. they were asked to and unanimously refused. host: a, you mentioned how many cases were backlog that the fcc? guest: 1.6 million.

about 9700. host: i do not need to make a spokesperson for the sec but how are these adjudicated? guest: the fcc hasn't enforcement bureau and a budget of $800 million per year. they should be able to reduce these instancy spirit is a slow process. -- they should be able to reduce these instances. it is a slow process. we have quibbled with the commission from time to time about whether or not they have to stop. that is the debt that the decision they made. another impediment is no longer there it is time to do with it. host: broadcasters get your input as to whether or not this is something that will fly in the face of these indecency complaints or will you -- guest: i am not at liberty to talk about the behind-the-scenes

discussions that might happen between us and members of the entertainment industry. i will tell you that there are some good players in hollywood that want to do the right thing. those types of people tend to contact us about -- i have a great show, help us promote it. we have been brought to work at companies -- with companies like procter and gamble. the ratings for the shows they produce have been pretty good. it is more evidence of people's desire for family-friendly programming. host: we have another few minutes with dan isett. our next car is -- call is from florida. our ally for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for coming on and having these types of discussions. i want to get something off my chest about the things and i do not want to sound too preachy. i do want your input.

i believe the only thing that can come out of a person is what is said to them. especially children. starting off at an early stage. in the media, especially on radio, i have noticed that there is a leaking. we let a little bit come out. we are apologizing. we let a little bit come out and we apologize but nothing is done about it over time. he becomes a normal thing. it is accepted when we all knew right from wrong in the beginning. no one wanted that flooding in our air waves in the first place. i personally believe that as an individual, it is hard for me to feel like i have a fighting chance of making a difference in such a big scale situation. i just want to know, as an

individual, what can i do to actually fight this? instead of voting for a person. do i have access to voting for something as specific as in decency? guest: sure, . at the risk of giving a self- serving answer, the answer is to get involved with groups like the parents television council. it is our mission. we have 1.3 million members across the country. maybe your city -- you can get involved on a day-to-day pieces. -- basis. when we told advertisers accountable for the material they underwrite, there is huge power in the marketplace for good. i encourage you to reach out to advertisers if you find something that you find is problematic or offensive or otherwise against your values. the real way to get at this

problem is through the free market. that is something we really focus on. host: texas. our line for republicans. you are on the "washington journal." caller: i am curious. i watch a lot of tv and i understand about the indecency and the seven dirty words. i am curious if any work is being done to put up a blasphemy law as far as movies and tv? i am a christian and i am also a veteran of the u.s. i get offended constantly by how is used itgod's name in vain. i am not just saying this as a christian. is there work being done or a group that we can get in touch with or start pushing? guest: the unfortunate reality is that such a law that would try to outlaw that would likely not pass first amendment

scrutiny with courts. the way to deal with that, i think, is to deal with both the individual broadcaster in programmer as well as the advertiser who might be underwriting that type of material. the free market is powerful. if you speak up and say hey, you sponsored this that offends my values and my family, that is a huge thing. host: for those who want to get more information about the parents television council, you can go to their website. parentstv.org. so much of the discussion has been about television and indecency on the broadcast networks. talk to us a little bit about what is going out in broadcast radio. some of the lyrics leaves little to the imagination. is there the same kind of concern about what is going on in radio as there is for what is going on in tv? guest: absolutely.

we need a great case on that which is that this idea of so- called expletives, the occasional dirty word or something like that, somehow permissible. the dynamics are slightly different, i think, between tv and radio, particularly when you are talking about the lyrics. a lot applies to broadcast radio and television. that is part of the reason why the court refused to visit any of th their free-speech issues. -- any of the free speech issues. this would affect everyone. host: does their need to be regulation from the fcc or whomever that goes to using more of a delay in the broadcasting so that these fleeting expletives -- there is someone

who can cut them off before it gets out in the airwaves? guest: there is a difference between things that are aired live and scripted programming. we have taken care not to throw broadcasters under the bus for the occasional slip that might happen on a sporting event or something. things that are difficult to bleep. if you have a live event where there is a good probability this will come up, it is not too much to ask for the slight delay to make sure those things are not broadcast. host: dan isett our last call dan comes from -- or last call for dan isett comes from florida. caller: your guest just said something that got to me. i put my son in the yard and i went upstairs to get my purse when he was two and there was a knock on the door in my neighbor said, he is out there swearing. i said, wait a minute. i went downstairs and a truck

came by and i said, what is that and he said the f-word. he thought it was his father but he could not pronounced trap. -- truck. they just don't learn from their parents. host: you get the last word. guest: imagine a scenario where someone buys by your house -- drives by your house multiplied by 10,000 times. there are 300 million people who watch tv in this country, almost every day. hit proportion of those people are children. consequently, that is how we have to think about this. caller: dan isett is the public policy director with the parent television council and has been here talking to us about the

supreme court decision earlier this week rejecting fcc indecency rules. thank you for being on the program. you do not often get to see it here on "washington journal," but in a recent addition of " "sports illustrated" they dedicated the cover story to title 9. no person to be excluded from participation in being denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal assistance. our guest will to address after the break here before we go to the break, we want to show you billie jean king, who testified earlier this week, talking about her experience as a pre-title 9

athlete. [video clip] >> title mine is very important. the 37 words which comprise the language of the amendment have proven powerful enough to change our society and provide opportunities in the classroom and on the athletic stage for countless young men and women. i am a pre-title 9 student- athletes. when i attended california state college at los angeles in the 60's, we were still a full decade away from the enactment of title 9. financial assistance was available for all the athletes in for the tennis players, but only for the men athletes and tennis players. two of the top tennis players at the time were attending college down the road from me. stan smith was on a full ride at usc.

arthur ashe had a full scholarship at ucla. even though i was the best tennis player at cal state-l.a. and had won a title, i was receiving any financial assistance. i did have two jobs in. one of which was handing out gym equipment in the locker room. i thought i was living large. men and women did not have equal opportunity. i am very thankful for the people who make title nine possible. they are my heroes. >> this weekend, we detailed fast and furious. >> this was something that was swept under the rug and kept from the american people and the mexican people, as well. there are hundreds of faceless innocent mexican citizens who have been murdered as a result of this. the only thing that we knew outside of the government program was that guns from

american gun dealers were going into mexico and causing all of these problems with the cartel when really, the government was sanctioning the sales and sending them into mexico. >> she is interviewed by major garrett sunday night at 9:00 p.m., part of "book tv" this weekend on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: fatima goss graves is the vice president for education and employment at the national women's law center and is here to talk to us about the 40th anniversary of title 9 and how it has impacted the involvement of women in sports and education. welcome to the program. for those of us who were not around, what is title 9? what will it do? guest: the basic premise underlying title line is that if you take federal money, you cannot discriminate in education. that is not all -- that is in all education programs.

athletics. classrooms host: you mentioned the athletic programs and more of the sports illustrated article talks about the power to play, title 9's impact reaches well beyond the playing field, forever changing the role of women in society. talk to us about how title nine has changed the role of women outside of the areas of athletics. guest: in many ways, if you look at the boardrooms and professional schools, prior to title mine, there were quotas. women were cast. now, they make up half of those going to law school and business school. you know, you have seen a great expansion of women in too many non-traditional fields. there still is tremendous work to do. although young women are now taking the science courses at a

high school level at higher rates than ever, in some courses like in computer science at the college level, there is rolled back. host: why? guest: one of the things that i think this data shows is that we need to pay attention to these non--- non-traditional fields. in computer science, since the numbers have gone down in an important area, not just for women, but for every one end for this economy, there needs to be greater attention to what happens in the class room environment and how to recruit more students into those programs. host: we have some numbers provided by the aclu. title 9 fax at a glance. they show under the title, we have come a long way.

host: your thoughts? guest: we have seen great expansions for women in the classrooms, particularly in these professional settings. that has been hugely important for women comic hugely important for their economic security. -- that has been hugely important for women, a hugely important for their economic security. you have to pause and really

celebrate that. and we also know that young women continue to receive fewer benefits when they do play. we do know that even though you have seen a great increase at a high school level, in many, many states, there remains a really large gaps between the number of women who are enrolled in high school and those that actually play sports. host: to address part of that concern regarding the gaps, more numbers from the aclu under the headline "but we still have a long way to go." host: with all of this history of title 9 behind us, why is that gap still so big? guest: the study showed that when girls take these courses,

they often get higher grades but sometimes, stereotyping goes on. there are these outdated notions that still remained young women will not be good in science. there have been studies where they have told some young women, girls do not know well on this test. when they do it, they do not do well. we have not had that same mantra -- when that happens, they perform equally to boys. there still is some stereotype about what the real role for young women should be. that makes a difference in those classrooms. there also might be things going on. at the college level, you hear about harassment that have been. -- happen. young women who do not want to continue to be pioneers in fields where they remain underrepresented --

host: we are talking about the 40th anniversary of title 9 with fatima goss graves of the national women's law center. pick up the phone and give us a call. 202-737-0002, republican. 202-737-0001, democrat. 202-628-0205, independents. we will also take your comments or questions the e-mail, journal@c-span.org -- via e- mail, journal@c-span.org. our first call is on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: hello. i have two comments. the young lady talked and i am amazed by how these young ladies can be so intelligent and have such great, great comments and have great insight into

these things. i have a daughter who is going to school in florida and she had troulb egoing t -- had trouble going to school at first but she always told me she liked science. i said, you are doing all right, then. i always wanted a voice so i could have an engineer. -- a boy so he could been an engineer. i have several children. i have nine. i have grandchildren. i have 23 of those. she is the one who seems to be the smartest of all of them. i go to our house and i talk with her and she taught science and technology, science and technology, science and technology. you are going to college and you took a little time before you did this because you had some other issues but you are going

to college. i said, you are smart. i come over here just to talk and play with grandchildren but you and i end up talking about science and technology. florida state college at jacksonville. it is nice. host: we are going to get a comment from fatima goss graves. guest: congratulations to you and your family. i think that is great. i think that it shows her interest lies in the science field, that is where she should be. host: our next call is from annapolis, maryland. caller: i am a small business owner. i just wanted to say, as long as regulations are properly saw out ending fermented -- and implemented, the benefits can be huge. title 9 hashem the benefits in the last 40 years.

-- title 9 has shown the benefits in the last 40 years. i want to show my huge support and gratitude for programs such as title 9. i hope we can come up with these regulations in the future. host: fatima goss graves. guest: your point about regulations is good. the regulations are really clear. unfortunately, what happens, sometimes, is that people do not know about them. there are a few areas where the enforcement has not been as focused. we would really like to see schools having more awareness and for the department of education to help facilitate the enforcement process. host: our next call comes from stanford, north carolina. david on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning.

my name is david fox. my biggest issue -- title 9 has been great for k through 12 education for girls. at the university level, it seems to me that it has been misappropriated a little bit. if you look at the football, basketball players, we are not looking at their education at all but they are producing all of this money to fund the education of women. they're coming from upper- middle-class backgrounds. nobody seems to care about these young men. i am wondering if we need to look at the focus of title 9 as far as how they are using the funds at the university level. the education of the young men -- they are not doing any learning. this is not the fault of the women but we are taking a huge

amount of money in just giving it all over to the different groups. i wonder what your thoughts are about that. i will take my comments off the air. host: thank you. guest: for students at the college level, you want to see them be successful in their athletics and as students, as well. it is not only the fault of the women, but it's not title 9. that is a flexible statute. it allows universities and colleges to set up their athletic programs in many, many ways. they just cannot discriminate. host: there is an article that we pick up from "the new york times" with the headline "black and white women far from equal under title 9."

host: your thoughts? guest: there is a real concern when we look at, particularly at a high school level, at the data of young girls with college sports participation. although there is a gap between young girls and boys in terms of sports participation, there is also a gap between young african-american girls and latino and asian girls and young white girls in terms of sports participation. what we would like to see in urban areas is a real growth in sports participation. i think there is certainly a way to do that. it host: earlier in the week -- host: earlier in the week, there was a title 9 hearing on capitol

hill. one woman talked about her experience as one of the first e-mails in the military academy. i want to hear what she has to say and then get reaction. [video clip] >> in 1976 when i was a junior in high school, the coast guard academy lead the federal armed services academies in opening their doors to admit women for the first time. in 1978, i entered the coast guard academy as a member of just the third class of women. although the academy's science technology and math majors were open to women at the time, a varsity sports had to be started from scratch. i graduated from the coast guard academy in 1982 and now 30 years later, have the distinct honor and privilege of serving as superintendent of my alma mater. although i benefited greatly, the success story is evident in the achievements of the young women who comprise one-third of the cadet corps. host: fatima goss graves, how much did title 9 have to do with

the opening up of the service academies to women? guest: well, you know, the way tie line played a role there was because -- title 9 played a role there was a cultural shift. after title 9, women entered lots of different colleges and universities, playing sports, and trang fields they had not been before in large numbers. i think that sort of cultural shift opened a path for military academies to have their own sort of cultural shift. host: our next call is from chicago. our ally for democrats. good morning. you are on the "washington journal." caller: thank you for being an outstanding spokesperson for this issue. this is a situation where the government really got it right. where would our society without title 9? i have been on the front lines.

i can really see the impact title 9 title has had four young ladies -- that title 9 has had four young ladies. data shows that those who participate in sports do well in the classroom. that is why i have a to hard time understanding republican women because -- a hard time understanding republican women because there is some much the government does for women, in particular. this is just furthering education. i am a strong advocate. i think there are some issues in terms of black women and white women. that is dropped. that has elected -- that is throughout. that has a lot to do with other things. it has been very successful. i want all people to continue to support title 9. thank you for your advocacy. guest: i think you are right about the benefits of sports

participation. we are more likely to have cut -- they are more likely to be leaders, less likely to engage in high-risk behavior and get pregnant, lower rates of obesity. these sorts of participations are really important. host: austin, texas. elizabeth. you are on the "washington journal." test: -- caller: i hink title 9 is wonderful. it is important not just that we have legal rights to equality but people need to remember, like my mother did, you need to encourage your daughters do believe that they can become anything they want. there are laws now and have been for 40 years to help support that. i believe it starts in both places. thank you for talking about this today. it is a wonderful thing. it has made my life better.

guest: thank you. i agree with you. there is no question. what you hope is that when people are being encouraged at home when they go into the school house door, that there are not barriers that prevent them from fulfilling their dreams. host: republicans calling from portland, oregon. go ahead. caller: good morning. is there such a thing as discrimination against white women under title 9? if so, can you cite any examples? host: what makes you ask that question? caller: because it seems to me like the focus is on minorities. host: okay. guest: well, i began with the fact that title 9 is a statute

that prohibits discrimination based on sex. it is a gender-neutral statute. if men experience discrimination and women experienced discrimination based on sex, it covers everyone. it covers everyone of all races. host: tell us more about the national women's law center. guest: title 9 is turning 40. the national women's law center is turning 40, as well. it advocates for policies in every aspect of women's lives. for them and their families. it is mary's education, health, economic security. -- it marries education, health, economic security. guest: if women feel like they are being discriminated, is that for you get involved? guest: we do. we use the law and all of its

forms. we have intake and evil have any type of concern, they can find us through our web site, which is www.nwlc.org. will provide technical assistance. we weigh in on policy matters. host: back to the phones. new jersey. our line for democrats. if you are on. caller: thank you. i guess i go to school in a local area for new york city. one thing i have noticed -- i am taking a computer science course. they are dominated by men. i was wondering if maybe that had to do with the socialization process. when people are growing up and being raised to appreciate certain things over others. i was thinking that might have a

bigger impact than government policy programs. i am not disputing the importance of those, but i think there is something to be said about how a person is raised and . i talked to my cousins from india. i have female cousins who are computer scientists. there, it is not seen as going against gender norms. if you look in the u.s., it is kind of like to be a nerd is to be kind of -- there is a perception that to be nerdish is not seen as a good trait for women. i am not sure if that is always the case. that is across -- my mom is a scientist. she is a good example of this. i think there is some truth to this idea that perhaps in

american culture at large, in general, to be near the is a bad thing. -- nerdy is a bad thing. host: how much of this is a cultural? how much can laws actually change people's cultural thinking? guest: there is no doubt that culture plays a role. but, there are a range of factors. i think what is interesting, particularly about non- traditional courses like computer science, where the wages people can turn upon completing those types of courses are much higher than the wages young women might be able to earn in traditionally female choruses. some of it is educating about what is out there. what is possible. if you look at the atlanta area, it is a nice model because it really shows you that if you provide people with the opportunity and the support and

make it the type of place where people can go and thrive, they will. host: pennsylvania. james is on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: in terms of the organization, how many colleges and universities have been threatened with lawsuits because they did not have the statistical make up to have enough women participating in sports and they had to cancel man sports in order to get the statistics right? which colleges? guest: so, i think that is a nice way for me to address one myth about title 9. the idea that title 9 ends up cutting men's sports. for the last 40 years, there has been growth in women's sports participation, but also a growth in men's sports participation. occasionally, you do see some colleges and universities cutting back on men's sports and

women's sports. that is not good for anyone. it is not good for the school. for the athletes. but, i do not think they are being honest. if they are blaming title 9, is maybe they have decided to redirect their resources for their male sports programs. reasonable people can have a spirited debate about whether that is a good thing, but title 9 is pretty flexible in terms of providing equal opportunities. there are a number of ways that schools can show that they are doing it. host: now, to take that farther, we have an article called "title 9's dark legacy." it talks about the track program at the university of maryland,

coached by an olympic gold medal winner. he is coaching the track team that is going to london. it says -- host: explained the situation. guest: no one wants to see any teams cut. the budget pressures, particularly with state run

schools, are probably very real. they're having to make hard choices. one of the things they cannot do following title ix is to say that young women are always going to get the short end of the stick. if we make a hard choice, young women will be the ones to bear the brunt. if he is able to raise the funds, his support for athletics, that is a great thing. another thing the university can do is look at how easy is using its resources in the athletics program. i do not know enough details but maybe there could be money to save a number of teams. host: when these cuts are made in men's programs, under title ix, is it not because the percentages do not add up? there is a certain percentage of men on campus that are participating in a varsity sport, and there has to be the

same percentage for women? if women cannot -- if there is 25% of men on campus participating in sports, and there is not enough facilities or whatever for 25% of the women to participate, they have to cut back on the number of men's kearse the sports? guest: there are a number of ways schools can show they are in compliance. they can either show that the proposed -- proportionality between students and those who are poor dissipating in sports -- per dissipating in sports is similar. they can also show there has been a history of creating opportunities for the under- represented sex, which probably at maryland is women. it shows they're interested in

the students playing sports. when you are cutting male and female teens, it is probably difficult to show you are meeting the interest and abilities because there are teams there that want to play. it is hard to show that i am making -- the history of improvements, because i am cutting back. it is a tough decision probably for any administrator to try to figure out what we do in these hard times? what they cannot do is say, you know what, times are tough. our female athletes do not need to play. only our male athletes. it makes no sense for anyone. it is not good for the school. it is not good for the athletes. it sends a terrible message to the next generation about the things that they can do. because what underwrites it all if you are deciding at the beginning to get rid of female programs, for some reason maybe

they have less of a desire or ability to play. that has been proven wrong time and time again. administrators do need to be careful when they are thinking about this. we would like to see no cuts in these programs because of all of the benefits. host: you talk about the economics that are involved. sometimes the argument is made that men's sports generate more revenue so that there should be a greater consideration for men's sports sedan women because they're the ones making -- money-- men's sprts than guest: that is a myth. most places are losing money because of how much money is actually being spent on those same programs. even if that were the case, even if in the 5 to 10 top tier schools where football or

basketball generate certain revenue, that would not justify not allowing young women to have the chance to play. what if you had a science program and that science program got a huge range of grants and was generating revenue of some sort because awards that have been one. would you say that only one sex at a benefit? you have to have programs that are open to it = 4 male and female. host: we are talking to fatima goss graves, the education and employment vice-president at the national women's law center. have about another 10 minutes. conn. democrats.

the war on. c-- you an on. caller: good morning. you enlightened people with high schools and colleges that are budget stressed. some sports activities are canceled. sense title ix -- since title ix is a federal mandate, can they come in and help the budget stressed that is on certain sports? i will wait for your answer. guest: well, if i understand you, i think you are just talking about whether it is possible for the department of education to give money to education programs or are you talking about sports in particular? host: he is gone. guest: in any event, the

department of education -- there are funds that go to high schools and elementary schools. there are federal dollars that go to colleges and universities. i think it is worth noting that four schools that are trying to figure out what to do and how to come into compliance title ix that you neede ix, to use resources. host: next up is gordon calling from wisconsin. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to take this chance to give a verbal high five to title ix. i have taught in our local high schools since 1974.

my daughter was a sophomore at the time. she was just getting acquainted with title ix and asked for a track team. i said of course. and hed to the principlal it?, who will coaach i did. it was a chance for me to give back something to the sport that had sponsored my education. host: where did you go to school? guest: the university of wisconsin-madison. host: did your daughter run in college? guest: no, she went to college. -- caller: no, she went to college and had thoughts of double major ing.

she wanted to be a track coach and a special education teacher. i said, where did you come up with that combination? she said, from you. host: thank you for sharing your story. fatima goss graves. guest: hi five to title ix. fathers are one of the greatest supporters of title ix. my dad is. he had three girls and was an athlete. they want their young women to have the same chances to play that they did. and that there boys do. host: next up, fresno, california. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was a coach before and after title ix. one of the consequences of having title ix was that more

minorities got a chance to play. when you look at teams in the 1960's, they were all of one race. now, when he starts -- you start looking at sports, there are more minorities. hi 54 title ix -- hi-five for title ix. and highd elementary school in fresno. host: our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: title 9 past about a year before i started high school. i grew up seeing how some of the stereotypes about what girls were supposed to do and not supposed to do.

i noticed earlier in the program you were talking about the way girls are scared out of science and math. it still goes on. i want to point out something interesting that i have learned recently. transgender women, men who become women, research shows that their brain structures are more like that of women. amongst transgendered people, there are a disproportionate number of engineers and researchers. host: fatima goss graves. guest: i mean, i think you are right about the stereotypes for young women. unfortunately, they continue to permeate. there are lots of things -- there are people who are taking

steps to do things to overcome those stereotypes. and insuring women are comfortable in the classroom. host: salem, oregon. our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: i am talking about men's sports. women are going to sports, also. men have been in sports for a long time. women are coming into sports. it is my understanding -- are men cut in order for women to achieve what they need in the sports field? guest: no. but i am saying is that sometimes schools make the decision to cut men's sports in order to have a different type of male athletic program. athletics is an area that is largely all male or female. they make decisions about how to

allocate these funds. what i am proposing is that schools make different decisions and rather than trying to cut, then i want to think differently about their athletic programs overall. -- they might want to think differently about their athletic programs overall. host: the point we are trying to get to is, is there something in title ix that says there has to be a balance in participation that schools like the university of maryland, that has had a very prestigious men's track and field program for many decades, just does not decide to cut the program on the basis of economics? guest: i question whether that is the decision they are making. it seems -- no, unfortunately for some men's sports, the

decision is sometimes made that they are not generating the sort of revenue that they need. i do not think that is actually what is about at the college level. particularly that many sports will not ever make a profit, even if they are considered the "revenue generating sports." when talking about student athletes and the student portion of the athlete term, is really important. we know the benefits to playing sports. surely, you cannot have it be that women are the short end of the budget cuts stick. there has to be another way to do it. host: in the numbers we have gotten from the aclu, in 2002, phone surveys found that about half of the states that have no employee designated to coordinate efforts to comply

with title ix, despite legal requirements that an employee fills the role -- is there a repercussion for these institutions that do not have someone who is monitoring title ix compliance? guest: you have to have someone to monitor compliance with title ix. all too often, no one has been appointed in that role or the people who have that role have no idea they have it. they have not been informed that that is the role. what i urge people to do is to ask their school, who is our coordinator? who do i go to if there is a concern about discrimination in education? even asking that question would prompt the school to do a lot more to make sure that not only is there someone there that the community and school knows who that person is. host: we have one more call from california. cathy on our line for democrats. caller: i am here.

host: go ahead. please do to our television. -- new york television. caller: i'm calling from new york. this is the same old problem over and over. we have to enact more legislation, or this, more that. you never answered the question about lawsuits. number two, are there not choices about where you want to go? host: what do you mean? caller: is there not another college for her to select to go to? host: fatima goss graves, you get the last word. guest: title ix is four decades old. after 40 years, my expectation is that schools should really know what is about. to the extent they don't, i think it is time to move the ball forward. in doing so, i think enforcement is one really important tool.

whether it is filing complaints or compliance reviews, those are important tools. other important tools are broader public education. the national women's law center does a wide range of title 9 -- title ix work. 40 years later, there has been great progress. there is still work to do. we will continue to do it. host: fatima goss graves has been our guest. the vice president for education and employment at the national women's law center. she has been talking to us on the 40th anniversary of title ix. we would like to tell you about what is coming up on tomorrow's "washington journal." we begin with a conversation regarding the world of hispanic vote in campaign 2012. we talk with alfonso aguliar and maria