later, a look at the national theerhood initiative with curbs vice president of communications and development. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. in the news today officials say the company will receive the request for information from government entities at the last half of 2012. those requests involve 19,000 facebook accounts. the washington post reports that contest nine cia bases in turkey will be kept ground for limited shipments of ammunition to syrian rebel groups. in iran, early voting. in the west a new poll -- in the west a new poll shows

that confidence in congress has fallen to 10%. minutes is taking , how tofrom the poll restore confidence in congress. you're welcome to get your thoughts on our phone lines this morning at -- you can reach out was on social media. -- reached out to us on social media. by question that was given pew research -- a list of a great deal of them, asking if they have a great deal confident, some, a lot, or very

little. responding those they had quite a lot of confidence was 13%. in 2013 that number has fallen 10%. you will know that congress falls below the television, news, and newspaper industries. it also falls below the banking system, which has a 26% approval rating. there is congress in the last place of this list at 10%. if you want to get your thoughts, taking a look at the willts of this poll -- we take a look at other results as well. here are the numbers --

a couple of comments on facebook -- kidder is available to you. our first call is kim from richmond, virginia on the democrat's line. what you think about restoring confidence in congress and how to do so? first ball you have to get the too big to fail lobbyists out of the congress. they need everything monitored because they are so connected to wall street. we did not begin to have

problems in our houses as badly -- they have turned our house of government into the most embarrassing thing before the world. i think congress's ratings are low based on what they are not doing. this is what we are not doing because they're not passing the jobs bill. >> doesn't go further for you? it means infrastructure, everything is crumbling around this country. they're waiting for some cataclysms' they can get some emergency funds out. host: david is up next on our republican mind. hello, david. good morning. caller: good morning.

very simply the 10% is higher -- than my own confidence in congress. the only way it would be restored is if they can show me they can stop spending the way they do. they need to show they can start repealing numerous laws and regulations. host: reducing laws such as what? they continue to pass laws and regulations that can take to do that -- that is how to consider if they are successful and not. there are a bunch of laws and regulations we can do without. host: what would one of those was be? -- one of those laws be? examplelet us take for what they are doing on the sandy bill.

that thing was so full of pork and unnecessary rules in their it isf they reduced those going to be a much better thing for all of us. host: democrats line up next, new orleans' louisiana. i am a veteran who served 27 years in the united states army. think our country needs to replace the people who are really obstructing everything. there is nothing but obstruction when you look at how it has been done and they fall back on this thing about constitution. it has nothing to do with the constitution. you have a bunch of mean- spirited people out there. i did not see how it with the world -- how in the world they

can keep people in there. who are you talking about specifically? caller: the republicans and the blue dog democrats. democrate a blue dog and you cannot stand up for what you were voted in four, we need to get them out. host: carolyn on the republican line. -- churches that involve themselves in politics, perhaps -- when running for election, they like the little guy. when they get there they do exactly what he says, you need to get rid of all of that. it has becoming -- it is becoming pay for play. host: alex's next from los angeles, california on the republican line. caller: thank you for having me.

would helperm limits a lot in the congress. the longer these congressmen and congresswomen stay in congress and the more corrupt they get. in belle, california we have city officials paying themselves six figures. if they are being corrupted at a lower class of politicians at that rate you can imagine what they are doing in congress when they are in there for 10 years. the result is how you fix it? calle about 40 comments on facebook so far on this question. you can see the actual poll that

was released from pure research. piufrom pewresearch research. it is showing on facebook. um it is this poll showing confidence in the conference. taking a look of confidence level -- this goes back to 1973. in 1991.up 90 -- orings were at -- 2003 ratings for at 29%.

following this on the "washington post," -- our question to you, taking it abouthe pull, we have five calls so far. give us a call --

colleen and from arizona, democrats line. caller: domal for allowing my call and allowing a citizens to be able to voice our forces directly. i feel that the lobbyists should be contained. we are voting for these people to represent us. when they get to washington lobbyists step in and take over. someoneons for voting and get lost. i also feel that lobbyists and people in congress should not be able to just switch jobs. it used to be that they had to

spend 10 years away from one or ae other before they become senator or representative and then they go back to being a lobbyist. that line got crossed and i believe that needs to be put back so they can stop switching back and forth. outside is the influences on congress that influence the actions of congress? caller: it seems to be. they are paid so much. people working in congress seem to be very influenced by the lobbyists who are backed by big money. but think there must be something that is not being disclosed there. andcan they be so powerful be so persuasive with these congressmen? i do not understand the problem.

surveillance been the big topic of the week. facebook and microsoft talking about the request of information. rest on the the associated press website, saying -- this is tyrone, brooklyn, new york on the independent line -- caller: one of the first things i would do is i would stop letting us politicians write their own lines.

that stopped gerrymandering. the infornia they have the past -- they have the independent body draw the line for congress. the presidency is ridiculous. is out thing i would do and the revolving door. president obama said he was going to do that. he went back on that. it is ridiculous. mentionedral people money in congress. opinion,ens, in your how would that change?

the people will have more control. the people would be able to throughelections automatic donations. i do not know what effect it would have. i believe it would be a good beginning. host: detroit in the news this morning with a plan for how to deal with their debt.

dean is up next. he is on our republican line from kentucky. good morning. i would like to meet this 10%. i have not met a person has any confidence in congress. evidently they are family members of congressman. it ise term limits, called the voting booth. host: we're showing the congressional approval rating

and you say -- how would you define confidence? not know what they mean confidence? confidence they are going to do what they were sworn to do when they went up there? confidence can have it brought meeting. someone who runs for office .ticks to their guns that is the problem we got. host: the way the gallup puts it "confidence in the institution." theer: you cannot separate institution from the individuals. when it comes to doing what they are doing there is a whole

different story. let us start over. get them out of there. day, and a good father's day. a move by chrysler to freeze the pension of 8000 salaried employees.

our next caller is from virginia, on the democrats' line. caller: by concern is the money that is spent putting these men and women in congress, because they are bought by the corporation. what we really need to do is set an amount that they can spend and had provided by the government, instead of having it public citizen coming in. corporations are people, my friends? i am sorry, but that is insane. they are bought out by the incredible amount of bogus ads out there, saying, "i am of that."s, i am for we need to get the dirty money out of the elections.

the gerrymandering here, where i part of congressman has the district on the other side of the blue ridge mountains. gerrymandering was outlawed at one point in time for a reason. we need to bring that back, we need to get congress to where they are serving the people rather to where they are serving the corporation. frank inhear next from virginia on the independent line. caller: this is a broad topic. your point get many different data here. one thing that would help me would be if they impose the same laws and consequences on themselves that they do upon everybody else. i will give you two examples. a lot of people are calling for

where they are one to prosecute him. where there have been leakers, whether it is administration or congress, they just accept that and then it is alright. another one is cases -- the most egregious one i can think of is charlie wrangle. they will slap him on the wrist and keep on committing crimes. thank you. host: settles stories dealing with syria, this on the administration's announcement that the red line has been lost. i want to give you some sense of the papers --

"the financial times" has a couple of stories --

this is colin lynch writing --

this is the new york times, giving the sense of a conversation between secretary of state john kerry and the russian foreign secretary.

back to our topic about confidence of congress and how to restore confidence. gallup polla new rights as far as america and's confidence in the congress -- as american's confidence in congress. this is donna from pennsylvania, republican line. gentlemen before me stole my idea about when congress passes the law for the rest of the country to follow the immediately exempt themselves. the latest thing is obama cap. they did have a thing that they are going to follow up with.

now i hear that those that are getting out of congress are jumping up and they find they cannot afford obama care. they expect on a bus and especially those of us who are not employers to follow it. if people knew the regulations that are in their, very difficult for business. that you havere to hire an additional person just to handle that. that is my comment. host: danielle of twitter ads this -- this foster on the democrats' line. >> one of the things they should list is gerrymandering. congress passed have to be directed to them as well. no exception. it can be in extreme cases.

toneed to have somebody monitor congress. we have this ethics committee. they will not bring this charge won'tt you, if your party bring that charge against us. that does not make any sense. we have a way of communicating to twitter and communicating with people from a distance. the need to spend more time in washington. they do not have to take five weeks for vacation. that is my comment. sam is up next from lexington, north carolina on the independent line. the christian march on washington in september of 23

teen -- of 2013 will be a good step in the right direction. toncourage other christians do the same. this will open up a lot of communication because there are so many issues and a lot of work to be done. we of the masters and the public -- we are the masters and the public servants. host: tell us specifically how you feel the confidence level of congress can be restored or improved? in what specific way? caller: by the people speaking to them. and your representative tell them how you think things reaching host: when you it how you think things are going.

-- how you think things are going. host: 20 top your representative what do you talk about? -- when you talk to your representative, what do you talk about? i am interested in finding out the specifics. the 50 i mentioned million march in september. host: steve is up next on the republican line. caller: one way to restore confidence in congress is to have an alternative maximum tax -- you total up your state, federal, and local tax. in percentage needs to be set and if you go up to the percentage -- if you go above the percentage you do not write that check. we need to get rid of withholding tax and put all of your money, 100% of your check, into a bank account and put the

taxes into a christmas account. the irs would have from people -- from april to october to 1% of the-- to audit people. then you go to vote in november. it would be called term limits. after you realized who is ripping off and how much they are ripping you off at ford, then you know what to do at the voting booth. ,oth republican and democrats whenever the liberals did in charge of congress that is when the confidence goes down. host: "the new york times" has a profile --

you could read more about that in the open "the new york times".

louisiana, democrats line. caller: washington journal is probably the best program, i think every american should watch it. there are a few basic steps we can take in order to boost confidence. reducing legal curled -- reducing legal corruption, getting rid of superpacs, reducing how they are allowed to lobby, independent watchdog -- groups, more and more independent government watchdog groups. it seems to me the american people don't trust congress

for the basic reason tehy don't -- they don't trust government in general. they have a misconception that when you get taxed the money pocketsgoes in to the men.hese congress there is a misconception that when taxes are raised you are making these people or richer. when in fact you're helping the system. if we would have more of it -- like england. in england, when you run for office there is a general fund. if you create a party split the amount of money that can go into it, it is split evenly

among the candidates. you are only allowed to spend that much money. that way, you get rid of all possibility of private donations toward candidates. those individuals cannot contribute to certain campaigns, cannot get their legislation passed if they want to get it passed host: we appreciate it. independent line up next. caller: why don't congress stop things?ucklehead when they do stuff like passing a bill or law that gives a tax cut to companies to move overseas, that is a knucklehead move.

they needed do things that are best for the country. they cannot talk to each other. eachey do not talk to other. even talk to their constituents. i think that would go a long way if they would take those steps and get out of the law thece predicted out of office of the lobbyists. -- get out of the office of the lobbyists. when they passed the law to give tax cuts to companies moving overseas, they need to put a stop to it. if you are an american company you should not be allowed to come and leave and have your goods charge across the border. host: twitter --

this is charles on the republican line from arkansas. caller: the only thing i can see that would restore confidence back into conference is if they return and get rid of the 90% of the irs. if they get rid of the education department, the congress department -- and get rid of all of the subsidies that are paid out to people. you get rid of 80% of the federal government and to let the states do it, then i will give them an a +. 90% ofthey get rid of forirs -- they use that

leverage to get a vote. you have seen that happen in the last 10, 15, 20 years. unless congress gets rid of all of the leverage that they have to get a vote there is no way you are going to change this one iota. host: "the wall street journal has a profile -- wall street journal" has a profile --

this is arlene from jacksonville, north carolina. way to restorey confidence in congress is that the citizens have to petition all the parties, like the green,ts, independents, whatever, to allow ordinary citizens to run for congress. those people cannot be shut out

from running for congress. the citizens are really the ones who see what congress does. you will have a whole new is a new breed of congress. they will be able to get in there and make new laws and help the public. they will be able to get together and get rid of these laws that everybody wants to get rid of by sending businesses overseas, subsidies, whatever. the citizens are not happy with our comfortable with it. i volunteered to run for congress in jacksonville, north carolina. twilight zone. bill king of twitter says

-- next and he is from louisiana, independent line. thank you for letting me have this call. every morning to people argue back and forth. it seems to me it is information based. our problem is not money in politics, our money is the truth. if the citizens were informed it is why the founding fathers gave so much power to the press. the press and media has been bought out by large corporations and be no longer get the truth. we yelled at each other and no one knows the truth.

maybe our salvation will be people that can come on here and only tell the truth and not that is our only salvation. to give the truth to the goingan people, we are off in all directions and the they is working to get a media is the key to everything. host: bill from pennsylvania, thank you for calling in. caller: i'm calling from the hospital. you we have a lot of problems in this country.

go for a flat tax with the internal revenue. you have to let the states come back. if you do not like them, get them out. we have to have a third party to break the problem with half. people want to fight him because he's a democrat. it doesn't work that way. [indiscernible] the president should have nothing to do with the internal affairs. way you are going to change the whole system. the financial times with the production of oil in the united states --

clifford on the democrats' line. i am a 66-year old veteran. the term limits are set up to support for these people can get

into congress and you cannot get them out. when they are 70 years old and they are all millionaires they do not represent the people. there needs to be term limits on all of them. host: this is off twitter -- take, boball we will from the philadelphia, pennsylvania. caller: the caller from louisiana hit on the head. remember a few years ago when 60 minutes to the peace on insider- trading and how nancy pelosi made millions? the people were so outraged they all called their congressmen and senators. just one month ago president obama cited order rescinding that law.

it is a way for people to be low-information voters. we should be outraged. we have lost past and now they are being -- host: that is the last call will take on this topic. coming up we are going to talk about security clearances in the united states. 5 million people hold some type of government security clearance. our next guest will tell you how to get access to that data. later on we will hear frommatt lewis from "the daily caller." they are hearing from senator mark rubio -- marco rubio. not only looking to 2016 the 2014 as well. werst, if you go to c-span3,

are focusing on north carolina this weekend as part of our joint programming efforts between those two channels. tv" willc-span2 "book air programs out of that city. >> we call it "freedom's teacher." it is the biography of a lifelong educators, social activist, and civil rights activist. my book is about her educational activism, both prior to and during and after the civil rights movement. i was interested in telling her story because she was a very

important person in the civil- rights movement. she was also important before that. she was nearly 60 years old by the time she did what she was the most well-known for, the citizenship education program. i got into researching this book i was like, what did she do from 20 to 60, what did she do to prepare for this and what does it tell us about the deeper roots of women's role in it? looking at this one figure was a way to tell a longer story about the civil-rights movement but also about black women's activism across the 20th century. host: that as our programming raleigh, north carolina, not

only on "book tv," but "american history tv." joining me from atlanta evan lesser. evan lesser.ta is thank you for joining us. there is a figure out there saying 5 million people in the united states currently hold security clearances. can you give us a sense of not only the amount that people have but what kind clearances are we talking about? are: essentially there three collateral levels. the lowest being confidential, medium being a secret clearance, and then obviously a top-secret clearance. the way the government essentially labels these three is by what damage would be cost to national security if that

information was made public. at the top-secret level they colic exceptionally grave damage to national security. essentially those three clearance levels. oft: even if you have one these types of clearance levels what kind of information you get access to? -- information do you get access to? it is a common misconception that if you have security clearance to have access that information. the information you have access to is dependent on your clearance level but also on their job. it is not like someone with a top secret clearance can start pulling up a huge range of information. if you think about the position ,hat does require clearance

most people tend to think toward counter intelligence or espionage missions. those are really quite small. the majority of the positions are bred and butter i.t. positions, engineering, finance, logistics, aviation, it is a wide range of positions. the information the person -- takeerson has access to, for example an air force pilots that delivers cargo to the united states and the middle east. they may understand what their cargo is, what the flight path this, but the flight pattern is, who they are delivering to, but it cannot necessarily start pulling up information at the top-secret level. the government compartmentalizes. we're talking about security clearances in the united states, describing how

they are achieved. you can ask questions on our phone lines -- you can reject was off of twitter or you can e-mail a loss asjournal@c-span.org. if i were to apply for one of these clearances what could i be a subjected to? guest: you cannot apply for it like you apply for a jar of this license. driver's license. first and foremost you have to be a u.s. citizen. in very rare cases are clearances given to non-u.s. citizens. you have to be a u.s. citizen and you have to be working for i did the government, military, or authorized defense contractor. for the more, you have to be hired for a job that requires

clearance. every single job that requires clearance is very specific. in order to complete the process the company that you are working for will have the film out the standard forms, which are quite blank the. they will go into great -- which are quite lengthy. they will go into great detail of your background. it will talk to you, friends, family, neighbors. this is the adjudication pace. a single adjudicator will look at the whole person, take a look at the information that is gathered on that applicant, and make the determination as to whether they are suitable or not as to hold a clearance. host: we have a twitter viewer who asks -- it is a good question.

when you're looking at the government, the office of personnel management is million charge of the investigation side of things. there is the senate term of adjudication facility in maryland. they do the bulk of the adjudications. on the contractors' side, the security service and as the investigation. every single person who works for a contract in company has undergone the same clearance process. forssentially if you are up getting a. clarence there is already a team of clear people in place that would be working to go to those three phases. host: once someone is clear is that parents established for life -- is that clarence established for life? guest: it is not. position and clearance go together. whether you are a federal employee or federal contractor, as long as you have that job and there is a need to know what ever classified information be

part of that job, then you have a security clearance. over time to security clearances are investigated. whether it be five years for a top-secret clearance, or 15 years for confidential clearance, over time the federal government will make sure that that applicant will hold the clearance is suitable for maintaining that clearance. they have essentially a two year window where an applicant who has clearance of leaves his position. they have a two year window or another company or federal agency can pick up that person, maintain their clearance without having to start a new investigation from scratch. host: we are learning about security clearances with evan lesser. can you explain what a clearance job is? service,rs is a clear information service -- we help

federal's -- we help others with security clearance. host: our first caller is from san diego, california on the independent line. caller: thank you. why do we have to have security clearance when the government should be opened up to the people and to the world? oneave our biggest secrets, of the biggest terrorist organizations in the world with secrecy. we have lost our freedom because of secrecy. we should have no secrecy whatsoever. but we do. we have mass murder of millions of people in the world in the name of anything you want to put on. government secrets -- mr. loesser? guest: government secrets have

existed since day one. it is really up to the government to decide. at this point the idea behind secrecy is not necessarily to keep things from the people, it is to keep things from enemies he would do our country harm. it is an apparatus that has been put into place forever. everybody has some information they want to keep private, some decisions as well as the government. in a sense the security apparatus is in place to try to protect the country from whoever might do us harm. host: here is rodney from indiana, democrats line. caller: ida's want to know what kind of security clearances snowden had and if that clearance would have given him accss to -- access to be able to hack into computers and get more

top secrets. guest: if you look back at his history, what we have been able to gather so far is he joined the army in 2004 and was trying out to be in the special forces. in september of 2004 he left the arms services due to injury. he started to work for both a deepnsa and cia. for both the -- nsa and cia. polygraphly he had a administered at some point. while that information has not been made public or verified, most people who work for the nsa had a high level clearance and have a polygraph that is administered. secret clearances are investigated every five years. if you look at the time line

that has been put together its and looks like he would have been up for an investigation around the 2009 timeframe, at which point he was working for the nsa. to think about each individual position, most people in their jobs do not have access to the whole gambit of information at classified level they were at. another example would be a doctor who works in the military and they have a secret clearance, very little access to secret information. a lawyer or accountant or budget or contact analyst, the all likely have clearances but the information is only a limited to their job. snowden is in a unique position in that he was in networks adolescents -- in -- a network administrator.

he had to make sure the network was up and running, monday in tasks like resetting passwords mundane -- mundane tasks like resetting passwords. as a systems administrator you have access to the information on that system. obviously that information was obtained by him. a systems administrator does not normally read the information that was on the network that they were administering. they simply have access to that information. they should not be reading it unless it is part of their job. abouta lot has been made his education. is that unique to his situation as far as those who did security clearances or is there other cases? guest: we have seen people in the past who have obtained security clearances without a high-school diploma and a quite

and quite large number of people coming out of the military coup might have got to high school and enter the military immediately. then they often leave to work for a contract in company with the security clearance but no college degree. hefar as mr. snowden's case, must have been extremely good at what he did to obtain a job that required such a high level of clearance with essentially no formal level of education. eople with privileged so it's likely that mr. snowden received a certification as well at some point but as far as a standard education, it's a pretty rare instance that you would find someone with the security clearance that has no high school education. host: twitter says these five million people are the most

dangerous to our security and the n.s.a. should be monitoring them more. is there a risk with the effect that we've seen out of one medicine in what he told of what we knew? guest: if you take a look at the last two cases of mr. snowden and private manning, you've got two people that have security clearing that do have privileged access to sensitive information. the majority of those five million people with security clearances really had extremely limited knowledge as far as classified information goes. think about a logistics professional who has a security clearance and what they do is supply and then they count crates and boxes that are being shipped over to afghanistan or wherever else. you've got doctors and lawyers who work on military bases, absolutely very, very little information they have access to.

finance contracts, you know, accountants. all this time, people could have security clearances but have very little access to classified information. the type of people that would have access to a large amount of data would be intelligence professionals and would be in systems administrators. so those two categories are ones that should be paid closer attention to but just remember tat the bulk of the five million people who have security clearance really have extremely small amounts of access to information. host: here's mick from pennsylvania for our guest. he's on our independent line. good morning. caller: why is the government able to pass these unconstitutional laws in the first place that are law allowing these kinds of stuff from happening? guest: go ahead, i'm sorry. host: no, go ahead, sir. guest: whether the government has broken laws or not, the thing to keep in mind about

security clearance is every single person who obtains a security clearance is really a calculated risk by the government. it's an extremely detailed process that individuals go through to obtain a security clearance. aside from the background ecks, there's individual finances, any criminal activity, drugs, alcohol use, prescription drugs, any mental health counseling. so there's a lot of information that is obtained on every person who receives a clearance and the whole idea is trying to make shire that that -- sure that that person is trustworthy and as an allegiance to the united states and could not be coerced to give up national secrets. whether or not the n.s.a. and the government are doing things illegally is definitely something that i think we will be hearing and reading more

about in the weeks to come. i do know that one of the documents that mr. snowden had released was a court order authorizing some of the essentially data taxing that was going on. but the question is how legal or illegal was the processes that were going to obtain this information. host: how much of a risk are those with security clearance to foreign countries in getting access to them and perhaps the information they know? guest: you know, anyone with a security clearance obviously is going to be a u.s. citizen, but the amount of u.s. citizens with security clearance that do work in the intelligence community and actually have access to people that might be outside of the united states, it's pretty limited. the government takes a look at your own foreign associations. if you have a security clearance and you have, let's say a foreign spouse or you're doing foreign travel or you have

business dealings overseas, that's the kind of thing that the government takes a look at very closely. having foreign relations, businesses overseas, having maybe at one point, dual story, it's something that the -- citizenship, it's something that the government takes a look at closely. if someone does have foreign associations and that is often one of many reasons that someone could be denied a security clearance. host: from north carolina, paul joins us next on our democrats line. hello. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. i'm a 69-year-old man and i was in the navy in 1964 and 1965 and to this thing, i've never told a person, never. it is my honor i took that that i've never told a person what and thanks for taking

my call. i appreciate it. this is a great subject. sounds so of it clandestine but there's a bit of a joke in the defense

intelligence in homeland security industry about the medicine daneness of the jobs. these are ordinary jobs from ordinary people from construction crews that have crews with federal buildings to accountants that crunch numbers that have no access to classified information but they're working on programs in facilities that do require clearance. they just happen to work walking around people that do. the bulk of security clearance jobs are fairly innocuous. it's really that small percentage that do have access to a highly classified data that is where the recent concern has come into play. host: when you have a security clearance, do you have to take an oath of some type if guest: yes. whether you are a federal employee or a federal contractor, they take the same essential oath that they're

there to protect the information that they might have access to. so as the caller mentioned, it is their duty to do so. host: the "wall street journal" has a breakdown of those with security clearances, breaking us down between principal employees, contractors and listed unknown and from the topics that we talked about, the category's top secret confidential and secret. take a look at that as we take our next call. this is joel from san diego, california, independent line. caller: good morning. i held a top secret job since 1982 and in fact, my role and i was in the navy with similar probably to mr. snowden's role when he was in the army. i was a naval communications. so when i was stationed, everything would have to come through the communications center. so my clearance meant i have to be read into a lot of different

compartment type information and so there's a lot of trust there. and it's true. you really felt dizzy. you're not really reading. you're just kind of read the subject line, who it's to, making sure it goes to the right eople. maybe he just paw u.s.a. the power point and freaked out. what they really need is if you see something that's illegal, you need to do this. he should have went to his supervisor. he totally handled it wrong. and whether the program is right

or wrong, it's not him to determine that and to let the hole world that he broke his promise and it says, you know, you'll go to jail. i don't remember exactly everything i signed you for. ost: ok, caller, thanks. >> one of the -- guest: one of the things that people have to keep in mind is the difference between a government contractor and a government employee. there are really very few differences. government contractors and government employees work hand in hand in facilities. they often do the same job. they often have the same access to information. government contractor as well as the government employee take the same essential oath. the main difference between a government contract and government employee is where their paychecks come in. the bulk of government contractors are -- are former

government employees. a lot of people leave the military which sounds like you did, joel, is coming out of the military, most of them will head to a private contracting company and often go back and do the same work as they did while they're in the military. it's important to keep in mind that contractors are very similar to government employees and often, you're going to find a lot of mixing between the two. so government employees becoming contractors over time and a lot of government employees were tired of the service and immediately head to the contracting world. and a lot of government contractors end up being what they call insourced and brought into government service. but there's a long history of contracting with the u.s. government. you can go all the way back to the revolutionary war where we had contractors working for the government. every battlefield, every war, every situation that the united states has been in contractors have been working alongside of them. there's definitely a long history behind contractors in

the federal government. host: so for the contracting firms like booz allen hamilton that have these security clearances, do they have information to these offices or do they have to go to specialized cases to look at the information? guest: they will have a sensitive compartmentalized facility. essentially, that facility, whether it be a government building or whether it be a contractor's office is actually cleared as well. not only the individuals are cleared but the building itself is cleared to whatever level is necessary for the people in that building to do their job so the government has certain standards and requirements and regulations for these buildings. and the type of security that they must have whether it be network security or physical security, communication security, all of that is really mandated by the government and the contracting companies must follow suit.

so whether it's a government installation which appears to be where mr. snowden worked or whether it's a contractor's office, security is usually at very similar levels. host: up next is edward from louisiana, democrats line. caller: yes. i'm calling and i simply want to concur with the young man prior to this call. i had a security clearance in the military and as a civilian working for the government for almost 41 years. i pride myself in the fact that i was able to keep a security clearance for those many years. i feel like it is something that our country needs. everyone in this country do not need to know all the information that is pertaining to what is

happening within this country because they are certain things that should not need to be discussed publicly. they are important information that you must guard. and i was proud to have the security clearance that i had for all those years. the young man who violated the security clearance and now is overseas, he should never come back to this country. and if he does come back to this country, i hope that our government would do the right thing and make sure he goes to jail for the rest of his life. host: thoughts? guest: yeah, it is important to remember that the community of cleared professionals, you know, they go to work just like everybody else. they do the same type of jobs. it's just that they do work that

impacts national security. some people work in health care. some people work in telecom. some people work in other fields. cleared individuals can be doing any type of job. it's all in the name of national security. so when you think about the types of positions that are out there, you know, again, i think mr. snowden's position was extremely rare in the fact that he had access to a large amount of information as a systems administrate. -- administrator but it was pretty assured that he would not have the ability to read and review that information but simply maintain the networks that they sit on. so his is definitely a rare case. but, you know, the more people you talk, you understand that people have security clearances for such a wide range of positions, doctors, lawyers, pilots, accountants. you know, there are intelligence positions but the bulk are i.t. jobs. they're very standard types of

positions. host: 71% holding lower confidential or secret clearances. the pentagon, according to the we have, about 80% military officials. mr. lesser, dave wanted to see if you might elaborate on foreigners -- on which foreigners might be allowed security clearances. guest: it's an extremely rare case. the only time a foreign is being allowed security clearance is the world-class scientists. albert einstein, may well have had a security clearance back in the world war ii days. but again, it's an extremely rare situation and it's only for world-class scientists. people with the type of knowledge that is, you know, only a few people in the world have that type of information. but it's extremely rare. host: william from wichita, kansas, good morning, independent line. caller: hi, mr. lesser.

i know you just touched on it a little bit now, but i'm with ng you said people foreign apparitions are -- applications are looked at but do they have a -- if they have a dual guest:, do they have to give -- caller:, do they have to give up -- caller:, do they have to give up that? aller: that's a good question. it's very rare that you have dual citizen hordes with citizenship. host: this is in light of the case of edward snowden that you heard this week.

you worked for bogey at one time. talk a little bit about your experiences in gaining clearance yourself. guest: you know, if you look back to post-9/11, you know, there's obviously a very sudden rush for a lot of people to obtain security clearance, a need for a lot of people to obtain security clearance. so post-9/11, you had a huge number of open positions that required clearance and very few people that had clearance and had the ability to get on those jobs. so for a long time, post-9/11, there was a back long of people that were waiting clearance. at one point, there was 250,000 people that were simply setting and waiting for security clearance. and back in those early days of post-9/11 there, was a lot of concern from congress calling threat. nal security

at that time, it was upwards to a year or plus to obtain a security clearance. as a former clearance holder, i won't necessarily talk about what i had or when i had it or how i got it, but i can tell you it took a long amount of time to obtain it and the government has worked over the past decade to shorten the time frame that it takes for someone to obtain a security clearance. it went from being a year plus, really down now to the four or six-month range. there are some extreme case where is an individual might take a year or more to obtain a clearance. but one of the chief concerns from lawmakers was getting the clearance processed reduced in terms of timing. so it has been reduced. it has been made more electronic. there's less paper being shuffled around. there are still a lot of manual processes that go on, especially the investigation phase but the government has managed to get down the timeline for obtaining a security clearance down

considerably. i think what needs to be focused on next is some of the information that is asked and making sure that that information is up to date and modern and current and takes into account current concerns and security issues. host: in a big sense, does the case of snowden make it difficult or at least concern for those contractors here in washington, d.c. or elsewhere in the united states, the possibility of losing contracts or at least losing some business because of the actions of mr. snowden? guest: it's entirely possible. contractors are easy to pick on. they usually make more salary than government employees. they may not have as good benefits or strong job security but compensation-wise, they almost always make more than their government employee counterparts. and that's a place that people like to take notice of. i think when you think about the security clearance process and you compare government contractors to government employees, they take the same --

they fill out the same forms to obtain their security clearance. they undergo the same background investigations. so a contractor is not any more or less trust worthy than a government employee. hey, everyone works in a workplace where you've got great people and you've got bad apples. the key is in this process is doing a very good job at weeding out the bad apples before anything can happen with regards to national security that would ave a negative impact. host: lois is next. caller: hi, pedro, are you hearing me? host: yes. go ahead. caller: ok. i want to say something to mr. lesser. earlier, he said even during the revolutionary war, there were outside contractors. mr. lesser, there was no united states government during the revolutionary war. that came after the war. everybody that paid for everything during the

revolutionary war would be an outside contractor because there was no government. that was my comment. guest: at the time of the revolutionary war, about 18% of the people that were fighting in the war for forming the united states at that point were doing so under contract and were actually getting paid for their services rather than being in it or the cause, we'll say. but you're correct. at that point, there was no formal established government. it was really the group that was coming together to fight the revolutionary war. host: would you know that members of congress who received

security clearance, have they been cleared as well? guest: i would have to say probably every member of congress does have a security clearance, yes. host: this is greg from kensington, maryland. democrats line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. assuming what you are saying that folks with security clearance is even folks that might have a very high clearance, generally don't have access to information beyond need to know. when you have a guy like snowden who doesn't have a special intelligence skill, but has this computer skill that requires him to have access of wide swaths of information. for that level of privilege, would they do anything extra for that type of guide such as a psychological profile to ensure that he's basically going to keep the lid on the information he has access to? guest: definitely. the higher the access required, the deeper the information goes.

so while we have not learned 100% which clearance he had, by understanding where he worked and who he worked for, it's assumed he had a top secret level clearance. he works for the n.s.a. so it's likely that he had polygraph administered at least at one point in his background. there are two kinds of poll graffs. the -- polygraphs. the first deals specifically with an individual's allegiances towards the united states and any foreign preference that might be there. and then there's what they call a lifestyle of graph and a full scope polygraph which is a combination of the counterintelligence polygraph and other information that includes things like that person 's history with finances, suspectibility to coercion, it gets into sexual preference, everything. it is extremely deep and extremely detailed and it is likely that mr. snowden had a polygraph at some point.

the investigation that goes on is definitely far deeper than someone with a secret or onfidential clearance. an investigator would have to pay a visit to the applicant and the information that is dug up on them goes back to at least seven years, if not more. but the information part of the top secret clearance is extremely thorough. does take a lot of time and the investigator will usually try to corroborate information that's on the standard forms that they fill out with that person live getting the visual feedback of one to one. so it is a very deep process and it is likely that mr. snowden did go through that deeper process. why they didn't pick up on anything is definitely a question that needs to be answered. how his polygraph comma indicate out if he did take one, what with were the results of that? probably won't be made public but it would be great to have

some knowledge around that. host: we have someone off of twitter asking about interim security clearances and if there are any restrictions on them. guest: an interim security clearance is usually done at the secret level and it lets someone get on the job while they're in process waiting for their final security clearance to come through. so as i mentioned before, the final security clearance takes anywhere from four to six months. if there are issues with that individual or problems the standard forms, it could take as much as a year. if a company brings them on board, they don't want to have someone just sitting behind a desk for a year. they want to get them on some lower level work that they can work on. so in many cases, an interim clearance is obtained and that's a cursory background check. they would have access to information up to the secret level only and they would have that interim clearance while they're waiting for their final clearance to fully process which may take a number of months.

interim clearance are usually awarded within two months. caller: i just want to say a couple of things in general and from mr. elings lester about it. i worked for the u.s. army for more than 40 years and i held clearances from the confidential level to the top secret f.b.i. level. i worked primarily in security plans and operations and a lot of times, we worked in the tactical environment. i supported organizations of vaco freedom and during freedom. and i can tell you a lot of things i saw, i was really isturbed by.

whether you're supporting an actual wartime operation or even during this plain old exercises, for example. but the one thing that really disturbed me -- i'm retired, by the way. and a lot of these instances when i left an organization, there was no debriefing by the security chief. and that really bothered me because i knew early on when i started with the u.s. government, they were very comprehensive and with the security, you didn't leave an organization without being debriefed by the security manager who said ok, you know, and he gave you the dos and don'ts about things. so i retired and i had just got, back from operation freedom and i held a top secret s.c.i. and it is expired now but i was not debriefed by anyone and that really bothered me and that still bothers me today.

host: caller, thank you. guest: yeah, that's highly surprising. debrief is a standard part of when someone is separated from the military or leaves a contracting company or their job when a nger necessary person leaves a company where they have security clearance and they're no longer needed, the government is alerted are you the automated system that is used by government contractors and there's essentially a person at every government contracting office caughted a facility security officer and that officer's main job is to handle the cleared personnel that come in and go out of an organization. so if you do leave an organization, whether it be the military or government agency or contracting company, a debrief is always part of the process. so if you didn't have one back then, that would be highly

surprising. that would be some type of an anomaly. host: evan lester with clearing jobs and -- clearance jobs and he joins us to talk about security clearances. mr. lesser, we appreciate your time today. guest: thank you. host: coming up, religious votes are in washington, d.c. for the annual faith and freedom conference. matt lewis tells us why who are there and who we're hearing from. and later in the program, we'll talk about as far as on this eve of father's day. he's with the national fatherhood initiative and will join us later of that discussion. the changing nature of as far as as well. we want to talk about our "newsmakers" program. it is with the chairman of the house committee, republican john klein -- kline of minnesota.

>> i think it's important to know that the house passed legislation to avert that doubling on july 1. i think it's very solid legislation. it was very much in keeping what the president of the united states has proposed and that is to get away from politicians deciding what that interest rate ought to be every year, tie it to the market or use the 10-year treasury. that's what the white house proposed. that's what we have in our language. so we think it's a very good proposal. it prevents the doubling. it is a long-term solution. to get to your question what has to happen, the senate needs to pass something. the senate tried two bills. one was the senate republican bill which was to use the different percentage. it failed. and then the house democrats, mr. harken had a bill that would have just kicked the can for two more years. kept the 3.4 used the taxes to

pay for it. and i don't think that's the right solution. >> how can you find agreement when it's clear that there are political points to be had for keeping your own side? >> well, there are also political points to be had, i would think, for having success here. i'm a little bit surprised that the white house hasn't recognized how similar the proposals are and said let's get this done and have a bipartisan victory and take an issue and move it off the table. i'm still hopeful that we can do that because the senate hasn't been successful in their short term 3.4% for two years solution and find some way to pay for it, taxes, that we can come together for a long-term solution. that's the direction that we're continuing to work for. my discussions with senator alexander, the senate republicans are very much committed to that approach. and again, it should not be that difficult to do, considering the

white house is on paper position, in his budget, he has a proposal. so i think -- i think there's still room. it's early june. host: and again, you could see that entire interview withh the education chairman committee. he's john kline tomorrow at 10:00 in the morning. you can catch it at 6:00 in the evening as well. if you miss it, it's available online at c-span.org. joining us right now is matt lewis, a columnist for "the week." welcome. uest: thank you. so there are a ton of concerns especially amongst conservatives and this is one of them. this is fairly new. they've been around for four years and the chairman is ralph reed of christian coalition fame and they're a non-profit group. one of tighis that they

do are these conferences in d.c. that are annual every summer and they get, you know, some of the biggest names in republican and conservative politics to come through and give it speech and it's quite impressive if you look at the lineup and the roster that they're able to show up. it's a big deal, especially some of the groups that are here. host: what are some of the names? >> jeb bush, marco rubio and ran paul among others like michele bachmann and donald trump. the big speeches in my estimation, the ran paul-marco rubio are arguably the most important because of the -- and they spoke on friday at the ronald reagan building and because of the contrast between the two men, similarities between the two men. host: and the trial for the presidency? guest: yeah, that's the unspoken thing is the road to the white house. host: but you don't mention jeb bush.

guest: jeb bush had a very controversial comment where he talked about -- he's talking about immigrants and jeb bush is a long championed immigration reform. and he mentioned they were more fertile. [laughter] which we know what he was attempting to say. host: what was he attempting to say? guest: that this is important that america needs more people to be competitive and frankly, to pay for aging americans. but he didn't say it right. he said it in such a way that he opened himself up to criticism. and look, i think that he was right but the fact that he stumbled is indicative of a man who has been out of office for almost seven years now. he hasn't been governor of florida for a long time. everybody assumes that jeb bush, if he were to run for president would be this great states man and that he would have no problems. well, guess what? he gave the speech and it becomes probably the gal at least the dag. host: so your focus would be on

senator rubio and senator paul. would these people be classified as pure values voter or does it go further than that? guest: it's interesting. i think, you know to expose the man behind the curtain here, the truth is that these conferences are really -- you have to kind of search for regular voters. if you're a reporter and you're trying to write a story about how is this going to play in iowa, you have to talk to a lot of people to get the average christian voter or conservative voter who came in from out of town. i mean, a lot of the people there frankly and there are hundreds of people there, but a lot of the people there are d.c. types. and people that are covering the events and so i think that this is sort of like a preseason game. i would look at it in a sports metaphor. i'm really more interested in how the candidates perform as they sort of craft their pitches and their speeches rather than how it actually influences regular voters.

i don't think regular voters are paying attention yet really. host: just to go a little further, the for the people who attend whether they be for d.c. or out, are they more interested in social issues or are they more interested in economic issues or a combination of both? guest: and as i mentioned earlier, there are a ton of these conferences. so there's another conference, the family research council has the values voters conference which is really specifically for faith-based conservatives. this, the fame faith and freedom sort of implies that it's social and fiscal conservatives. ralph reed is associated very largely. he's the chairman of this group, the faith and freedom coalition. he's associated with the social cause. - conservatism but this was really -- they talked about everything. full spectrum conservative issues. i think frankly, the big story though is the immigration

debate. maybe secondly, if you want to look at the dichotomy of ran paul and marco rubio on foreign olicy. you can say we want more people, the hamse -- hispanics, specially are christian. maybe conservative means about you're conserving western values and you have to have a strong border. and that you have to honor the rule of law. and so conservatives are really fighting over the heart and soul over what that means. foreign policy is the same time. you have marco rubio and ran paul both elected in 2010 amid

this tea party despite guys, both defeated republican candidates in 2010 and, you know, ran paul essentially wants more modest foreign policy. so they're both conservative but which will be the 21st century brand of conservatism? host: and senator ruby, when it comes to border security, does that change how conservatives view senator ruby as a potential conservative candidate? guest: yes, it does. there is a contingent of conservative who is are very upset with marco rubio right now so but his taking a stand -- this is entirely predictable. the issue almost destroyed jay cutler's presidential hopes in 2007 -- john mccain's presidential hopes in 2007 efore they took off.

going into a republican primary, it hurts him amongst a pretty large contingent of conservatives who may show up to vote. so if you just look at the comment section of blogs, it's full of things like marco rubio, the trader, marco rubio, sold us out. i voted him for this. i can't believe he did this. how big of a deal is this? john mccain and mitt romney, then the conventional wisdom that you have to go to the right or pandered to grassroots conservatives may be out the window. host: a lot of discussions on the table. immigration, foreign policy. all of these things up for discussion as we have matt lewis as our panel. if you want to ask him a

question, call the number on your screen. you could also tweet us or e-mail us. to give you a sense of the speech making, let's hear from senator rand paul, spoke to the conference on thursday and talked about the topic of americans who were paying for what he says is a war on christianity that's being funded by taxpayers. here's what he had to say. >> it's clear that american taxpayer dollars are being used to enable a war on christianity in the middle east. pope john paul ii spoke about a culture of death. he talks about a war of the powerful against the weak. as christians, we know we must always stand with the most defenseless. i believe that no civilization can long ebb dure that does not respect life from the not yet born to life's very last breath. [applause]

host: so this is -- guest: rand paul is a very formidable candidate and a lot of us thought that he would be perceived in being too fringey for mainstream conservatism that there were problems that he talk alked about. his father has these newsletters which were maybe pened by somebody else but which were deemed to be anti-semitic by many. so there were questions about whether rand paul can play mainstream conservatism and it's pretty clear tat he can. rand paul brings his father's base, but marries it with a more mainstream conservatism. and like his father, both are social conservatives. and a lot of times, libertarians are associated with being atheists but rand paul can talk at the social values talk and i

think it makes him -- his father did pretty darn well as a member of the house of representatives. host: did his father speak at these types of events? guest: i don't remember ron paul speaking. he might have, but he would have gone on about gold, how we need to go into the gold standard. you know, ron paul wouldn't have been able to rain in the rhetoric but rand paul is sort of takes the good of his father and i think can sell it in a much more compeling and eloquent anner. he can win in iowa. you will see people take off from there. host: first call for matt lewis. this is joe from the republican line. go right ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. thanks for taking my call. interesting with respect to the conference. did have a chance to see the

hailey barber and jeb bush itaking and it was really -- was rather disgraceful, to be honest with you. e -- they discreditted the heritage foundation. as far as the cause and the number, just the $11 million that would receive the a alization and instead of million green cards a years, it would be 30 million over the next 10 years rather than 10 million. and these are largely unskilled workers. and they cost the system an normous amount of money.

for the first 10 years, they're not permitted to have benefits but immediately as far as they get legalization, you know there's going to be organizations suing. ost: ok, caller, thanks. guest: this is really interesting? you're a geek like me and saw what is going on to the right. the heritage foundation is a widely conservative think tank and the new president is the former senator who helped kill immigration reform in 2007 along with barack obama, i should add. by supporting an amendment that he put forward which a lot of people consider to be the poison pill that ultimately brought it down. so the thing that jim demitt helped get marco rubio get elected. marco rubio would probably not be a u.s. senator without demitt's help.

he said jim was next to his wife, his best friend. the heritage foundation is running ads attacking marco rubio. spending a lot lot of money to attack marco rubio and ruby's pushing for immigration reform. the heritage foundation is against it. they put out this budget which some conservatives think it's correct but there's this sort of in the weeds debate. one of the co-authors of this budget had previously put forward a thesis which many viewed to be politically incorrect, but in addition to that, the question is over dynamic scoring. in other words, the heritage foundation, the criticism of their budget is when they do the analysis of what immigration reform is going to cost, they factor in all of the downside, all of the costs, but not the upside, the benefits that would come. so it's essentially an argument of whether or not they're using statistic versus dynamic scoring. but it is interesting that the

internet scene battle that's taken place. and you have another prominent think tank, a.e.i., which is the other conservative think tank that is prominent. this president, arthur brooks is very much in favor of immigration reform. there's another writer who is in favor. so my point here is conservatives are very split over this issue. and both are trying to argue that their side is conservative. there was a conference call held just yesterday amongst supporters of immigration reform that pointed out that the anti-immigration movement actually started off as an effort for population control. and initially, they wanted to team with planned parenthood. they thought if you think we've got too many people in america, -- there's too many people in america, they're taking their toll on the environment. if you believe that, then you

should be in favor of more abortion and fewer immigrants. fascinating debate. host: al bertville, alabama, bobby from our democrats line. caller: do you remember when during the speech, there's a congress and he told the president, he said you lie. well, your guest just lied at the first of his statements when 501-c3. his root was a guest: i don't think i said that. caller: and with politics involved. why would you tell that? guest: well, i don't think i said there were 501c3, if i did, i apologize. they are listed as a non-profit. and non-profit groups are allowed to do certain political activities so for example, i used to work at a -- at an

organization called the leadership institute, which is a great organization. -- a 501c3 and their job their mission is to identify, re-train and recruit veterans at the private policy process. they cannot tell you who to vote for. they can't run ads, supporting or opposing candidates and they don't do that. but what they can do is find conservatives and by the way, there are conservative democrats out there and help them become more effective, whether it's how to enter into the journalism or what have you. so i think that's the key. i hope i didn't say 501c3 but i did say non-profit and i think that's accurate of the state and freedom coalition. host: we'll hear from michael in houston, texas, independent line. hello. caller: good morning. host: you're on, sir. caller: yes. a simple question. what do you think the long-term

effect on the republican party will be if conservative republicans continue to deny climate change? that's the question. guest: that's a good question. interestingly, there's a piece in "the washington post" today, which says that barack obama told somebody -- was quoted as saying that they poll test his state of the union and when he mentioned climate change, tat the public didn't respond well to it. here we have a democratic president saying i guess at least implying, we're not going to push this issue because i brought it up in the state of the union and we had these dial tests which the public didn't respond well to. i think in terms of schism -- conservatism, it's very important to acknowledge that climate change exists.

i think the debate is over is it global warming? is it man made global warming? if it is, is there anything we can do about it? if there is something we can do about it, does it justify that the economy -- the hit that the economy might take? and what will happen to physical industry in ohio and west virginia, for example. and i think it will probably be very dangerous for a conservative to be "a climate change denier." having said that, there are some very real questions over how do you respond and how serious is it? but i think that is an issue that we'll be confronting as president obama points out. i think it's an issue that is not something that anybody really decides to vote on, which may be why it's not up there with immigration reform. host: ok. something like climate change tracks with conservative vores

now? guest: i would say probably not. if you were in favor of -- it could hit you from an economic standpoint and it could hurt you in a place like ohio and west virginia, which is really struggling right now with their economy, but if you go down and you ranked -- there's this question over preference vs. intensity. and we saw this with gun debate with background checks. so like almost everybody is in favor of background checks. everybody nobody ranks it as an important issue. fair or not? right or wrong? and that's sort of where i think this is. it's an issue that everyone will tell you that they're concerned about, but if it starts to yes, but what happens if you have to pay more for something? what happens if you lose your job? now it becomes an entirely different debate. host: chris from rhode island, republican line is up next. good morning. caller: hi, good morning. how a conversation like this

always scares away from god and jeesh christ. -- jesus christ. and every listener will face jesus christ on judgment day. our media is a propaganda tools. it pumps out lies. they taught how to take the united states to establish a global governing system by deconstruction -- deconstructing religion, family, and population . nd we're trying to kill the -- and planned parenthood is an organization intended to also decrease population, not to erase his organization. their agenda is to decrease population to destabilize the u.s. economy, to establish a global currency system. and when -- and americans should care about freedom but they don't because they're uneducated

by school system system that was all planned out. this agenda was planned out. and this information will not be released by the media. these people will not cover it -- host: thanks, caller. believe it or not, i agree with some of the things he said -- guest: believe it or pot, i agree with some of the things he said. i go to one, one that we alluded to earlier. it is interesting that as this conference call pointed out earlier, i'm not on it but it is interesting that initially, you know, some of the people most concerned about stopping immigration and about illegal immigration were, you know, on the left and they were people who were concerned about population control. and look, it is true that, you know, planned parenthood beginnings go to this issue. you could argue that they're

incredibly things have changed and there are legitimate reasons for these issues today. i happen to think that a nation has to be able to control its border. i also happen to think we should have more immigrants. i'm in favor of that, but i do believe you have to control your border. i mean, just for security reasons alone. that should be obvious. so that's things that are being debated right now and the border happens to be something that senator -- and marco rubio is trying to strengthen the border because that's how you can get immigration passed. i also talk a little bit about faith. i do think that is important to talk about. and if you went to the conference, the faith and freedom conference, you will hear a lot of faith, a lot of people talking about their faith. and i think that -- i would say that marco rubio is probably the most eloquent at blending faith

and using his, you know, christian belief as a rational -- rationale to explain what i call a tainted brand but what i could call compassionate conservatism. and by the way, that brand actually has been proven to be at least an electoral winner. i think george w. bush's presidency, especially the end there, tainted that brand but at the end of the day, i do think that compassionate conservatism by whatever name you want to call it is electorally effective. host: marco rubio talked about foreign policy in this address in which the u.s. shouldn't get involved in conflicts -- every conflict around the world but tat the u.s. should be replaced on the global stage. here he is. >> when freedom is threatened and radical islams threatens the peace and safety of the world, if america does not step forward and say this is wrong and something should be done about it, who will?

and so i'm not advocating that america get engaged in every conflict on the planet or that we try to solve every civil war but i am saying to you there is nothing to replace us. i promise you it's not the united nations. [laughter] i promise you it's not china. i promise you it's not the european union. [applause] if we lose either the willingness or the power to be an influence on the global stage, there is nothing to replace us. host: matt lewis, he says that now, especially that things has changed as far as the united states is concerned when it comes to syria. guest: right. first, let me say that i think if anybody who just saw that, i think they say marco rubio is one of the most eloquent visionary conservative voices in my opinion, since ronald reagan. but there is -- there is a huge

divide right now amongst conservatives over foreign policy. and the interesting thing is that if you want to look at the stereotype, you would say extreme. rand paul is an isolationist. marco rubio is an interventionist. but they're both very good at couching the rhetoric in using these caveats so rand paul will say there is a time when we have to be involved but america should have a -- but i've never seen an incident where rand paul wanted us to be involved in something, right? and then you have marco rubio who as you just saw, countered his argument, america has -- you know, this shining beacon on a hill. but then he will always say but. we can't be involved in every civil war. we can't be the world's policemen. but i've never seen a humanitarian crisis where marco rubio didn't want us to be involved. so both are very good at i think, blurring their positions

and making it very rhetorically moderate sounding but at the end of the day, you have two competing visions over what is conservatism. and as you mentioned, syria right now is a prime -- an issue at the forefront and it could be something that ends up being a big issue in the 2016 primaries. my personal opinion, as much as i think ruby is the superior sort of rhetorical voice, my position is i don't see any way that america wins in syria. it seems to me to be a lose-lose. and i suspect that americans are war weary after like a dozen years of being involved in foreign conflicts. and i suspect that there are a lot of conservatives and republicans who are more than happy to talk about america standing up for what is right but who are not incredibly anxious to send their sons and

daughters potentially -- i mean, i know it would start with sending guns and then it would be a no-fly zone, but you know how these. there are a lot of conservatives who would be very hesitant of getting involved because the point is you either aid the dictator, assad, or islamists. thatlikely be the ones would take over if they were ousted. our democrater on howar line. caller: i just wanted to speak on one person. . heard rand paul's speech it has been a couple of years ago. he was speaking against the 14th amendment. he said that if a person has a business and did not want you in their, that they should have the

right not to serve you. that really went to my core. christian values going to these christian places to speak -- when people speak, they forget what they say in public. i actually have a tape of him saying that. i am a christian. , and he loves us all. and to speak at these events to people who say they are christian, but they hate other people -- host: so -- guest: i think what she is referring to is rand paul's comments about the civil rights act in 1954. this is where you going to run into problems. in fairness to paul, i think what he said was very nuanced, and i do not want to misrepresent it, but i think essentially what he was saying is i hate this permission, i

hate racism, but if somebody is stupid enough, they own a business, it is there property, if they are stupid enough to want to say i want to serve this type of customer, they own it, that is their business, somebody else will serve a customer and make that money. i think when he is basically saying is the invisible hand of the free market, left alone, would fix these things, and i government is 9200. it is not many he is a racist or but thatupports that, is his point. giving them the benefit of the doubt, it hurts us because you tv see -- you can run a 32nd 30 second tv ad arenst rand paul, these toxic. i think it will be tough for him to swear that his libertarian positions, and i think is printable, to square that in an

election. host: dallas, texas is up next. brian, independent line. caller: you mentioned ralph reed to begin with the with the christian coalition. he was deeply tied into the ever mock scandal and the indian reservation deal. andink they exposed e-mails said they could deliver the christian vote and the christian coalition itself has become so politicized that it is really kind of a political action committee more than a christian group. i will tell you what is going on with these churches down here is kind of scary. that is all i have got to say. , het: i think ralph reed has been around politics for a long time. i think he was with karl rove and the college republicans. he optically was executive director of the christian coalition. -- attorneyan

general, governor in georgia. has been around a long time. he is incredibly smart. some people do not like him, but he is a political survival. with this new group, he has found a way to remain relevant. there are some people who are easily painted and destroyed, and there are other people who have nine political lives. you have got to give ralph reed credit. whether you like them or not, he is a survivor. host: let's say case of response to how these people reacted to give your take. first of all, sarah palin. guest: she will go over well. she will get standing ovation and people will love it. host: so what is her message to the folks to the people who attend these conferences? guest: she represents somebody who comes in, give a great speech, people love it, but it is probably more entertainment value. i think the real action is with

the other, the rubio, paul, and other hand of its. host: chris christie, seen in the morning paper across from former president bill clinton at the clinton global initiative. guest: this is fascinating because chris christie is incredibly popular, from the state of new jersey, he will win his reelection by 60 plus percent. he will then run for president saying hey, that am i one in new jersey, i can beat hillary clinton whatever. there is a cnn.com story were a reporter went around and talk to people attending this faith and freedom conference, coalition conference, not a single one of them volunteered chris christie 's name smb that they wanted to be president veered a lot of them had harsh words for him. stay with this rather than speak. he was invited, according to ralph reed, and he chose not to go. maybe that is a smart move for

his reelection in new jersey and his new brand, but he is making a calculation about how to win -- i think. i think he is making the cap elation that he could do it because he is tough and strong and conservatives at the end of the wood they will forget and forgive -- at the end of the day host: will forget and forgive. brand you areew missing echo -- were mentioning? and goit is to win big to the american people and say if i can win in new jersey, i can beat hillary clinton. by the way, conservatives inflate ideology, but a summit of horrible things about barack obama come all of a sudden they become more conservative, which is why people think they are

more conservative than i am, -- sheough she is supported mitt romney. she is deemed as being more conservative. chris christie in a debate, if you says he is republican in name only, if you call him a liberal, chris christie will destroy you in a debate and he will be you senseless and conservatives will applaud that. they will say we need this guy to take on hillary clinton or whomever. host: one more quick reaction, outgoing representative michele bachmann. guest: she also spoke at the faith and freedom conference. she spoke out against immigration reform. she is incredibly talented, a good speaker, but she is retiring. i do not the it is in any way relevant. host: here is florida, mike on our independent lifne format lewis of the "daily caller." caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead.

caller: president obama says he is a christian, and i do not understand why everybody gets him so much grief. i believe he walks with jesus as one of his disciples. you see that in his views on abortion, his views on same-sex is a thief.d he [indiscernible] isst: i think this interesting. barack obama is very good at giving speeches. he is incredibly good, like him or not, at giving speeches about his faith. i heard him -- i was not there, but i watched it, he spoke at the national prayer breakfast. incredibly good, incredibly passionate.

-- we seen this movement of young evangelicals who are now interested in a new set of issues. the days of the christian coalition, it was just about abortion. now you are seeing young evangelicals who are interested in defending the right to life and helping the poor. it seems to me that the verylican party has been good at talking about things like defending the right to life, but jesus talked about greed more than he talked about sexual immorality, for example. i think that barack obama has received a little bit on this other strain of christianity. at the end of the day, somebody like a marco rubio is somebody who can let that chocolate and peanut butter together and talk about defending the right to life but also talk about helping other people, his dad

came here from cuba, served as a bartender, it is the american dream. i think that at the end of the day, if you want somebody who can unite christians, who is conservative and liberal, that is the way to go. yasmine from new york, democrat line. caller: my question is about immigration reform. can you tell me -- what do you think? is immigration reform going to be passed or not? guest: first let me say somebody i did not mention, but one of the best speakers at this faith and freedom coalition with a guy named reverend sammy rodriguez of the national christians hispanic leadership conference. he spoke on friday and he brought down the house. he said so what is a hispanic evangelical? billy graham, martin luther

king, put them in a blender and put salt on top and that is who we are. he says being conservative is not about conserving pigmentation, it is about conserving ideas. he talks about however that he is worried that hispanics are going to all become a liberal democrat, but he said guess what -- seven out of 10 americans who are brought to christ are hispanic. so he was making an argument that the doom and gloom theory that you legalize 11 million immigrants and they all vote liberal is bogus. host: that criticized senator caikaine for making a floor speh in spanish this week you g? guest: i do not know that, but his speech brought down the house. he spoke after mark sanford. mark sanford -- a very tepid applause. reverend rodriguez really got the crowd fired up. just an incredible speaker.

i personally am in favor of immigration reform. i think that there are plenty of conservative reasons why we have to be in favor of it, including jeb bush pose the argument, which he botched, but the question is -- will pass? i think it patches -- passes the senate. i don't think it passes the house. and i think republicans will be .lamed for that that is my political position. host: two more calls, joseph from birmingham, alabama. independent line. caller: hello. 'su talked about ron paul speech and then the woman called about it. the problem is there is no free markets. it is controlled. i work for a television station, it controls 40% of the market in atlanta during the 1960's.

our advertising influenced the city. we had an amusement park there before six flags. 50% of the sponsorship of the cartoons for the children were town, which were discriminatory. it was not a question of you being able to go wherever you want to go, you go wherever -- martin luther king said the hardest thing he had to do in his life was to explain to his daughter why she cannot go to fund down. i put -- to fun town. thet the commercials on air, commercials and the cartoons at different times. i did not have any control over it. i realize now that i was part of the problem. host: ok, caller, thanks. i am more worried about the commercial than i am the stuff after the commercial. when you watch a commercial, you know you're getting

propaganda. but when you see television shows and movies, that is much more dangerous because it is insidious. i think you can make a good argument that conservatives started losing the culture war -- it is not that ideas have lost, it is that technology has changed. if you have a vast majority of who watch the movies that hollywood puts out and try to copy that lifestyle and values, over time the habits are going to catch up. host: as far as -- first of all, 2014, looking ahead because of the focus on the white house, what do you see happening as far as how the house and the senate stand? any sense of major shift that will happen in either of those two bodies? guest: midterm elections are almost always to throw the party out of power come out of

the white house. so i think republicans will have a good year. i do not know if there will be a good enough year to to pick up the senate. it is possible. i think republicans will be housed in 2014. host: 2016 -- will hillary be the candidates? guest: if she wants to be, i do not know how you can stop her. everybody assumes she will be a juggernaut that cannot be defeated, but i think that is wrong. she will be the oldest president in history, older than ronald reagan. she would be obvious the the first female candidate. but i think age -- and there is the benghazi scandal -- but i think age is a big factor. it is rare that we passed the torch backward eigh generally showing. if you have chris christie or bobby jindal or rand paul or paul ryan, all of these angrily strong, young conservatives who like barack obama generationally, it is the

request and as to whether or not you go back generally showing. tionally.k generally reall host: who do you think is the best that? -- best bet? guest: marco rubio because he is so talented rhetorically and he is a visionary. i think chris christie could be the nominee. they might pick somebody who never gets mentioned, the governor of indiana, a former congressman, he has experience in washington. he is fun, funny him and he is like mike huckabee, except fiscal conservatives like them too. mike b had a problem with the club for growth. mike pence is a fiscal conservative, social conservative, i think he is the dark course. i think scott walker is going to run. to be interesting.

. you can have these two floridians, jeb bush and marco rubio. and you have to, what is it, wisconsinites? i'm not sure. you can have potentially paul ryan and the governor there as well. host: we shall see. matt lewis with the "daily caller," you can see his work on the daily caller website which is -- dailycaller.com. host: how often do you post? guest: three to five times a day. host: mellow, thank you. coming up, we will will have a discussion about fathers. our discussion will be with vincent dicaro of the national fatherhood initiative. we will be right back. ♪ i know just in my small experience, you do see people,

older journalists, who you know would not cut it today. it is not that they are not good at what they do, but there demands of their generation and our generation are very different. i think older people who decry what this media saturation is theg to us in terms of content update and constant new stream is a valid debate. take your time, get your facts right, that is always true. we sought in the healthcare ruling, and the boston marathon humming. -- bombing. people are reconsidering how important it is to get your facts right. >> more about journalism today with clinical -- politico reporter patrick gavin sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q and a. >> in fact, going as far back as abigail adams and martha washington, you find that first

ladies played an active role in the white house and in the campaigns that it's up to get there. abigail adams was basically a campaign strategist for her husband. she helped advise him on who to woo in order to win election, who he had to keep in his coalition, they would talk incessantly about the politics of the day, the legislation that needed to be passed, which senators and commerce menu could count on, and which ones you could not, what you needed to do to win more support. >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, john roberts, author of the book takesg the first ladies," a look at our nation's first ladies as political partners of their husbands rather than whites and mothers, monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. andather than wives mothers. >> i do think what we are doing does protect american civil liberties and privacy. the issue is to date we have

not been able to explain it because it is classified. so that issue is something we are wrestling with. how do we explain this and still keep this nation secure? that is the issue that we have in front of us. that this was something that was debated vigorously in congress, both the thee and the senate within administration and now work for the court. so when you look at this, this is not us doing something under the covers, this is what we are doing on behalf of all of us for the good of this country. think,t we need to do, i is to bring as many facts as we can out to the american people, so i agree with you. i just want to make that clear because the perspective is that we are trying to hide something because we did something wrong -- we are not. , theis week and on c-span senate that u.s. intelligence secret data

collection programs today at 10:00 eastern. also this week and on c-span2's book tv. book expo america today at 1:30. americanspan3's history tv, slavery to segregation. "> "washington journal continues. host: joining us right now, vincent dicaro of the national fatherhood initiative. , thank you for joining us. as we start off, can you tell us of the little but about the national fatherhood initiative? guest: we are a nonprofit organization. we were founded around me notion that about one out of every three children in the country are growing up in a father-absent home. research for the previous decades leading up to that time are really starting to

show that there were some serious negative on the quiz is associated with father absence -- negative consequences associated with father absence. gangs, teen pregnancy, all the things. research starting to show that there is a connection between all those things and whether or not those children had an involved father in her life. despite all of that, the issue flying under the radar screen -- no one was really talking about it. conversations around children were really centered around what was going on with their mothers or whether or not family income was at a certain level. fathers were being ignored. the organization was founded to start a society-wide movement to reverse this trend toward father absence, help mend the best dad they can be, and really educate the public, educate dads about how important it is for fathers to be involved in their children's lives. host: what has to be in place to reverse the trend? guest: it has to be societywide. this has to be the trend where

the fatherlessness happens across sectors. as a culture, we started evaluating the role of fathers. economically, things became more difficult for men, who used to be able to work a good job with a high school degree, support their family. that is more difficult today. there are all these things happening across sectors of society. in order to reverse it, you've got to go back into those sectors and start turning things around. we need to talk to the culture, talk about economics, talk about civil society, talk about the faith-based community getting involved in this fight. all of these things have to be mobilized. host: here we are in washington, d.c. this fatherhood have a political component as far as the white house, the agencies around town? guest: it does. it is one of those issues, for the most part, it is one of the few bipartisan issues left in washington, dare i say. ,t has been kind of a history probably going back to the late 1980's. bipartisan support around this notion that something needs to be done legislatively to move,

to strengthen fatherhood. so there have certainly been several legislative agendas put forward. there is funding now from the federal government through the department of health and human services to fund organizations on the ground that are delivering programming to dads. that is a step in the right direction. then there is more and more work being done now through the various federal agencies to try to integrate fatherhood kind of into the fabric of what they do at the agencies, to take the -- agencies. take the department of justice, working with fathers. unfortunately, there are a lot of fathers in prison. is somethingdad that is starting to happen, and folks addresses are started to talk about this more. host: our guest is vincent dicaro of the national fatherhood initiative. if you want to ask him questions about fatherhood in the components we talked about this morning. this is how you do so -- for those of you any central and

eastern time zones, it is (202) 585-3880. for those of you in the mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 585-3881. we have set a side a special line for fathers out there to your thoughts, expensive, things of that nature. if you want to give it the call --(202) 585-3883. you can also tweak us journal@c- span.org -- @cspanwj. 24 million children, one in three, living in biological father absent homes. in the african-american community, two out of three children growing up without a father. mr. dicaro, looking at that, what is the message? i know you talked about a broadly, but how do you go one- on-one with fathers and trying to let them know the importance of it and how you change hearts and minds? first the first step is of all for there to be a general appreciation and thatness in our culture

fathers play a unique role. fathers are nice to have around but are optional, then there is this attitude of maybe, maybe not. that is number one, but then in terms of skills, i think one of the huge issues that have happened over the last several decades is a skill gap. a lot of dads don't know what a good father looks like because they grew up without their dad or they grew up without a good father, and so -- and we don't do much in our culture to nurtureaise boys to children. so there is a skills gap there. our father at -- our focus at national fatherhood initiative is to help these guys get the skills that they need, that confidence and skills lead to involvement. so we really try to help these men, through our programs, which we deliver through other immunity-based organizations around the country, we try to help them be dads that provide,

nurture, and guide their children. of all three of those things so they can more engaged in their children's lives. host: gills or more specific than that? guest: absolutely. there is a whole lot into that, obviously, so i will give you an example here it we a program we deliver in prison called inside out dad. the only evidence-based row graham designed specifically for working with incarcerated fathers. what it does with those dads is of a starts a conversation process to help them reflect, connect and reflect. a lot of these group with bad fathers, and so they're having to come to terms with that -- what that means you're doing moved to that correction phase, building a your management skills, fathering skills, all these practical things that they need to know in order to be responsibly engage in their

children's lives, and in a third phase is connect. so what are some actual strategies and things that you can do today as an incarcerated father to start connecting with your children, even though you are in children -- in prison? letters, phone calls, things we do to help them connect your hopefully -- the hope is that as 300ansition outcome about hundred thousand fathers leave prison every year in the usa, that they will have the skills and competence that they need to engage in a positive way. .ost: kevin, our first call caller: i'd intended one of the national fatherhood initiative through one of the greer campaigns, the football player. i am a father of four. i work for the army national for time. -- full-time. it is not just about dad, it is a program that can enhance your abilities.

i just want to add that to it, man. because not everybody has to have their lives falling apart to go through a program and be a better dad. need to be striving as fathers to be better and connect with our children because they're continuing to grow. we are the adult. guest: yeah, i could not agree with you more. thank you for saying that for me. you are doing my job. our programs are not just designed to reach dads in prison or completely disconnected from their kids. our programs are designed to help dads in all walks of lives, in a variety of situations, just to build their skills to be the best that they can be peered we do that through our programs and through our website, our blog, social media. we are constantly putting out messages to help dads, to encourage them, to inspire them, to give them skills. that is a huge part of our work. is lesser, stamford, connecticut. -- lester. caller: good morning.

this is a very important piece of a problem. there is an overriding problem that is generally nobody is paying attention to men in our society. there is discrimination against men. for example, i went to a doctor and ask them are there any politicians paying attention to men's health issues, and they all gave me a blank stare. they said no. en live five years less on average than men. -- than women. there is no affirmative action for men, even in jobs where women traditionally have worked. nobody is paying attention to men's issues. host: mr. dicaro, would you agree? guest: i would say on average, social service programs focus more on women and children. on average. as i mentioned earlier, it is

really starting to change. there is an interagency working group at the white house to help federal agencies start to think about how they can more effectively serve fathers. for example, the department of defense, there are lots of death in the military. what kind of supports are they getting to be good fathers? they returned from a deployment, they obvious we have all kinds of issues that they need to deal with as a result of that issue with their families. startedve actually working very extensively with the united states military to actually start delivering fatherhood programming to military dads. bases, branches, department of defense, etc. and, to get research back into the hands of fathers. this is the sort of thing that is happening across the agency where fathers are starting to get the services that they need. host: president barack obama taking his weekly address today to talk about the fatherhood and the importance of it.

here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> i never really knew my own father. i was raised by hi a single mom into wonderful grandparents are made incredible sacrifices for me. there are single parents, like my mom, all across the country, job ratings are for kids. i wish i had a dad who was not only around but involved. another role model to teach me what my mom did, her best to and still, values like hard work and integrity, responsibility, delayed gratification, all the things that give a child the foundation a brighter future for themselves. that is why i try everyday to be, for michelle and my girls, what my father was not for my mother and me. i've met plenty of other people, data novels, men without a family connection, who are trying to break the cycle and give more of our young people a strong male role model. being a good parent, whether you are gay or straight, a foster parent or a grandparent is not

easy. it demands your constant attention, frequent sacrifice, and of course a healthy dose of patience. nobody is perfect. to this day, i am still trying to figure out how to be a better husband to my wife and a better father to my kids. and i want to do what i can as president to encourage a strong marriage and strong families. we should reform our child- support laws to get more men working and engaged with their children. my administration will continue to work with the faith and other community organizations as well as businesses on a campaign to encourage strong parenting and fatherhood. host: mr. dicaro, any thoughts? guest: i think this administration has taken very seriously this notion of strengthening fatherhood for the well-being of children and family. i love how the president made the very important connection between his role as a husband and his role as a father. talking about the importance of marriage and strong marriages in terms of fostering responsible fatherhood, what the

research shows on averages that the best environment for fathers to do as best as they can for their kids is when they are married, and a good marriage to the folk mother of their children. that is really important and powerful that the president made that connection. in some sense, this agency working group that i mentioned earlier -- dare i say, this administration's best ongoing legacy because administrations are going to change. , andhe agencies go on folks that agencies go on. they are there for several administrations. to ensure that fatherhood programming is working to the fabric of what these agencies do is absolutely critical. host: cindy, good morning. caller: hello. the bible tells us how to be good fathers, and churches can

be a great help. i pray that we would turn to the lord for these instructions. thank you. host: some religious institutions. guest: i think that is important. this has to be multi sector initiative. we cannot leave anyone out. of all the areas that national fatherhood initiative works income i mentioned culture, government government, civic, we also worked with faith-based organizations to ensure that they have the tools that they need to serve fathers, specific liquor there are a lot of men's ministries. have released some programs and products and services to help churches also offer programming to fathers. host: pew research did some surveys on fathers. those respondents said hi as to 58%.e values and morals at

that is followed by emotional support and discipline. has that shifted from fatherhood of the past? guest: i would say that if you ask that question 50 years ago, you probably would have gotten a little bit different of an answer. i think it is fantastic that -- and i mentioned earlier, i did not even look at that before the show, i swear. things we try to provide our -- provide, nurture, died. the guide pieces passing down dollies. a wise man once said if you give children money and no values, you give them everything they need to fail, but if you give them values and no money, you give them everything they need to succeed. i think that is encouraging. everyone agrees. don on twitter says -- men are not to nurture children, my job is to discipline my child any threats my disappointment when she makes bad choices. guest: that is an important thing to do. they were disciplined means to teach.

i think people think about discipline and a think about punishment, but that is not what discipline is about, it is about teaching, and sometimes as a part of that, but nurturing is actually a very important thing for fathers to do. there are several studies that have shown that a fathers love is just as important as a mother's love for the healthy development of that child. children absolutely need attention from that. they just needed. -- just need it. i don't think we totally understand what is going on with kids in terms of psychology and what it means to have both your mother and your father loving you unconditionally and hugging you and kissing you and showing you affection. a something magical and it works. host: here is joe on our line for fathers. he is from lexington, kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. it is good to see you all. a grandfather, i

my concern is for my children good over the last 30 years, i have found that i do not have the time. my wife and i both work. developinghis as a situation and needs to be by the basically national economy -- educational and mating programs to help out. i do not see it changing a lot until maybe the popular perception of parent as a team is enhanced. now i look at television and radio and i hear "your husband is an idiot." we cane businesses -- " fix what your husband tried to fix." we hear that men are unnecessary, that we are abusers, that we are worthless, that we are unnecessary. now, that is just something that needs to be changed.

almost a sealevel change. in world war ii, we were seen as heroes. then it became workers, then the most working segment of society in the world. we work harder than anybody. now, we are missing in action again. so until we actually get to a point where people themselves ,hange, their attitudes change we are not going to want to change how men are viewed. host: thank you, caller. guest: you made some good points. i think cultural attitudes are extremely important. the national fatherhood initiative has always prided itself on trying to point out the folks in culture that are maybe not doing such great things around fatherhood. but also in some ways more portly celebrates the folks in culture who are doing good things. you mentioned tv commercials and movies and things, and yes, there are lindsay of men

getting depictions of fatherhood, commercial in some ways are the worst. when my wife and i watch tv, i'm always complaining about how terrible commercials make dad look, we're doing a campaign with tide and downey, government healthcare is another brand that has done positive things. there are good folks out there. we just need to use the power of the marketplace to vote with our money, so to speak, and support the companies that are doing the right thing and not spend our money with the folks that are not. host: talk about your masters thesis. guest: it was on the depiction of fathers in hollywood films. the overall portrayal was actually pretty good. took essentially blockbuster- type films that had a father character. this was in the late 1990's to early 2000's, and on average, the per trails were

overwhelmingly positive. if you look at some of the most popular movies over the last few decades, take some of the disney pixar movies for example. these are an norm as blockbusters with huge cultural relevance. there is almost always a good father. nemo" was about a dad striving to find his son and bring them home. so many movies along those lines. by myas frankly surprised findings, but i cannot fudge the data, so i had to go forward with it. so hollywood -- of course, it is a mixed bag, but there are great ones as well to we just to the director of "parental guidance." fathers, grandfathers, and marriage all in one movie. host: here is a caller from jacksonville, florida. caller: good morning, sir. when you talk about the black families and the kids with no thinken, i do not really

you understand the scope of the racism that is involved in desecrating the black family. i see kids, i see black guys on the corner everyday begging for jobs and stuff. i am on a city bus, that is what i see them. so i do not think you understand the scope of what is really happening down here in the trenches. the other thing i would like to say is that a lot of things is systematic. my wife left me because i could not afford her and my kids. but what happened was i actually begged of these caucasian white people in florida for work. begged. sir, please. i know i was qualified. so when you look at the situation with the black folks, you know, we are still dealing

with the age-old discrimination. you're right about one thing, had.- i thought msu i agree with everything and so you got down to the income. this is why prisons are full and everything. it is a system comment has to do with eugenics, and i know few know what that is, but that is .hat we do with it's not like you have you bubbling family. -- it sound like you have a bubbling family. have a good day. guest: in terms of getting to the trenches, what our we'vezation really does trained literally thousands of organizations around the country, community-based organizations around the country working with a variety of families. while i am i not personally -- being in the trenches myself, our position was really

designed to go with the folks that are down there in the trenches, working in the communities, and help them deliver high-quality fatherhood programming. i think we have actually trained over 6000 organizations around the country in the last 10 years on how to deliver fatherhood programming to their communities. overrepresents summer 13,000 individuals around the country now who have been trained by us. to serve ads in their communities. these are communities all over the country, including -- also prisons, military bases, ymca's might you name name it, we are there working with those folks in the trenches to help and do a better job of working with that. host: pew research, hours of work weeks for 2011, on average, father spent 37 hours of paid work, 10 hours of housework, seven hours of childcare, so that category says we need to

see fathers sharing other responsibilities. guest: it is changing. fathers and my demographic, my wife and i both work, so i understand it is a time issue. fathers have had to increase childcare, health -- housework, i mentioned the campaign we are doing with tide. that is a great campaign. dads do laundry. so the landscape is certainly changing. thomas in maryland is up next. caller: good morning to you gentlemen. i find it interesting that when the black color called, he made a very important point, but you seem like your guest kind of avoided it. and he was quick to show a chart premises and the children that are born out of

non-being married. what i also find interesting is that we have a problem with white supremacy still being the dominant factor in this country, and even if you talk about fatherhood and father's day is coming, you will never find a white man that will even admit that white supremacy is an issue. black fathers have been struggling since the last 20 years. you look at the black unemployment -- 40%. high numbers. you can't tell me that this is all because there is no black father in the home. it makes no sense. --n this gentleman here host: you put it out there, we will let the guest response. guest: i cannot address every point that comes up, this is one of the sort of out of my wheelhouse, so to speak. what i can tell you is that our organization works with organizations all over the with groups in urban

rural communities, suburban communities, we work with everyone for the sole porpoise of making sure that ,hey are delivering powerful positive services to dads to help those death be the best that they can be. that is what we can control as an organization could we cannot control everything. but we can control is to make sure that dads are getting the skills and the confidence and respect that they need. michael from ridgewood, new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to talk about what fathers do, men do to avoid unplanned fatherhood. a lot of these fatherless children are the result of unplanned parenthood. i would like to hear some more comments about what we can do to stop that. well, i'm not sure entirely what unplanned

fatherhood is, precisely. i think think we all know where babies come from. if you don't want to be a father, there are certain behaviors that you can avoid an certain things you can do when you are engaged in those behaviors to prevent that from happening. beyond that, i'm not sure what else i can said. -- can't say. host: what about those children being born out of wedlock? guest: i'm not sure we mean by that. host: children when they're born to a married couple, as far as unplanned premises and things along that nature. guest: there are unplanned pregnancies across the board. unmarried couples can have unplanned pregnancies. we needthe reality is to hold up an ideal in our someonethat says when is pregnant, both that man in that woman needs to come together for that well-being of the child. sometimes we have to put aside our -- what we want and need as

adults and make sure that we are providing what our children deserve. they did not have to be born. and they're coming into this world. the two people that are supposed to care for them the most, their mother and father, they just need to find a way to do that. , set asidegether differences, and really make sure that that child is getting what they need. i just want to briefly mention before we take the next call that that is really what our mission is asked national fatherhood initiative. we have fatherhood in our name, but our mission is really about the well-being of children. that is really what we're focused on, making sure that children are getting what they need from their parents. studythere was a 2012 according to forbes, 12% of fathers took paid parental leave when it was offered compared to 69% of mothers. new data in the study to take paternity leave, many were still involved in project at the office. talk a little bit about that trend as far as per turner the -- paternity leave.

guest: i have seen these statistics as well. the fact that so few fathers take advantage of paternity leave is a reflection of our not as that says it is important for fathers to be involved in the lives of infants. i think it is also a reduction of corporate culture where there is a lot more pressure on men to perform. , andave a 12 month year there are goals to be met, and if you are out to a month taking paternity, you have missed a full 1/12 of the work here. if he is not here, we are not going to -- i think there are think that our corporate culture needs to change. i think my generation and the generation before me that are going to be starting to become fathers are going to be much more focused on the solution of work-life balance and spinning time with their families. the culture has to change as well to accommodate father

involvement. again, i was try to go back to the research. the research shows that for and fatherth mother involvement are equally important. it is critical for both to be involved in that infant's life. ,ognitive development emotional development, attachment, all these things are critically important to the health the department -- healthy development of the infant. tweet -- is the best thing that makes a good father a good paying job? guest: i think that is a debate that has been happening around moms as well for a long time. that the value of what moms do in the home is extremely high. of course it is not get paid. i guess it is a good thing that we're starting to to have a conversation around fatherhood as well. host: here is a caller from tampa, florida. i am african american,

and i would like to say from the comments i have heard from other african-americans and yourself -- they all seem to be on point, and i will tell you why. am the part of a single- family -- single-parent home. way to pa school. i'm saying this because the lack of a father in the home has had a great influence on me and who i have become. when i had a man come into my life who was actually my sister 's father, he showed me away and gave me a direction. i'm going to go to a commercial aspect. hip-hop in the last 10, 15 years, i mean, it has dominated the black culture. it has given a very negative connotation to women, the way young black men treat women, and this is what we have seen. it has been a lack of a father in the household. coming from somebody who had a background that the father is

important. for an african-american to say that it is not the lack of a problem -- it is. there is a lack of a social economic impact as well. when you have more african american women working, and when i was married, my wife made more than i did. it is a little harder for african-american men, but it is possible. it is three hard to find your identity when you don't have someone in front of you. so what i hear from you is very true, what i hear from the african-american men is also very true. i think what you guys are doing, showing the value and the wealth of the father, which is about the children, for the generation that is going to come, i think it is all very on point and timely. i am supporting what you are saying, but there are certain aspects that also play a role. that is all i kind of wanted to say and chime in. you are doing a great job. happy father's day. guest: thank you.

i really appreciate that. when you mention your wife made more money than you, i smile because i am in the nonprofit world, and my wife also makes more money than me. i am on the record as saying that. i do not know what that will do to me, but my wife will be very proud to hear that. i really appreciate what you said. i will go back to this notion of what can be controlled and what can't be controlled, especially when it comes to -- if you are a dad, there are a lot of a legitimate issues out there. i do not want to deny that issues have an impact on this issue of fatherhood. what we can control as fathers going to-- how are we relate to our children? are we going to treat the mother of our children? that is something you can change right this moment. i think that is actually to me what is empowering, to know, to have that knowledge and confidence that right this very moment you can actually start to turn things around and change

things by just engaging in the lives of your children. i think that is why it is so critical, at least from mine's perspective, for us to focus on fathers having the skills in our culture to be good dads. there are other issues, some of them are legitimate. righten you can control now as a father is the level of involvement that you have in your children's lives and how you relate to them. host: here is robert from hastings, florida, calling in on our line for fathers. good morning. caller: good morning. how canussion based on fathers not have children in the black community, this is something that we looked at from a biblical standpoint. to stay fromothy the thing that is done for you. so parents leaving their

children, based on the bible infancyathy up -- from up can cause children to have a have children at a particular time and age until they are ready for marriage criticism in a parents, fathers have to look at. ,t says take care of your own especially those of you in the face. -- in the faith. that means both physically and spiritually. so the parent to do that, the father, which is the head of the household, can do that, can really avoid the high un- marriage of children. this is something that will plague mankind to the end because we know that we are living in the last days. host: thank you, caller. guest: i would say we actually

did some national surveys on both mothers' attitudes and attitudes about fatherhood, and both agreed that there is a father-absence crisis in the country. there is more of a broad agreement that something is not quite right with what is happening with fatherhood in our country, and something needs to be done about it. again, for us to make him back to changing cultural attitudes on this level and on this level making sure that we are getting father's day skills that they need. host: what can mothers do to make fathers better? guest: mothers can act as facilitators to father involvement. we have developed a couple of programs to address that point. a couple of years ago, we had a workshop called "mom is the gateway." there is a notion of internal gatekeeping that mothers control the level and nature of the access that fathers have to their children, that happens in marriages come outside of marriage is, wherever. so we developed mom as a

gateway to help moms understand they can play a role in facilitating a role for their children. two months ago, we release a full fledged curriculum d," tostanding data facilitate father involvement, to up them understand why father involvement is important, and what role they can play specifically. effort you make in improving fatherhood, how do you know when you are successful you g? guest: at the macro level, we can look at the u.s. census bureau numbers and see if they're changing. that is in some sense the .ltimate measure father absence is not getting worse.

it actually has improved slightly during i think phase one, so to speak, is successful. reversing need to be that trend. on the micro level, we evaluate our program to make sure that they are effectively delivering at positive fathering knowledge and attitudes and behaviors to the gods that we are serving through our programs. we have had -- behaviors to the dads that we are serving through our programs. host: vice president for the development, fatherhood.org, if you want to find out more about ,heir work, vincent dicaro thank you. coming up tomorrow, we dedicate the whole show looking at the patriot act and what we are , paul singert 7:45 of "usa today" will talk about the creation of the patriot act. nathan sales, a former justice department senior counsel, and

helped write portion of it, and talk about section 215 others and will explain what those sections are. and then laura donahue from georgetown university will talk about the role of the fisa court and she will tell you how work, who composite, etc. appeared all of these segments, your call, plus we were take a look at the news segments as well. thank you for joining us. have a good day. ♪