tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 15, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EST
future of political party speech online. later, president of the american association of community colleges on the administration's plan to guarantee high school graduates free tuition to committee college. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. host: good morning it's thursday january 15th, 2015. lawmakers are away from capitol hill today as republicans held a joint strategizing session in hershey, pennsylvania, and democrats held their own in baltimore, maryland. the president is expected to appear at that senate democrats meeting today before returning to the white house for dinner with prime minister david cameron. ar-15 to discuss cyber security -- they are expected to discuss
cyber security and heightened security. our phone lines are open. we are happy to your thoughts on this topic. the numbers are on the screen. you can also catch up with us on social media. a very good thursday morning to you. we begin today with a headline about a 40 planned assault on the united states capitol, this from the "washington times" this morning. an ohio man planted -- slotted into a tactic capital, saying he wanted to work with islamic
state. the fbi and homeland security issued a memo notifying lot basement -- law enforcement agencies across the nation about the memo. that story coming during the week british prime minister david cameron is expected at the white house, and in which he is suggesting banning some online messaging apps. snack chat and whatsapp are in the crosshairs in britain,
according -- snapped chat and whatsapp are in the crosshairs in britain, according to the article. british prime minister david cameron spoke about this yesterday when he was questioned during prime minister's questions. here is a vet -- a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] crest our first priority is to keep the country safe. we certainly don't do that by trashing our own liberties and traditions, but i believe when it comes to this issue of having proper surveillance on communications of essential terrace, of until now, this parliament and british government has taken a very clear view. whether it has been about six
telephone two medications or mobile telephone communications, we have always believed that it should be possible to look at someone's communications to try to stop a terrorist outrage. and the decision i think we have to take is, are we prepared to allow the future as technology develops, safe spaces for terrorists to communicate? no we are not content for that to happen and as a result, we should look to legislate accordingly. host: as we said, british from mr. david cameron taking that message to the white house today. here's the front page of "the guardian" newspaper. the story noting that david cameron will urge barack obama to pressure internet giants such as twitter and facebook to do more and cooperate with britain's intelligence agencies as they seek to track the online activities of islamist extremists.
this brings up the question for our viewers this morning that we are asking -- would you be ok giving up more online privacy for greater national security whether it is this effort that david cameron is talking about or other u.s. agencies? especially in the wake of the edward snowden disclosures. we would like your thoughts on this topic. good morning, you are up on the washington journal. caller: how do you define national security? national security for one country might be another security concern for someone else. we debate political views online without any limit. and if you tell me that i should have to use words -- not to say
something to somebody else, then policing this is impossible. to me, the online issue, it should be as free as anybody else. the question now is this is an international issue. nondemocratic countries are stifling this online, they even cut the line. the problem is that maybe you are helping tyrants to subjugate their own people. host: let me ask you this. when you communicate online, do you have any expectation for privacy? caller: for me, whatever we do online is our affair. we can talk stop we can discuss. -- we can talk.
we can discuss. terrorism now is corrupting everything. find some way to find the terrorists but do not say that we should not say this or that. it is undemocratic and it will not solve any problem. host: edwin christian right in on our twitter page that the nsa has already disclosed that we have no privacy online. they follow everything we do. and asking, what is left to give up? david cameron's remarks have earned some pushback from privacy groups this week already, and in a statement from national privacy spokesman mike rizzoli in response to david cameron's comments, he says this.
some pushback from privacy groups happening, and coming during the same week in which president obama has spent several days unveiling some new cyber security proposals. this according to the guardian as well. the measures come amid warning from privacy campaigners about unnecessary broad legal immunity that would put personal information at risk in the wake of the attacks on sony pictures. just one day after the pentagon's own twitter account was compromised --
we will get into the specifics of the proposals that president obama put forth in our next segment of the "washington journal." we will be talking more about those cyber security proposals and breaking them down with a former white house cyber security at advisor. but this question for the next 45 minutes, would you give up more online privacy for security? jesse, good morning. caller: yes, this is jesse. we give a lot of other presidents the opportunity to protect america. there are too many cells working in this country.
we need to have that. we have taken everything away from this president to protect america, saying we want our privacy. but if something happens, we will blame him. we need to have the organization and the funds to protect america. just like when they had that disease from africa. host: you are talking about ebola there. but in general, you don't see much cooperation from this congress in terms of helping the president? caller: you got it, baby. we will have to help our own selves.
you do dirty to one people, it's going to happen to you. i'm looking at your station and i see so much evil against this president. we all better get on our knees and pray. host: all right, jesse, we've got your point. on this issue of what congress can do, there is a column in the "wall street journal" by the former speaker of the house, new english. -- newt gingrich. some topics include --
if you want to read more from former speaker of the house, newt gingrich, and why -- on why we are losing to radical islam this column in "the wall street journal."
frank is up next. good morning. caller: the internet is a free thing and is great that we have it. everyone is going to do something. if they want to do something that, there's not much you will be able to do. -- if they want to do something bad, there's not much you will be able to do. i don't want to give up anything for national security. they should be over there
controlling these people and then putting up the firewalls, like everybody else does. they shouldn't be on facebook. they should not be anywhere near social media. if there is going to be social media with them people over there coming over to us and saying that we do things and they do things, it's free. if we get hacked, put a firewall up. learn how to do it. it is simple. it's not hard. nobody should be able to cry about this. just get it done. host: the same question i asked earlier, if you have any expectation of privacy when you go online these days? caller: the way you use privacy when you go online, do not usually a card that has do with your bank account. that is what you need to do. and always use a prepaid card and you will be fine. it's that simple. host: a recent poll from pew
research center looks at cyber security in the post edward snowden area -- era. 80% of adults agree or strongly agree that america should be concerned about the government's mom wanting -- monitoring. if you want to read more on the pew report, which specifically looks into different kind of medication that people feel is more or less secure, that is the pew research center. we are taking your calls this morning. would you give up more of your online privacy in the name of greater national security? bill from corpus christi texas good morning. caller: good morning, sir.
i think benjamin franklin said it best. he would give up freedom -- he who would give up freedom for security will soon realize he has neither. the way we are creating capitalism is creating more enemies than we might be able to handle. host: a larger question from bill there in corpus christie. steve is next on the line for republicans from kentucky. caller: good morning. bill just kind of made my point for me, but i will go ahead and reiterate. it cannot be said too much. benjamin friedman said, those who would surrender essential -- benjamin franklin said those who would surrender essential liberty for security will get neither. host: how did the edward snowden
revelations change your online habits and how you think about government monitoring and online security? caller: i'm not even online. i've never even invested in a computer. snowden, well, snowden should never be allowed back in this country in my opinion. unless it's to go to jail. but that's all i got to say. host: before you go, you say you're not online. would you be ok with these companies who do use social media turning over information to the government in the name of security ipo i think we lost -- in the name of security? i think we lost the. and on the twitter page, how much online quest -- how much
online privacy would you have to get back to feel comfortable? and on the line for independent andy, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say i think president obama is out of control. everything we see and do is being watched already. i believe the right is already taken. it's just another way of influencing the population into, you know, into this whole system. host: andy, what would you want congress to do? do you think this -- there is any way to reverse this course that we are talking about? or do you want to see it reversed? caller: i think congress should be fired. i don't think they do any good. they get voted in. if you look at what they make and what they should be making
and what the people are making does not make any sense. people are starting out here. nobody is making money. people are losing their homes. congress, look at what they're getting. they're getting a raise. obama makes these laws at the stroke of midnight on new year's eve, you know, on holidays, and sneaks in all of these laws. everyone, they are sneakers. that's my feeling. host: on twitter how about safe spaces for everyone else to committee without you listening? and on our facebook page, it is facebook.com/c-span if you want to follow along on the conversation. bobby right, it's the last real bastion of freedom that we have. and brenda says there is no privacy on the net. mark, good morning. caller: good morning.
one of your questions is, do you have an expectation of privacy the online? i worked as an attorney and we do virtually all of our communications by e-mail these days. yes, i do have an expectation of privacy. my communications with my clients and with governmental agencies are, indeed supposed to become potential. and i believe there is a long line -- i have not looked it up, but i believe there is a long lannett supreme court cases going on all the way back to the start of the country -- a long line of supreme court cases going back to the start of the country that people have the right to a reasonable amount of privacy in their communications. and i would like to add to that so far as i'm concerned these things that are cited as supportive of a loss of privacy
are the fault of people who get hacked. sony, they obviously did not happen of firewalls, as the earlier generals -- gentlemen said. they did not happen of security there. the guys in paris, apparently they had been -- the french government had been flagged to their terrorist activities or their sympathies for islamist radicals and whatnot for years and years, but they did not follow through. and eric snowden -- host: that is what i want to ask you about, how have your opinions change since edward snowden? are you confident in the fisa court, the warrants that are needed for certain specific searches? caller: i was about to touch on eric snowden. i have no confidence in the fight the courts. i had -- i do not practice in
that area, but i think there has only been one case over the years were the fisa court actually turned down a request for a search warrant. and i believe they went back and modified the request and they ended up getting it anyway. at the end of the day, i don't think there is any privacy. frankly, i consider eric snowden to be a hero, because he alerted the people of this country to the fact that the government is seeking this information. host: you expect there to be privacy in your communications but it doesn't sound like you have a lot of confidence that there is. caller: well, yeah, there's the dilemma indeed, right? my hope is that ultimately there would be a supreme court case that comes down and restricts the government. i think at the end of the day
if you were to ask the spy agencies, well, how much ability to poke around in people's businesses would you like, they are going to say they want everything. they will want to do whatever they possibly can to make life easier for them. you know, why not put portable video cameras in the corners of everyone's rooms in their houses? we might be able to find every single terrorist than if we start watching. host: when david cameron starts talking about banning services like chat and whatsapp if they don't open up to british the dirty services -- british security services, are you surprised? caller: i'm certainly not the price. that is what the agencies will want. -- i'm certainly not surprised. that is what the agencies will want. the gentleman before me use the
often use c quote from benjamin franklin. at the end of the day the terrorist attacks that we are talking about here, either the hacking of the sony or the terrorists situation or whatever, these are things that could have been -- you know, had the government incompetent in doing -- had the government been competent in doing what it should have been doing in the first place they could have prevented. there is no need to take away the freedoms of every citizen of the country. i'm troubled by the fact that they say, we are going to check the e-mails of suspected islamic terrorists, or just terrorists leave out the islamic part. where is that line drawn? potentially everyone in the world is a terrorist. host: we appreciate the call
from st. paul, minnesota. you said you have expectation for security mostly in your communications with clients as a lawyer. you say you do a lot with e-mail. from that pew center report, it notes the percentage of adults who feel varying degrees of security when sharing private information with another trusted person or organization 19% of adults say they feel very secure sharing that information over a landline with 51% saying they feel somewhat secure. when it comes to the cell phone, that drops to 43% saying they feel somewhat secure and 9% feeling very secure. sending text messages drops lower than that. e-mail, 35% feel somewhat secure and 5% feeling very secure. that is the pew center report if
you want to read more on public perceptions of privacy and security in the post snowden era . that is the title of the report. joey new york on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i love that guy from minnesota. a great call. you always get calls, but never asked the right question. host: what is the right question ? go ahead. caller: the right question is, who could take away the things you hold most dear, your constitutional rights, your civil liberties, who do you fear most could take them away? a few wackos running around out there, or this government. eric snowden told the truth and he's hiding out in moscow so they don't kill him.
the head of the nsa committed perjury and he still head of the nsa. he hasn't been arrested or charged with perjury. who do you fear most to take away your rights? a couple of wacko terrorists, or this all-consuming government? host: we will let viewers and to that question, too, if they want to call in over the next 15 or 20 minutes while we have open phones. the question we started with would you give up more online privacy for greater national security? but i'm happy to talk about his many different aspects of this topic as you want. ring to the "washington times" lead editorial board today, they say that stopping jihad in america begins with more border security in the wake of the paris attacks that killed 17 men and women last week stop -- last week.
if you want to read more from the editorial board of "the washington times" that is in today's paper on the subject of border control. and simply immigration policy, as we noted on our show, yesterday there was that vote in the house to block the president's executive orders on immigration and immigration policy. the house passed its bill, 236-191. the bill, of course, would unravel president obama's plan to give safe harbor to 4 million illegal immigrants.
the story noting that it would send to the bennett and it needs 60 votes. -- the story noting that it goes to the senate and needs 60 votes. anita is on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? thank you for c-span. host: i'm good. thank you for calling in. caller: thank you. host: go ahead with your comment. caller: i don't think we have any more rights to give. they have taken them all. but i do believe the government is just trying to stop everything. they want their way, and that is the reason older people have had social security.
host: ok, and bonita hung up. let's go to dug in new york, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i appreciate you have in the program. my comment is, basically if you look at the infrastructure set up all around, you have this bureaucracy that has been set up. this corporate welfare, if you will. i saw an interesting program where they had 85 contracts in 2001 with 144 -- i'm sorry 144 contracts with 85 different contractors before 2001. now that it is 7917 at last count. and i cannot say how many thousands of contractors. it is an extension of the bureaucracy. they basically have incorporated this total spy network that has
a couple million people involved in private enterprise. they have large security clearance. it allows them to continue these contracts, while the lobbyists continue to pressure can't -- congress to endow them with special abilities. and it is so large that you have to extend the boundaries of the town to incorporate this huge facility. you find with the five records that -- the fightfisa courts, it's funny, today is the birthday of martin luther king right around six years ago there was someone who threatened president bush, the chief of staff, and the attorney general.
several people were told to report directly to her and she had a sitdown with them and told them she was finding a lot of this information that was being provided to them to issue these warrants was basically baseless assertions and she would no longer issue warrants and let someone from the justice department came down to her and swore to her in person. this is what has been going on. host: it leads back to our collar joe's question perhaps who do you fear more in taking away your rights, the government or terrorist groups? caller: well, the government has always basically instilled in us the idea of "be afraid." when you are afraid, i think it was rousseau, the great philosopher, who said fear is worse than death, because it holds the mind hostage. and it's very true. when people are afraid, they are
willing to do almost anything. this is what is always sold. when you find out what has transpired with these terrorists you manufacture this ability to search for the so-called bluffs and -- maloof's and there is a lot of propaganda and most of them never read the koran. and they are able to instill this idea, and i have public services being taken over by private corporations. and private corporations look at it civilly as consumers are collateral damage. we are no longer citizens. we are told to be consumers. people don't know who their senators are, the representatives. we have no idea what is going on in this country and we get misinformed and misdirected by the mainstream media, who
basically tells us one thing and then somebody else is another thing, and they never challenge them. they never say, do you have documentation? they just allow them to politely on -- come on and you have the security experts and terrorism experts that have no expertise in these areas, and they, and they threaten us. basically, you need to do certain things, or else they will come and get us. this is what we will -- we have been given over the last 14 years. and unfortunately, i don't see it changing anywhere in the future. host: doug in staten island, new york. that revising on twitter sacrificing privacy to gain security on the internet is a full's errand come an excuse for easy monitoring of the public. -- is a fools errand, an excuse for easy monitoring of the public. we have a few minutes left.
the obama administration moving inmates out of the guantanamo center. according to military documents made public by wikileaks, -- that is "the washington post" story on that topic. and also the lead today in "the washington post" points to major changes in the secret service forcing out four of its most senior officials, while two others are retiring stop it is the -- are retiring. it is the biggest management shakeup after security lapses
last year. this story by carol lynnlennig who has been tracking the secret service online. one quote she got from a local critic of the secret service said the changes were not enough. that story, again, in "the washington post" today. richard from crosby, texas, and independent. caller: i'm just curious like
twitter my facebook, and all them, there is nobody monitoring them. but they have to do it internally or a red flag should come up if they say something terrorist or something. a red flag should be thrown up. they should always catch that. host: richard, you think it should be on the private companies themselves and not the federal government to raise these red flags? caller: yeah, i think it should be on the company's responsibility to report that to our government. and it's not being done. we could talk two minutes to our families back home in just
general conversation and they cut it off they stop listening. but if you said something about the route they was taking, boom, your phone call automatically stops and the next thing you know, they're coming to get you. they have your computer and everything. they can look through everything your clothes, foot locker, everything. i think the companies ought to automatically have a red flag and if that red flag goes up the government should step in and say, what was said? host: richard, is that different from what british prime minister david cameron is advocating? he is saying that spies should
be able to monitor all of those online messaging services. and of course, that is getting a lot of pushback from privacy groups in recent days. some recent tweets from private security. and senator coates from indiana saying this, staying off the internet is not a cyber security strategy. and one other tweet this morning from patrick meehan, republican from pennsylvania. he talks about the president's visit to the national cyber security and integration center shows the importance of strengthening our cyber defenses. several members tweeting about this, putting a message is week. we will be talking about specific proposals the president put forward in the next 45 minutes from about 7:45 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. with howard schmidt, the former white house cyber security coordinator from
2009-12. and he continues to work on these issues in the private sector. jesse in fayetteville, arkansas, on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is very important for us to understand that for our policy to go into place, we have to think about the original intent, which they would say to be to prevent terrorism. but we have to admit and address that this country has a long documented history of domestic spying to eliminate unpopular voices that rise up within the nation. what i'm trying to say is that i don't think we can trust the government to simply use that information they would gather to prevent terrorism. i think it would be used politically. it could be a 20-year-old in college who has an opinion and 20 years later he wants to run for political office, and they could easily go back to what you were doing 20 years ago, or even
10 years ago. i think it would just be another tool to carry out domestic spying. host: you think it is more harm than good? that the harm outweighs the lease that might come from it -- the leads that might come from it or what their government might use to stop a potential attack? caller: absolutely. they need specific rules to limit any data collected strictly for terror prevention. there should be rules put into the policy where there are no secret rulings. and there should be strict prosecution for leaks of the data. if the government has no other way to stop terrorism from reaching our borders, we need to add least cap varies -- at least have a very stringent rules.
i could see this in the hands of politicians who do not use it to hamper competition as it relates to -- who do use it to hamper competition as it relates to political agendas. host: talking about cyber security efforts and efforts to combat extremism and terrorism around the world. a dinner happening with british prime minister david cameron at the white house tonight. a republican retreat is taking place, house members and republican senate manners -- members meeting in hershey pennsylvania. you can watch the news conference from that strategy session on to 10 at 11:45 a.m. today aaron right here. and also later at 230 -- airing right here. and also later at 2:30 p.m., a news conference from the republican retreat taking place in hershey, pennsylvania, the first joint retreat in 10 years.
cathy mcmorris rodgers is a member of the house leadership and she sent out a tweet yesterday of her travels up there in hershey, pennsylvania in a tweet with jay leno. we are taking your calls and comments for the next five minutes or so. would you give up more online privacy for greater national security? in illinois, the line for republicans, paul, good morning. caller: good morning. here is my comment. everybody talks about, oh, my god, like we have a decision on this or not. we don't. as americans every american born already is issued a social security number. that social security number gives you a profile from the day you're born. we have already given up our right to privacy.
via the social security number. this is why we have this disc are -- this concern with illegal aliens, because they are the only ones in this country who truly have privacy. because a social security number allows you to just use cash and there is no paper trail. j edgar hoover a long time ago settle this question of privacy. with everyone born in this country having a social security number, that build a profile for the rest of your life. so there is no privacy in this country. that is all i have to say. host: and morton is waiting in new hampshire, the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. many of the former people, i agree with many of them, but i have some news that i don't think has been reported.
-- has been reported by fox, by you, or by many of the tv experts. and i would like to tell you i have some suspicions about obama in his early term. i decided to read his autobiographies. host: i'm sorry, who are we talking about, morton? caller: president obama before he was president. i read his books autobiography books that he wrote. and i want to read a significant section from one of them. host: don't read it, but tell us what you think and how this applies to this question of online privacy and national security. caller: because i think that this quotation from his book, on
his -- what he says he will do in his autobiography will completely destroy our security. and he's doing it right now. let me explain. host: moran, we have very little time left, so go ahead. -- morton, we have very little time left, so go ahead. caller: all right, the statement he made after he got out of harvard and before he was president, it was titled "dreams from my father." and in it he writes, and i'm quoting exactly. "should the political wind shift in an ugly way in the future, i will stand with the muslims." those are his own words in his own autobiographic book "dreams from my father," an original
edition. i read it twice. right now, he is in charge of all our forces, our armed forces. and he says he will side with our present enemies, the muslim radicals. host: that is morton in exeter new hampshire. on the issue of privacy, a virginia texan -- virginia, a texan right online privacy is an oxymoron. there ain't any such thing and there never was. up next, we will be joined by howard schmidt. he has served as the white house cyber security coordinator under obama. and we will talk about the president bush this week for better cyber security protection. and later, we will be joined by the former sec chair and current commissioner lee goodman to talk about campaign-finance laws
coming up on the five-year anniversary of citizens united. we will be right back. ♪ >> here are some of our featured programs from this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2 saturday night at 10:00 on book tvs afterwards, bret stephens argues that our enemies and competitors are taking advantage of the situation abroad created by the u.s. as it focuses on its domestic route concerns. and sunday night at 10:00, steve israel on his recent novel about a salesman and a top-secret government surveillance program. and on american history tv on c-span3 saturday at 8 p.m. eastern, george mason professor john turner on the attempt to create a new west in the 1830's. and sunday afternoon at 4 p.m.,
the nine from little rock, the academy award-winning film about the desegregation of little rock, arkansas is all white high school. the schedule is completely at c-span.org. let us know what you think of the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us. or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. host: howard schmidt served a cyber security cordon it are from 2009-12 and continues to work in the private sector. what is the most important action you think the president put forward this week? guest: i think the biggest thing
is trying to get some clarity around information sharing. it has been one of the biggest issues we have dealt with going back to 1998 with president clinton and the executive document he put out. we are still talking about information sharing. the president put some good focus on it and looking to congress to say, listen, you give us the tools to do information sharing and we can help get a better handle on this issue. host: what are the tools that we are talking about? what are the tools that he wanted place? guest: i think the biggest thing is legislation. there has been peace of legislation put forth by dutch ruppersberger and former congressman mike rogers that initially when they put it out -- and i was on a trip when i got a call from dutch's office saying, look, we are putting forward this bill. it is effectively giving the intelligence community and the department of defense the
opportunity to lead this effort. and we explained to them very, very specifically that this is not going to cut it. this is something they should be a part of, but this is a homeland security issue. that particular piece of legislation -- and by the way, this was about 2010, 2011. there is been a lot of push by privacy advocates. there is been a lot of -- there has been a lot of push by security experts. both sides are lobbying and we still can't seem to get it out. the senate at the time said they are not going to begin to. so it just sort of royalty around -- roiled around through the house for a while. if we give some protection to the companies, if we give some direct capability of not classifying everything under the run, the private sector will have better capabilities to see what is coming and, hopefully,
protect themselves. >> what is the biggest obstacle to this happening in congress? -- host: what is the biggest obstacle to this happening in congress? guest: i think the liability protection. as you look through the language of the proposal, it talks about protection, information sharing if it is a data breach, for example, that the liability has been lifted, because of the fact that we need the security more so than the liability protection. and some groups feel that we give private industry, particularly large corporations, free reign to start with this conduct that we used to deal with a long time ago. i think that will be the big debate. but there are two sides to this. when you start looking at the needs that we have as businesses to be successful to continue to create jobs, we really need the backing of congress to say listen, we want to share it, but we want protection in doing so.
otherwise, particularly our lawyers will that off and say, we will release a little bit, but not a lot of information. host: president obama has been talking about this week in his push for new cyber security legislation, here is a bit from his event, his appearance at the federal trade commission this week. [video clip] >> we are introducing legislation to create a single strong, national standard so americans know when their information has been stolen or misused. right now, every state has a different launch, and it is confusing for consumers and for companies. and it is costly, too, to have to comply with this patchwork of laws. sometimes folks don't even find out their credit card information has been stolen until they see charges on their bill and it is too late. under the new standard we are proposing, companies would have to notify consumers of a breach
within 30 days. in addition, we are proposing to close loopholes in the law so we can go after more criminals who steal and sell the identities of americans, even when they do it overseas. host: and this notification of her, this would be different from the information sharing legislation that you have been talking about, correct, mr. schmidt? guest: that is correct. and once again, the data breach notification is something that we have been tailing, again, since the 2001 timeframe. basically, we are somewhere around 46, maybe including district of columbia 47 states, if you would, that have different data breach notification laws. california has one of the best. they have had it the longest. it is the most responsive to the consumer load. but there are a lot of other states that have a hodgepodge of these things. and as the president said, and the words that we used many times while i was there, it is
making it very difficult for a consumer like us to understand what our rights are under these things. what are the data breaches we have to be notified of, or the ability for us to protect ourselves? but on the flipside, you look at multinational, or even just national businesses. how do you build a privacy protection scheme in their? how do you build notification where you have all of these different states requiring different requirements? it is a constant situation where you have federal preemption, and most of us don't like federal preemption. we want states rights to prevail. but in this case it is probably prime for it, because "i smuggled the business community and the individuals, the ability to understand -- because we give both sides, the business and unity individuals, the ability to understand what is required. if this moves forward, and i hope it does, then it should not
undercut some of the existing strong data breach notification laws. that would just undermine some of the work that has been done in the state. host: we are with howard schmidt, the former white house cyber security coordinator. he still works on cyber security issues talking about the proposals the president has been put forward this week -- has put forward this week. if you have questions, comments for howard schmidt, the phone lines are open. the numbers are on the screen. mr. schmidt, we were talking about online privacy and the threat, specifically national security threat in our first 45 minutes of the show today. several viewers commented that there is no such thing as privacy online. in your experience, would you agree?
guest: i would. going back to the early days when we started to pay attention to privacy, and bear in mind, we were our own self victims because we would put all kinds and -- all kinds of information out there to get a free gallon of milk or a dozen eggs, and that is just perpetuating it. it is a great parking fees, and still is. many of us do things like that. -- a great marking piece, and still is. many of us do things like that. i'm member probably in the late 1990's where companies started to -- i remember probably in the late 1990's for companies started to be chastised. what are you doing with the data? suddenly, i'm getting all of these e-mails, all of these things in snail mail, and i want protection from it. and then on top of that we had data breaches where people were saying, why were you keeping this information on me?
all i wanted was a catalog once a year. that was the beginning of it. the problem is, you cannot unring that bell. there is a tremendous amount of information that has been stolen over and over that has social security information, dates of birth, pin numbers, mother's maiden name, all of those things we thought were there to protect us. that has been out there for years. pretty much anything anyone wants to find on somebody, you are capable of doing it now. and one of the things that we need to start looking at, and i will speak to this throughout the entire segment, that we need to look at different ways moving forward. we cannot recapture what we have lost, but we can better protect it in the future. host: jerry is a first, calling in from new orleans, louisiana as we are talking to howard schmidt, the former white house cyber security coordinator. good morning. caller: good morning. i just called in to say i think it should be obvious to people in this country that we have
inside people giving out inside information. they are helping these hackers and i think they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, whether they work for the government or a hired private company for the government. i think they should be severely prosecuted when it comes to giving out information that is helping hackers. thank you. host: mr. schmidt, can you expand on that, and how prevalent that is, of insiders giving out information to hackers? guest: i sure can, and thanks for the question, jerry. that is core to one of the things we talk about. we have an insider, a disgruntled employee, someone looking for financial gain that has access to all of this information. i mentioned before the social security numbers date of birth mother's maiden name, etc., and i could not agree more. there has to be a special
category that people that do things when you are in a trusted position. there is a myriad of things that take place that, one, we cannot attribute it to where it came from, and that becomes difficult. we look at a lot of the recent hacks. there is a lot of discussion of the possibility that the information came from an insider that gave an outsider the ability to break into the system. that is one piece of it, but we really need to hold people accountable for using the press it -- the trusted position they are in to do bad things. host: you bring up the issue of trust. this information sharing between companies and a government that you are talking about, the separate that has been going on for years, can you talk about whether the government can trust the companyies? it is a two-way street when it comes to trust, correct? guest: that is correct.
i think back to the earlier world, the sort of paper world. you needed physical access to something. you needed to go through saves and locks and stuff to get to places. but from a business perspective, doing network connections and remote access, and everything, giving people access to systems is now a way of doing business. as a consequence, howdy you wind up creating a mechanism -- and we should know how to do it by now -- where you and i have access to only this small amount of information. we cannot move it, print it. we refer to that as digital rights management. it gives us the ability to focus on it. right now, when e-mail goes out, stock reports go out, government data goes out, it is generally accessible to people that get a credential to pick it up.
as a consequence, we do not have the ability to coalesce the data that would be public and the data that should be monitored and sensitive. so, that is the way we really need to start rethinking this to make sure we have a better data classification scheme. the government has a good one in the classified world, but a lot of the unclassified -- sensitive, but unclassified data, is accessible through normal networks and people it should not be. host: can is up next. lancaster, south carolina. our line for independents. caller: can i make two statements -- one on obama, and the second on cyber security. do not call me off. every time a black caller calls in and says something negative
about obama, they always claim it is racism. i disagree with immigration. i am a black man. black and employment is higher than any legal immigration. -- than illegal immigration. cyber security -- there has not been security since the days j edgar hoover had a file on the congressman. i heard cyber experts say snowden is the hero. host: ken in and out. another caller that says there is no such thing as privacy online brings up the actions of nsa leaker edward snowden. what are your thoughts on what hundreds -- edward snowden did? guest: it is interesting. history will set a point
somewhere whether he was a hero or a traitor, but the bottom line is even when i was at the white house with president bush and president obama, it was an increasing desire to get more information. think back to 2001. we had nowhere near the number of smartphones that we have today -- the tablets, all of the access that we have. as we have been doing more online, intelligence organizations have said there is more all caps to collect. -- there is more out there to collect. the question is just because you can, it does not mean you should. the revelations snowden came out with surprise some people. others said what is the big deal , that is what our job is in the intelligence community? the interesting thing, i was in europe when the second round of snowden discussions came out
and the president made the comment that we do not spy on u.s. citizens. i was with some major ceos in europe who do a lot of business in the united states, and one of them came up to me and pointedly asked, i am not a u.s. citizen. i do business in the u.s.. do they spy on me? my answer was i do not know, but anyone that goes from one country to another that has something that is valuable, the intelligence agencies are going to try to pick it up. it is a difficult thing that we wind up dealing with. when it comes to snowden, the revelations that he did, it put a higher level of awareness not only the net states, but around the world, what is possible with intelligence agencies. host: bring it to the president this week pushing for information sharing. what role will the nsa play in that effort versus the
department of homeland security? guest: well, i do not know, and i do not think it is finalized because it is part of proposed legislation. what we worked on his nsa would be a contributor because they had the biggest collection engine, but they would pass it on to civil agencies -- specifically homeland security, which has the responsibility to work with the private sector, to give them what they need, so they can be more successful. it is a two-way street. when we talk about information sharing, back in 1999, on president clinton's presidential order, the first information sharing and analysis center was formed by the financial services. we in the i.t. business, i presided over the first i.t.
isaac, and the issue i have is to make sure we leverage these. do not create something new. we have these bodies that do technical sharing, geopolitical sharing, and they share with the government, from time to time. i think it is a great idea. we need to bring it to bear and execute on a number of the promises we have put out its 1999. host: some skepticism from viewers. don writes in on twitter -- cyber security is code for the nsa and amazon sharing data so they can sell me stuff better. we are talking to howard schmidt, former white house security coordinator. ed is next in bedford, massachusetts, our line for
democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. a basic problem with cyber security is that our software technology is overly complicated, and i have found that the government is very insensitive to the fact that it is overly complicated, and i was wondering if you know of anyone that is sensitive to the fact that we can signify a great deal ? -- simplify a great deal? host: is there schmidt -- mr. schmidt? guest: the vulnerabilities are in this software. we have seen that in the national strategy to secure cyberspace. we called it out, and president bush signed it -- we have to reduce vulnerabilities. part of that is doing a better job to make sure the developers have the tools necessary to reduce the number of vulnerabilities.
there are organizations -- safe code, which i am the executive director of, it is a nonprofit together by microsoft, siemens sap, intel, adobe -- large companies sharing information, even competitors, saying if you write code this way or a program this way, it is likely to have a vulnerability under these set of circumstance. so, pulling that together, and sharing that information, we see a reduction in vulnerability. one of the problems is we have a lot of legacy software. a lot is being used in the government, for budget reasons if nothing else. they are not able to replace that. when i was at the white house with president obama. this was 2010. we were still using windows xp in our computers and did not update until a couple years later windows 7.
there are a lot of vulnerabilities. we have to reduce them. the government can help to use the power of procurement. come out with specific requirements that say when used on the product, a software product, or a firmware product that you have done this level of testing. the manufacturers will then be able to deliver that. in the meantime, we're going to continue to find these bugs some of which result in cyber security vulnerabilities. host: didi wants to know if there is a site that shows the relative security of various retail where your info might be stored? guest: there is not. the closest they have gotten to it is privacywrites.org with a list of data breaches that have been taking place, companies involved, small and large. there are other companies out there that might report to give
-- report to give information but often times it is based on facts that are not indeed relevant to cyber security. privacyrights.org is the one i look to that says how are we doing in protecting people's data and reducing the number of breaches out there. host: it might be a good time to explain what you do at ridge-schmidt cyber. >guest: it is one of the things we do and it relates to this discussion -- it is not just an i.t. issue. there is an i.t. component technology that goes to it but it has to be viewed as a business from the ceo, the board of directors. that is the we are working towards. tom ridge and myself, we work together at the white house
during the bush administration after september 11. we wrote the national strategy to secure cyberspace. we are reaching out to boards and ceos to say you have to understand this has to be on your agenda every day just like stock prices, business risks would be. this has to be part of it as well. one of the things we are seeing through this, there is a real wake up in the sea suite saying, you are right -- let's bounce this off, have the cio go fix it. now we are recognizing the responsibility is ours and the hunt office and we need to make the changes. one of the things we see with that is you do not replace everything a cost you billions of dollars to build up. it has to be incremental. we're helping them work for the
future and recognize the threats of today. host: vincent. syracuse. good morning. guest: i agree with the gentleman that there is no such thing as --caller: i agree with the gentleman that there is no such thing as cyber security. the gentleman from no walkie -- i totally agree with what he is saying, because there is no -- no walkie -- i -- milwaukee -- i totally agree with what he is saying because there is no security. people sell data and that is their job. we had some petitions online at change.org, and it is for congress, and illegal surveillance. also -- excuse me -- we have another petition at change, and it is to tell senators and
congressmen to investigate and tell harassment being used to silence whistleblowers and activists. we have another at change.org and that is to stop new york state and new york wireless smart meter program. host: all right. that is vincent in syracuse. mr. schmidt, i do not know if you have seen any of those petitions or want to comment on any of those? guest: i have not seen them, but i understand the basis. we call it the internet of things, and we have names for everything, of course. we talk about the internet of things -- the consequences everything we have will have an ip address, a wi-fi address, and the ability to communicate wirelessly, which is wonderful from a technology perspective, but we have to build the security.
we have to make sure when you are sitting there at a parking spot on a wi-fi, you take your phone and make a payment, that someone is not intercepting that, taking your information. we have to understand the concept. it has to be a core business process to have security built into everything we are doing in the future. host: danville, virginia. mary has been waiting on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning, sir, and mr. schmidt. first of all, i would like to reflect that opening up security in an effort to intercept terrorists is probably largely moot. we see the family model. these are not brothers were meeting -- the czar and off brothers were meeting privately. we see the same family model in the paris terrorists.
i am not that concerned about my personal security. i do not think it exists. i want to always give us the mechanism to pick up the next, little not knows that is going -- snot nose that is going on inspired -- if there were ever a misnomer -- the kid who is going to be the next school shooter logging onto neo-nazi sites or klan sites. i want to pick these guys up. i will tell you personally, i am an open book, i use my own name but i see a return to avatars rather than personal pictures and screen names rather than people using their real names because it is easy to go on any number of websites and pay
$19.95, and it is using your real name and your picture -- for someone dangerous to find out your address, home number, where you were, and everything else. host: mary, we will let mr. schmidt jump in. several topics that mary brings up there. guest: one of the first things, the security versus privacy is a longtime debate. the bottom line is we should be able to focus on those that are liable to do us harm. we have a tremendous ability particularly the fbi in this country, and counterparts in other nations, they really know who the bad guys are, but it is a matter of resources. you look at the paris event. there was surveillance of the one brother. in boston, we had the russian federation notify us that there were issues. there are things we know we can focus on from electronics, from physical surveillance, everything else. mary brought up a really good
point. when i was working in organized crime as a police officer, as a detective, we would see that sort of thing -- they would shut down information that we would have access to. they would meet at bars and restaurants and have personal communication. they would go to pay phones. it was the early days of pagers. what we would see today is people out there recognize we have surveillance capabilities -- more than just the day today -- day to day following someone around. they will look for other ways, family communication, if you want. prime minister cameron is coming here, and talked about one of the things about making it illegal -- encrypted personal communications, using some of the year -- peer to peer things.
that is a good idea, but the bottom line is it is not effective. anyone can write one of these programs. there are thousands of them out there. to chase someone down around the world -- and on top of it, these people are requiring -- acquiring the technology to do it on their own. they are doing all kinds of things. to say you cannot use an encrypted message technology -- they are not going to care. host: if you were still in the white house, would you advise president obama to support that effort david cameron is talking about -- possibly banning some of these online messaging apps in britain if they are not open to intelligence gatherers? guest: i would not. we have been through this before . there has been a lot of discussion about the fbi's project going dark where because of technology outstripping the ability of bond oarsmen to deal
with some of the things -- the ability of law enforcement to deal with some of the things putting backdoors into it. number one, installing backdoors leaves hackers and other criminals access and for us to think no one else can do this as well as we can, i think we are just flat wrong. second, when you look at the fundamental rights we have in this country under the constitution -- when we look at these things, it does not say you can't communicate, but you have to make a copy for us. -- you can communicate, but you have to make a copy for us. the third thing -- allies including great britain, we have discussed shutting down websites that have terrorist activity or recruitment activity, and there is a fine line between a criminal act and freedom of speech. in many cases, and appropriately so, i believe, the department of justice says unless they do
something more, it is part of freedom of speech. it is very difficult, and heartbreaking for some of us to see this stuff go online but we have to preserve these things, otherwise we become like the terrorists. host: anm ap story this morning in terms of the cyberattacks that hit other countries -- in france -- that out this morning from the
ap. owen is next. caller: good morning. i see the internet was intended to be like a library of worldly knowledge, and now it is being used for financial gain with cable companies. can we not have a licensing program where if you need information that cannot be readily obtained, you can go to unauthorized search, and that would prevent people from printing up plans to make bombs and drugs no? guest: a couple of things to look at -- there are a number of companies you can go to and find everything under the sun about a particular person. one of the things we have is we cannot pull everything off of
the internet that has been it to related for the past 20-plus years. i say 20 years, even though the internet has been around longer -- the development of web browsers is when it really became used for commercial purposes. we, as consumers, started to use it, and it has obviously grown significantly since then. i am talking about the 20-year period we have been collecting and we are just not going to get it back. that is the way we need to start looking at what is our digital identity -- how do we wind up doing away with user id and password and start using encryption? it is a double-edged sword, no doubt about it. if we start to do a better job protecting ourselves, companies do a better job using encryption, it will be a detriment to the law enforcement and intelligence communities. we have to figure out how that goes. right now we are running on idol.
some things are good, some things are bad. things change every day. when he to come up with an international way to do privacy -- we need to come up with an international way to do business, privacy, protection, while not giving criminals and edge on us. host: we will try to get as many calls as we can in the next 10 minutes or so with howard schmidt. andy brooklyn, new york. good morning, andy. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: good, go ahead. caller: i do not have anything against the -- against the government. when 9/11 got hit, i lost my godmother, a fireman.
what we should do to protect our lives -- we should not be worried about the government hacking our computer, but worried about the bad guys hacking our computers. the government should have the right to do that. host: mr. schmidt, we hear that comment as well from callers -- "whatever it takes." guest: andy, sorry to hear about the loss of your family member. the freedom of speech is paramount in many ways, and yes, we should agree there should be a way to focus on the terrorists those that would look to do society harm, and once again there is a full spectrum from terrorist down to identity theft and credit card fraud. what are we giving up? i grew up in the 60's, so i'm used to seeing the protests that change the way as a society we
live today. if we wind up giving up that right because of security or perceived security, then we wind up giving up our basic being as far as a u.s. citizen goes, and a lot of the other western democratic countries feel the same way. so, as a consequence, you are right -- we should not be in a position where we are hampered by collecting intelligence and making sure that we stop these things, but on the same token we have to do it while we preserve the constitution as well. >> -- host: again, we show this article from "the guardian," noting prime minister david cameron will meet with the president about that is according to "the guardian." that meeting is expected to
happen today or tomorrow. diane is waiting on the line for republicans. good morning, diana. caller: good morning, gentlemen. the conversation is moving, this morning. the scope of the problem is overwhelming, when you think about it. i appreciate your work, mr. schmidt. i laugh at the hypocrisy of obama and his quest for cyber security. i read that he released five more gitmo high-risk prisoners. our borders are wide open. yes, he wants us to give up more of our own rights. i am just how right -- outrage that big brother spies on my computer dialogue, but i'm not willing to give up my freedom of privacy guaranteed by my constitution. thank you for letting me make that statement. host: that is diane calling in from new york. here is the story from "the washington post," on the yemeni
detainees that were released. mr. schmitt, i will let you respond to diane. guest: yes diane, that is one of the things we see -- things shifting. they are much more tech savvy. they are looking at the vulnerabilities, whether it is overcoming someone's user id and password on twitter or youtube or if it is just service attacks. they are getting more tech savvy . as they get more tech savvy they replace the criminal element that is looking to steal stuff -- and i know that sounds silly -- to do real harm. i am asked all the time what worries me the most. it is a physical event taking place at the same time they are doing a cyber event where we cannot communicate -- we cannot pull resources together, get emergency response in place
because the technology is down on us. we cannot communicate with the public with what is going on. as a consequence, we have to really start focusing on not only the people that can shoot ak-47s and rpg's, but those getting technical training under the rubric of defending their computer systems. when you defend them, you also learn how to break into them, and that is one the things we have to start focusing on on the terrorist groups -- who are the people that have the technological abilities, what are they doing with it, and how do we stop it? host: that is coming to light this week in light of the pentagon twitter page had led a group that called themselves the cyber caliphate jihadist. richard is up next. our line for independents.
caller: good morning. i agree with everyone around the question that there is no privacy. rights are getting limited, and liberty is also limited in the western world because of this whole thing of dealing with terrorism. the question i have is about technology as we try to move to continue to deal with this "terrorist threat." how do you see the technology evolving? i am eating something now called "super intelligence. -- i am reading something now called "super intelligence." how do you see the technology evolving to deal with this threat they are saying we are so much under? host: mr. schmidt, a good question to end on for this segment. guest: it is a great question because as we look at technology
going forward, how do we become better perspective of our data? for example, i mentioned user ids and passwords. we need to get rid of those. we need to quit using social security numbers which terrorists can use to do all sorts of things, including imitate that they are us. we need to go down that route. we need to make sure the communications e-mails websites -- we need to have digital signatures that are verified that do not give someone the ability to impose upon them. the other thing is we need to make sure the websites that are out there, that the bad guys cannot insert malware out there. one of the things, we call it drive-by downloads. you go to a website and it infects your whole system with malware. the last one -- the use of encryption. every time when i was with the government, and there would be a hack taking place and data was
stolen, my question would be, was the data encrypted, and it was not. the idea is if you are going to steal because you need to communicate it, they should not be able to do anything with it because it should be encrypted. those are technology things we should move forward on two critical lever on our side a little bit and not give them the big advantage. host: howard schmidt is a former white house security coordinator and is now a partner at ridge schmidt cyber. we appreciate your time and expertise this morning. guest: my pleasure. good talking with you. host: up next, we will be joined by former federal election commission's chair lee goodman to talk about the citizens united decision, and later walter bumphus will discuss the
president's proposal to give students a free two years at community college. we will be right back. ♪ >> dr. anthony faucher, our guest this sunday on "q&a" is on the front line against diseases. >> we have drugs right now that are giving -- given to people that are hiv infected. i can show you the dichotomy. in the early 1980's, if came into my clinic with aids, their survival rate would be six to
eight months, which means half of them would be dead in eight months. now, if tomorrow, when i go back to rounds friday, and someone comes into the clinic that is 20-plus years old, relatively recently infected, and i put them on a cocktail of three drugs, i can accurately predict, look them in the eye and say we can do mathematical modeling to say you can live an additional 50 -- 5-0 years. so to go from eight months, 250 years, knowing people can live a little less than a full life spun -- lifespan, that is a huge difference. >> dr. anthony found she on -- down -- dr. anthony faucher on c-span's "q&a for company -- q
and a." host: we welcome lee goodman former chair of the federal election commission, as we come up on the five-year anniversary of the citizens united decision. how has it changed election law and campaign finance in this country? guest: the supreme court issued its decision in 2010, and did it midstream in the 2010 election so people have been watching the effects really in the 2012 election and the 2014 election. my own view is that the citizens united decision corrected the shift of speech in america by opening up more avenues for speech more nonprofit organizations can now participate in elections. the labor unions and business corporations now have a voice in
democratic elections that they did not have before. now, some people bemoan this and say we are going to flood out and drown out the populace that populist voices of others. i do not think that has been borne out by experience. i think what has happened is the american people have been able to see more speech, here more points of view -- hearing more points of view. incumbents have less protections in office, and you have seen the number of incumbents displaced go up after citizens united. prior to citizens united, congressman had a greater chance of dying in office and being replaced in an election, and after citizens united, the number of incumbents have been replaced either in primary or general elections. it is increased to close to 10%. it used to be 2% or 3%.
we hear more speech. i do nothing populist voices have been drowned out. -- i do not think populist voices have been drowned out. more people are giving at the lower end as well. i think this is all that good for the democracy. host: in terms of the total cost for elections, here is a chart from the center for responsive politics. it is right up to almost that $4 billion mark as the total cost. you work at the federal election commission. you are a former chairman. has the fec then able to keep up with citizens united in terms of the corporate spending that has been unleashed by citizens united? host: absolutely.
we are the clearing house for all the public campaign finance reports filed by political action committees, campaigns political parties super pac's which disclose all of their money in, all of their expenditures -- they file reports with the fec. most of those reports are filed electronically and as soon as they are filed they are immediately available on the fec 's website, and then number of organizations take the data, nash and it it, and add editorial content, meaning to it. we have been able to keep up with the additional reporting that comes as a result of citizens united. when we have had some issues is because the u.s. senate candidates still file on paper with the senate clerk's office. we had one episode before the election where there was an avalanche of paper that came into the fec but we got, by and
large, most of those reports published enough on our website within 48 hours. host: if our viewers want to talk about citizens united, campaign finance issues, lee goodman is with the federal election commission. is one term as chairman ended in december. to stay on citizens united for a second -- complaints we hear about negative ads, untruthful ads, did citizens united change any of that? guest: i do not think it did. it is not within the purview of the government to regulate. we do not regulate truth or accuracy. it is up to the american people. there are defamation laws in other ways people can enforce accuracy or inaccuracy in
political speech, but we are not the speech police at the federal election commission. we merely are the clearing house to disclose all the money spent in elections. host: didi on our twitter page -- we see a lot of speech but reflects the views of those that have the money to buy a super pac. do you agree? guest: i do not think so. there is as much money at the low end of the spectrum as a result the high end of the spectrum in the elections, and also, contributions to political parties, contributions to candidate campaigns, they are limited. in other words, no individual can give a senate candidate or a house kennedy more than 2006 -- candidate, more than $2600 an election. when you look at the money spent in the election -- you showed a chart and i want to make a comment. if you notice, the numbers have
leveled off. we don't see a large increase in the total amount of money being spent in 2010 from a midterm election to 2014. the number in putting 10 was about $3.7 billion -- in 2010 was about $3.7 billion. host: in the congressional. guest: right. we do not have the total numbers today, but we are looking at probably a $3.7 billion to $4 billion election cycle in 2014. about 85% of that money was spent by the congressional campaigns themselves, and the political parties, and all of the contributions to the political parties and the campaigns are limited. so, by and large, 85% of the money is still being spent within federal limits. about 15% of the money to run ads in the 2014 election, about
$500 million of about $4 billion was spent by political action committees, interest groups, super pac's, and the like. average donations are up. small donations are up. about 5 million americans gave donations of under $200 to political campaigns and political parties. so, ordinary people are still playing a role in politics. the internet has given more people the opportunity to give. the internet has given campaigns the ability to raise money from smaller donors at very little expense. it used to be very expensive for campaigns to go after donations because of the cost of a postage stamp. e-mail has allowed campaigns to reach more people at a cheaper cost. so populist voices still have quite the role in these elections. guest: --host: you talk about
contribution limits -- the provision in the crown of us that passed, what will that mean for the 2016 election, and did you agree with the move? guest: i have a background in the political party. i was the general counsel of the republican party of virginia for about four years before i joined the federal election commission, and a lot of people characterize the parties as smoke-filled rooms, overtake organizations -- overtake -- opaque organizations, but the truth is to the contrary. they are the most ordinary organizations were any ordinary person can walk in and get involved and half, i daresay more influence and access to elected officials as a party member with no financial
contribution at all, but just to participation and efforts. there are a lot of saturday meetings, a lot of efforts to go knock on doors for candidates, but the political parties are essential. they are critical to the health of our democracy. what the ground of us did -- what the crime the bus did was recharge -- host: and the charge is money? guest: excuse me, the charge? host: what you recharge it with his money? guest: yes, the parties need more money. it created three new accounts for the democratic national committee, the republican national committee, as well as their affiliates, the campaign committees and there were corollary republican senatorial committee and congressional committees. it created set or it accounts
for them so that they do not have to spend all of the money they raised on administrative overhead, so they created a legal account to pay for lawyers. they help the lawyers comply with our laws at the federal election commission. they created a new building account so that the parties can raise money to pay for their buildings, operations, furniture, and a meeting that goes into housing the national headquarters. by creating those accounts, what they did was they allowed the primary accounts of those parties to be spent on electing candidates. so, it relieves some of the burden on the main accounts. now, all of the contributions to the parties are fully disclosed to the american public on the reports of the parties, and there are subject to limits. by creating the additional accounts, people may now give more money to the parties, but it will all be disclosed, and it
helps the parties be more effective to attention the political process. host: let's get to our callers. we are talking to lee goodman, a commissioner at the federal election commission. the chairmanship ended at the end of last year. he is here to talk about the five-year anniversary of citizens united or any more questions about campaign finance. lynn is waiting in san antonio texas, our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. the reason i am calling -- i am seeing a lot of ads that at the end of them says is an ad for a law firm, but at the end it is a democrat that says no more child should be abused no child should wake up hungry, have this or that problem -- they are mimicking the ads the stars are doing, but i think they are getting around calling it a political ad by making it a
personal ad for this lawyer using only democrats. it is on every station. it is pervasive. you see every station, every democrat begging for the poor children. host: it sounds like basically a de facto political ad under a different name. guest: i cannot speak to the specific ad and the content of the entire ad that lynn has talked about, but from her description -- and i do not know if they are federal candidates or state candidates, in which case state law would regulate -- but, by and large, if these are issue ads about nonprofit causes, for example, as a general rule nonprofits want to bring attention to their issues. as long as there is no expressed, in the torah advocacy -- elect oral advocacy in those ads, those are issue ads, it sounds to me.
officials readily appear on public service messages and do participate in issue advocacy whether it is appearing on a show like this, a national interview show, or appearing in an ad when they are trying to draw attention to an important cause. host: james in valley village california. our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i would like to thank mr. goodman for appearing and thank you for the service that you do. i am not sure how you focus or friend this correctly, -- frame this correctly but the founding of our country, the notion of taxation without representation -- there are not a lot of parallels to this, the impact citizens united has created. if i understand it correctly the money that is raised is primarily used for advertising and lobbying, and so, to me,
that flies in the face of one of our primary concepts of the one man, one vote concept of participatory politics. that is one reason why people like myself feel it is an unequal playing field. it's so much of what happens in our government is determined by politics, or big-money politics, which means major corporations, or even the large, wealthy families that can have more influence another class sectors of our nation, to me, some extent -- to some extent, this whole policy has, sort of, made it an unfair process for getting people elected. host: it seems like james is able to frame his question for you. guest: james, you articulate the question quite well, and the way you framed the debate is the way this issue has been debated
before the united states supreme court. it is the way it is debated in the halls of congress. it is the way it is debated at the federal elections commission. james, if you are ever tested and seek a position with the federal elections commission, it sounds like you know the issue -- interested in seeking a position with the federal elections commission, it sounds like you know the issue well. here is a decision made in citizens united and other decisions over 40 years. that is that there is no wealth test in the first amendment, and the first amendment protects your right to speak, and the supreme court and the government does not have the power to equalize speech. it does not have the right to limit my speech if you do not want to speak as much as i want to speak. so, the supreme court has consistently said the government cannot try to equalize speech, but let's get to the policy
merits of your point james. first, on liberal versus conservative viewpoints being expressed in a democracy -- neither side has a monopoly over the debate. there were the liberal groups in the last election. they were competitive financially, and ran as many ads and had as much speech is the conservative organizations did. secondly, at the end of the day, what citizens united did was it freed up speech. the people still vote. the people can be empowered under citizens united to hear more speech on liberal causes and conservative causes, and at the end of the day, the people choose whether or not to listen to those messages or not to listen to them. i often turn the ads off, or i use my remote control to flip the channel when the ads come on. i get direct mail.
i often do not open it. i choose not to read a lot of it. it is my choice to listen or not. second i have a choice, and you do, too, james, to be influenced by it or not. many people know who they will vote for in the 2016 presidential election right now because some other issue or controlling factor controls our vote like partisanship. some people can tell you i will vote for the republican candidate in 2016 or the democratic candidate. third, the people still choose whether or not to vote. unfortunately, many americans is not to vote. we need to try to change that. finally, the people vote, and the people choose. there are many examples of elections where the person who spend more money was not reelected. host: you are talking about some of these messages. a debate in the fec right now is what happens when those messages go online, and should messages sent on youtube, or political
messages sent to smartphones, should they include disclaimers? where do you stand on the? -- on that question mark -- where do you stand on that? guest: in 2006, participation was going online, and the fec was struggling with how to regulate online political speech. in 2009, after struggling to try to value links -- does a link have a value, for example -- the federal election commission adopted a rule. here is the line a jew. if you pay to post an ad online -- line they drew. if you pay to post a net online, the fec regulates that expenditure just like we would a radio ad, television ad. if you are a political committee, a campaign, or political party, and you post
content and ads, whether it is on youtube or your own website we require disclaimers and you have to expose your expenditures for your weather-based political activity. however, if you are a group of citizens or an individual, or an individual blogger, for example and you post information for free and you create your own website, we can call it john grants -- rants, and you want to express yourself every day, and you post videos for free there is no dissemination costs, you not paying advertising fee -- in any one of those examples, or if you have a facebook page with a lot of friends and you want to post political content there, for free, low-cost postings on the internet the fec said hands off, we will not
regulate. that has served the american people well, but we recently had a case involving organization that posted two videos on youtube for free in the 2012 election. they were critical of the senate candidate and the president, and the case came before the commission. the office of general counsel of the fec said this is exempt under the 2006 rule, and the commission split in a vote of 3-3. my two republican colleagues and i, matt peterson caroline hundred, and i, voted to follow the advice of the general counsel and free those youtube posts from regulation under the 2006 rule. host: i want to read some quotes from the current chairman has this -- debate has played out on whether internet statements should come with disclosure. she writes "some of my colleagues seem to believe
a statement that she put out last october. in an interview in december, she said "my passion is transparency, and i am frustrated that has not been the same willingness on the part of some of my colleagues at the fec ." guest: right. this has been a lively debate fec at the. let me say chair ravel have had a great relationship and agreed on several issues. this is one where we respectfully disagree. she believes her needs to be more reporting on online political speech. i believe this is one sphere of human endeavor, human activity and political speech, that can go unregulated because it is low-cost. there is no evidence free postings online are corrupting politicians.
because the internet is the most democratic forum for political speech ever invented. it levels the playing field. it gives ordinary people a printing press in their hands in the form of a personal computer and an internet connection. individual citizens can put out an opinion on the internet and it lays out there on a level playing field with well-funded forces in large media organizations, for example. individuals have had a greater voice through blogging. also, remember, in order for any individual to go get information on the internet, you have to go search for the information and political opinions you want online. it is an opt in medium. i think the policy makes sense and it has made sense for a decade. it has been my position that we are going to defend the 2006 internet freedom role and the freedom it guaranteed to the american people, and we have had this debate since october.
host: let's hear from more american people. tim is waiting in new mexico on our line for independents. caller: good morning, how are you doing? host: good, you are on the commissioner goodman. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: yeah, with citizens united, you sound like a corporate shill when you talk about it. what has happened is the likes of at least evenson rolling into congress to watch -- adlai stevenson, loin into congress to watch his team play. are we going to give him a skybox? guest: i am not a corporate show. i am for free speech, and that is what the citizens united ruling was based on -- the first amendment frees people even if they form in a corporate form. not all of the corporations that are funding speech in our democracy are large business corporations. there are many nonprofit
corporations that were excluded from the debate and prohibited from speaking in elections, and they include, for example, in this last election, the league of conservation voters incorporated that spent nearly $7 million in speech that prior to citizens united the league of conservation voters was prohibited to doing. the environmental defense action fund spent nearly $3 million in this last election to fund their speech. they are an incorporated organization. fundamentally, just because you incorporate your association does not mean you shed all of your first amendment rights. when you look at all the total spending in this last election, there were as many liberal groups, as there were conservative groups. there was as much money spent on pro-democratic, and liberal ideological speech, as there was
on pro-republican, and pro-conservative speech. the two ideologies have been competitive in this world. so, i do not think it is fair to categorize citizens united as a large business issue. host: wild and wonderful writing on twitter -- we should know not just the message, but the messenger. lou waiting in tennessee. line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on with commissioner goodman. caller: yes. my question is -- my understanding when you run for -- hello, can you hear me? host: we are listeninghost:. caller: when you run for office it is a civil servant job correct? guest: yes, ma'am, and the federal system, when you're running for congress or the president, and that is what we
regulate, or mine, an appointed position, we are civil servants. caller: let me hit on civil servants. number one, i think there is too much money in government in running for a position i think that rather than people running for office having a real interest in serving the public not our big banks, not wall street, not citizens united and all of this stuff they have left out people. i want a civil servant to run and maybe be able to hold office for six years for senators, four years for the representatives whatever you want to call them. but anyway, my point being, a person like myself and i'm too old now i could not even get noticed because i don't have the money to do that. no one is going to do that. but if people didn't make a lifetime career of being
senators and congressmen, you know, it might be a better place. it might be a better way to run a government. you get much more different ideas. i am so sick of the falling off the cliff far right and bashing our president. also, i don't like the far left. i think we need to have it open to more people. and it makes me laugh that we have bush and clinton running again. they keep saying that president obama is like an emperor or a king. no, i don't think so. he came out of nowhere. he might not have been the well-versed politician, that is why i don't blame him. who would want to go without out with some of those people? host: and some of the information of the 2014 election, candidates themselves raised and spent about $1.6 billion in the 2014 election.
party committee spent about $1.1 billion, outside groups spending a little over half $1 billion. you can see the chart. mr. goodman, i will let you comment. guest: well, here's my best recommendation to you. i understand many americans watch politics from their living rooms, and they become cynical. the antidote to that is to get involved lou. lou, as a veteran of state and local politics i worked in the commonwealth of virginia and i was the general counsel of the state party i can tell you, you do have an important voice in the process. what i would encourage you to do, lou, is take a political party. go join a local political party and get involved because at the grassroots level, you have far more influence than you give yourself credit for. i don't care how much it cost
for a congressman or congresswoman to run a campaign for reelection. what they really care about is getting renominated. and they need their grassroots support to do that. if you want a good example, in my home state i have a good friend, eric cantor and it was conceived by ordinary people in his district that he had lost his way. i didn't happen to believe that was true. i like eric cantor very much. but nonetheless grassroots people, real people in his district, became concerned. and congressman cantor spent over $1.5 million to be reelected. grassroots activists in his district unseated him in a primary with probably about 40,000 to 50,000 people. so the people still vote. your vote matters. and i encourage you to get
involved. you will find out very quickly that you have far more access to elected officials come and you have far more influence to influence their way of thinking. if you are involved and you just watch politics from your television in her living room. host: sarah is waiting on a live for republicans. fort lauderdale, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say that it is ridiculous that in this time and place that we still allowed these ridiculous ads on television. we have three pbs, three c-span's -time for-them to debate until their tongues swell up and let us see who they really are, instead of these stupid ads on both sides that exaggerates all the time. there's no reason on earth that we can't have -- 70% of their time is spent on the phone
trying to raise money to get reelected. they are not doing their jobs. they are not responsible. they are responsible to the very few, very wealthy who are funding them. and this is the truth. small businesses do not have a chance against ms. bake big business getting government contracts. host: mr. goodman. caller: well, sir has some of the same concerns as lou just had in terms of the responsiveness for politicians to the people in the district versus money interest. first of all, every contribution for candidate for congress is limited. so, large donors are not buying politicians. with 200s -- the average campaign for congress costs about 1.6 million dollars to $1.7 million, and no individual can give more than 200 and
six dollars -- 200 and six dollars -- against no individual can give a candidate for the senate more than $2600. i do not think it is accurate to say that those people are only interested in wealthy -- wealthy individuals and their interests because they know who votes, they know who nominates them, and i believe that if i were to walk up and offer my congressman a very large expenditure to take a position contrary to the people in his district, he would not do that. because what does he want to do? he wants to be reelected. so congressmen and senators to listen to the people. they know people vote. and again, i think the antidote to this, sir, is to get involved in the process. host: let's go to maryland. on for democrats, angela.
guest: my question is - since citizens united, who has the fec attempted to prosecute for violating campaign-finance laws ? guest: well, there's just one in the newspapers last week.we authorized an enforcement action against her for campaign funds. we have some investigations i can't mention, but there has been unanimous votes to open up investigations against some other organizations. those investigations are ongoing right now. and when i leave here today, i will go back to the commission and we are discussing whether or not to open up some other investigations against individuals. so we have -- and, by the way i vote about every other week to assess civil penalties against organizations for reporting
violations and other violations. so, we do enforce the law. a lot of this law has been deregulated by the supreme court. there is less law to enforce but but there are examples of those-- . host: jake is on her life for independents. good morning, jake. caller: good morning. thank you for being on commissioner. and i love the show. i just wanted to ask about some of the perceived and what may be substantial loopholes in the citizens united. one of particular, and then maybe the commissioner can respond to these other perceptions or loopholes. the one of particular that i would like to men than is when super pac's have to report to owners. i have heard that the reporting to the point where the public
would be able to be informed as to who is supporting a certain candidate happens six months in some cases after elections, as well, there are potential areas where an advertisement or travel spending can be provided for by, you know, outside donors. and then that can be reported as either campaign spending or not. and that has an effect on how politicians can travel, you know etc. i would just add before i leave that allowing spending by corporations and entities may have -- doesn't always represent those people's individual basis sentiment, and that leads to a lot of distress and disconnect. there are laws in place that a law - allow union dues to be
separated from paperwork -- public speech, etc. but i think that the way that the money comes in, who signs the checks, is not representative. i think the way that it can be spent is not reflected, as a commissioner just pointed, too you know, the senator not taking money. host: jake, got it. a lot to discuss. guest: yes, jake, first you asked about the reporting by super pac's. super pac's regularly report with the fec on, typically, a monthly basis in election years. and they have to disclose every donor in and every expenditure out on their disclosure reports. the reason they are called super pac's is because after citizens united, there is no longer any restrictions on the amount of money that super pac's could accept, or the sources of those
contributions. so that corporations and labor unions and nonprofit organizations could give to super pac's, but all those donations have to be disclosed. now, if a super pac runs an ad -- that is, if a super pac runs an ad that says vote for jones or vote against smith, within 48 hours -- that super pac has to file an immediate rapport with the federal election commission on form five, immediately disclosing that ad. and the super pac has to disclose first who disclosed the expenditure. then they have to disclose which candidates were discussed in the ad, how much they spend, and over what medium. for example, if it was a radio spot or a tv spot.
then they have to show whether they were in favor or opposed to an individual a candidate -- individual candidate and name that candidate. about travel spending. there is such a thing where certain members of congress have private organizations pay for their official travel to, say, a fact-finding mission. that is not reported to the fec however it is reported on the ethics filings that each member has the file with the house clerk's office or the senate clerk's office. if it is campaign travel though, there are restrictions. the campaigns have to pay for that travel. and all those expenditures by the campaign are disclosed on the campaigns regular report with the fec. the third issue you raised jake, was whether or not when organizations -- whether or not it is a labor union, or the chamber of commerce, or planned parenthood -- when they spend
money in connection with elections, whether or not deserve reflective -- it is reflective of the people give money to the organizations. if you see being organization -- in organization that you have given money to making electoral spend the teachers -- electoral expenditures that you have given to, then maybe you need to stop getting to that organization. host: eugene, good morning. caller: good morning. in order for campaign -- host: eugene, i think we are losing you there. if you want to try and give us a call back. but, mr. goodman, i wanted to ask you. we started talking about citizens united. upcoming finance supreme court
cases that you think i going to have a big impact on your job and campaign spending in the future. guest: i don't know of any very important ones at the supreme court right now. i will say that one kiss we are watching closely is a case -- one case that we are watching closely is a case in the district of columbia to the u.s. court of appeals -- van halen -- host: christopher van hollen? guest: christopher van hollen. there are two types of communications that the federal law requires to be disclosed to the federal elec election commission. so if they run an ad that says vote for smith or vote against jones really through any medium they have to file a report and disclose that expenditure. and they have to disclose the
donors that gave to the organization, if the donors gave for the purpose of funding that add. in 2002, and the bipartisan campaign format, congress expanded the disclosure to additional ads beyond those that expressly advocate and election to those ads that are an issue ad run near an election. so that now, after 2002, if i run an ad that says that senator smith has voted to raise your taxes 84 times. call senator smith and tell him to take his hand out of your families pocket. that is an issue ad. but congress decided to require disclosure of those ads, as well. congress set up a regime that when you run those ads come you need to disclose all of your donors for two years prior to making that add. when it came to the federal election commission, the federal
election commission wanted to set up a reporting regime that was harmonized with the regime for express advocacy ads, so the fec set up a resume to only require reporting donors for the express purposes of that add. that was struck a couple weeks ago as contrary to the statue that congress set up. and out to intervenors in that lawsuit have appealed that lawsuit -- i'm sorry, they launched intense to appeal. host: and we will be watching along with the european oblique come back at some point to talk about it. mr. goodman, he is the federal election commissioner. guest: john, thank you having me. host: up next, we'll talk about the role of community colleges and the president's announcement to make two years at those institutions free. we will be joined by walter bumphus.
we'll be right back. >> the c-span cities tour takes booktv and american history tv on the road. this weekend we partnered with comcast for a visit to wheeling, west virginia. >> i wrote these books. two volumes. the reason i thought it was important to collect these histories is that wheeling transformed into an industrial city in the latter part of the 19th century and the early of part of the 20th century, and it is kind of uncommon in west virginia in that it to a lot of immigrants from various parts of europe. here, in search of jobs and opportunity. so, that generation -that-
immigrant generation is but a much gone. >>i thought it was important to record their stores to get the views of the immigrant generations. it is an important part of our history. most people tend to focus on the frontier history, the civil war history. those periods are important, but of equal importance, in my mind, is this industrial. in immigration that wheeling had. >> wheeling starts as an outpost on the frontier. that river was the western extent of the united states in the 1770's. the first project funded by the federal government for road production was the national road that extended from cumberland, maryland to wheeling virginia. when it comes here to wheeling that will give this community --
which, about that time, was about 50 years old -- the real spurt that it needs for growth. and over the next 20 to 25 years , the population of wheeling will almost triple. > watch> all of our events from wheeling saturday at noon eastern on c-span twos "booktv" >> washington journal continues. host: last week, president obama announced a plan that would allow free community college for student to maintain a certain gpa. here to talk about that proposal is walter bumphus, president and ceo of american association of community colleges. do support this planet gecko g?
guest: yes, we do. it is great to be with you this morning. our association, we represent students at community colleges. we commend the president on this very exciting opportunity to provide free education basically, to a new group of americans who haven't been quite touched with the higher education opportunities. how will it work? basically, what i'm understanding about the proposal -- and a lot of details have still not come out yet. as you know, the devil is still sometimes in the details. the bottom line is the students will have to attend at least half-time, maintain a 2.5 gpa and be well on their way to a bachelor degree. in many cases, community colleges will have to ramp up some of the academic programs
and not provide not only opportunities for transfer, but opportunities for an individual to improve their skill set and be prepared to compete, in terms of the global economy we now live in. host: in this segment of "the washington journal," we want to hear your thoughts. a special line for community college students and graduates (202) 748-0003. also lines for parents educators, and all others. we want to read you a bit from the lead editorial in tuesday's "usa today." given the success,
guest: that is what i'm hearing. i read that same editorial. i do believe that this is an opportunity for states to sustain their commitment and investment, if you will, in our education. not just community colleges, but all are education. i do believe that opening this door --- will open up more opportunities for our citizens to have their own ramp to the middle class. education can be a game changer. i know that personally and professionally, as we have had three of our grandkids at community colleges. and they are well on their way to finishing their associate degrees with a pathway towards a bachelor degree.
host: is this going anywhere? guest: that is a good question. we hope so. one thing that i am familiar with well republicans and democrats don't often get along in the city some days, i do know that whether you are republican or democrat, you love your local community college. so we have to believe that support for community colleges will be universal, and at the end of the day if not this particular proposal, hopefully the major elements of this rapoza will pass. host: walter bumphus is the president and ceo of the american association of community colleges. joe. las cruces, new mexico. you're up first, joe. caller: yes. we need --
moral charity. and moral charity is equal freedom. an equal freedom is food, shelter, medicine, and education. and i really support this having free college, you know. this is really a good thing. thank you. host: some thoughts on the topics. a letter to the a editor in today's "wall street journal." saying that there would be in the best interest of the community colleges to raise their tuition to collect more free money from the u.s. treasury. guest: oh, i would not agree with that. at the end of the day, a lot of
students have more than just tuition cost. books have be coming -- been becoming increasingly expensive beers at the end of the day, i don't think community colleges are interested in gout in the federal government, so much as it once the resources. host: does the president's plan involved money for books and room and board and the other aspects? guest: not to my knowledge. but if a student can get their tuition colored -- covered and still get up how grand, that will help them. over 80% of our students are working 30 hours or more per week. so the opportunity to become more fully engaged in their educational activities i think will result in more completions and a higher retention rates for our students. host: in san augustine, texas. good morning, loretta. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i have been a high school
teacher and a community college teacher in six different states. and overseas. our high schools are free, and we do everything we can to motivate kids to stay in high school. we try to make it as easy for them as we can. and we don't have a whole lot of success with a whole lot of students. making community college is free would be more of the same. about 40% of our kids go on to university now have to take remedial classes because they haven't learned, and they were given a really easy opportunity to learn. i have found that students on telegrams had the worst students. they don't hinder bring their books, do their homework, or try to finish because there is no motivation to finish within two years. most kids at community colleges don't graduate. they take a couple classes they'll and then. they have no real goal in mind because it is free. i think anything that you really
want in life you have to work for, you have to pay for, you have to have a real stake in. if it is just handed to you, you don't appreciate it. host: walter bumphus, a lot of issues there. guest: loretta, good morning. you make an interesting point. i don't necessarily agree with every point you say because i think a lot of our students are highly motivated. many of them do graduate. not in the two or three year range because many students come to us having to take remedial education. when you start to look at the graduation rates after three or four years, a lot of our students are completing. more graduates, hiredgher degree completion, and i have to say we are seeing an uptick in the reports racing. at the end of the day, loretta i get the point you make. believe me, our students to put
a lot of skin into the game when you look at the costs outside of the tuition. host: some stats our community colleges from your association. about 1132 community colleges in this country. the percentage of federal aid received by community college students 33%. 21%, federal supplemental educational opportunity grants. the average cost of tuition that is 3200 and $60. enter the cost for a four-year college, averaging about $8,890. craig is up next, a graduate of community college from north carolina. gray, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. thank you for all the hard work that all the staff members do. host: appreciate that, craig. what is your question?
ccaller:, i don't have a question per se, but i'm against this free community college idea. when they say -- i believe they said 600 million pb. it will be another dialogue. we are in serious, serious death right now. and it is hard for anybody -- it simply can't go on. we cannot continue to justify expenditures for just feel good ideas. host: and greg, that number, that is an estimated $60 billion -the cost- of this over 10 years. mr. bumphus. guest: that is correct. certainly, that is a sizable amount, but i believe that would
be split between the government and our states. and our states are making heavy investment in many areas, and certainly in higher education. there is a challenge there, but i want to make sure that folks understand this is not a free lunch. this is an investment in our american citizens. the one thing we don't want to do is continue to have as many of our students burdened with so much debt from attending college that by the time they graduate the -- there are a lot of examples out there. host: here is "the new york times" editorial board. they and their editorial this morning by saying that the skepticism has overtones of the skepticism that greater 19th-century educators when they begin to agitate for free you never public high schools.
that is the editorial board of the "new york times" this morning. kennett, good morning. caller: yes, i am actually in northern virginia community college. i'm excited to go back to school. pretty much at the later part of my life, and i am from the d.c. area, but i went to northern virginia and enrolled in there in this current semester. virginia has very good community colleges. it -- it is aligned, more or less, with careers different fields that you can get a two-year community college
degree or certification, and just go into the workforce. host: kennett, what you want to do when you graduate? caller: right now, i just want to basically work as a driver in the specialized field of student driving. teaching people how to drive. that's what i want to do. so i'm going to get a certificate to that. and also update my courses such as math and sciences, as well so that way if i want to go back to get a four-year degree, i can do that transfer of credits and get a four-year degree, as well. guest: first of all, want to go back to your point that you made about the "new york times" article. they reference the fact that in 1910, when they started free high schools, i believe the graduation rate out of high school in 1950 was up to 60%. i think that, at least in my
opinion, this is the same kind of game changer opportunity. -virginia, or maybe go right into the- -- host: walter bumphus is the president and ceo of the american association of community colleges. we are taking your calls for about the next half hour or so. we have lines for parents, educators, and and all others. $60 billion over 10 years to provide free community college. on next from a walkie wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. bumphus. thank you for sharing your time with us. i sent my son to a community college, and i'm finding that when talking to the professors there, that these kids are
coming in lacking the basic skills to take courses on a college level. and they are all in remedial. like, i'm from the walkie, and these kids are coming out of high school reading on a seventh grade level. and it is a disturbance -- this service because the plumber is not worth the paper it is written on. will these kids be afforded the opportunity to take these remedial classes will they included in the two-year degree? -- guest: it is my understanding that it will. you are right, some 60% plus needing to take a remedial education course, most often in math. but we are finding that many students are accelerating their time through our developmental education programs, and that is
thanks to the good work of many folks were investing heavily in working with our students. a lot of advising, counseling, lots of after class activities. but i'm seeing it increase in the performance of those student to come to us and where x-ray seeing some better prepared has go students. one of the changes we are seeing is more and better, if you will, has go graduates coming to us. we are actually the first option for many students today. host: but of many students are coming in and having to take the remedial classes is two years of free college get you through the graduation? here is the chart with graduation rates from two-year degree institutions. among all institutions, the number of total individuals who graduate within a three-year timeframe is at 31%. guest: that is a great question, john. the answer to that question is no. most of our students will not graduate in two years, but as
you know from my background -- i worked at one of the finest universities in the country and the world, and it is a four-year school -- and not many of those students graduated in four years, either. so what can we do to provide a pathway for success, success defined as graduation and completion? host: archie, missouri. that morning, bobby, you're on with walter bumphus. caller: hi. for many years, people have been sharing an understanding with their children so they can, you know, take over and maintain, you know, maintenance of our society as they grow. well, i don't understand how today we lie to these children and ponder them into debt to they will never repay with the promise that they're going to end up with a good paying job.
and they will never get out of debt. it is just ridiculous. it doesn't seem civilized to me at all. host: can you talk a little bit about debt upon graduation? guest: i can, and that is one of the reasons we believe community colleges are great option an alternative -- we try to make our community colleges affordable john, and as you stated earlier, the average tuition costs at one of our community colleges runs around $3300. at the end of the day, that is more or less doable. if you have low income and you qualify for powell, or you have to make a loan, that is what we try to guard against, but for many students, again, tuition is just a portion of the total expenses. often about 20% of the toke cost
of attendance, when you factor in transportation, you factor in housing, you factor in child care which is a reality for many of our students. -- and again, the book costs are very expensive. it can prevent a sizable - -present a sizable challenge. host: and as you noted, a lot of students going to community colleges. the average age - 28. about 14% of those attending community colleges are over 40. just 30%, under the age of 21. you can check out the american association of community colleges website. we are talking with walter bumphus, the president and ceo there. on our line for educators jerry, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for dr. bumphus because so many of us are concerned about economic development and workforce training. i would just ask dr. bumphus.
has he heard from legislatures, governors, etc. regarding their views on how this initiative could help with workforce training in america? host: for you go, where do you teach and what do you teach? caller: i finished teaching in the ohio area. i was in community college education. guest: that is a great question. yes i have heard from legislatures, congressman, and others. there --they are very concerned about having a highly educated and well-trained workforce. at the end of the day, there is the thought that for those we have some thought about the question of this proposal that this would be a good thing, a win-win opportunity for any community to increase the skill set, if you will, of the workers and their community. so they are excited about this. host: tell has a, florida is next. good morning. caller:.
i am against the federal government getting involved, it is still tax dollars come you know. basically, if you are poor, you qualify. if you are rich, you don't need it. frankly, you know, i went to a community college and i am really old school. you know, i was at the point where we didn't have a hot water heater. and i went to school and i went to work. and i didn't go anybody a dime because i worked a full-time job and it would to school. i think part of the problem with doing this is not only can the middle class not afford it --- because nothing is free, everybody has to pay for something -- i think the main thing is that it keeps our young people much more immature for her whole lot longer because they never have to seem to work on to get to anything these days. that is what i think it is.
i don't want to see government taking over the community colleges. they are working great, and we don't need any more messes. i mean, look at the education system. why don't you spend the money on high school and get these kids out and ready to go on their own , instead of having to go through remedial colleges. it is redundant and a waste of money. host: tallahassee, florida. guest: good morning. i understand the point that you make. in many cases, i understand the challenge. but again, i think the edge -- opportunity to educate more of our people is a win-win. once they finish our schools research is that they have a much better chance of finishing a bachelor degree than those students who start at a four-year school. and as the caller from ohio reference there, there are less
opportunities now for jobs. jobs that used to be able to get by with a high school education are now requiring higher education degrees and certificates. in many cases, they are the -- that is the entryway into that job. and if we are not providing that can of educational opportunities to those citizens, they won't have them. caller: in her comments, she brings up a point. they said there is no good explanation as to why taxpayers should subsidize the children of millionaires through this free two years of community college be at can you speak to that? guest: i would be glad to. i agree with that, by the way. i will tell you the most --well the fastest growing population is those students who are not poor enough to get a powell grant -- pell grant, and their parents are making just enough money to get by, so they don't
qualify for any financial aid. and you might say because of their background and so forth that they wouldn't need support they do. and that is where you have a higher percentage of students working. so those students who are coming to our committed the college's for access opportunities are not just poor and low income student, we have a number of students from the middle-class who are opting for community colleges. in fact, when you start to look at the graduation background of many students with bachelor degrees, they often have three to five's transcripts. they attended a community college, they have taking courses online. just to get a pathway to that bachelor degree. host: let's head up to alaska. richard is waiting on that line for others. good morning, richard. caller: good morning. my question is. it is projected to cost $60 billion. who is going to be paying for that? or is that just added to are not
national debt of $18 trillion? - guest: john, i appreciate you looking at it, but i don't know if i have an answer. that is up to our leaders and policymakers. i have heard that reference come you know. host: this is based on a tennessee program modeled on that. the tennessee program, as i understand it, was funded through the state lottery. possibly a national lottery to fund this? guest: i'm not familiar with that and i don't offer any suggestions. i try not to get into the details until i see the details, but i will say this. the tennessee model i- had the opportunity tohear him at the white house summit a few weeks ago- . i had representatives from his state into meet with our board and talk about it.
there are some debate as to whether it was the first dollar last dollar to the scholarships provided, but they look at the students other financial aid first, and then the state makes up that gap. in many ways, i think a number of other states are looking at doing something similar. host: chris is a student at a community college. chris, good morning. caller: hi, how are you doing? i still receive my aid 20 years ago, and it hasn't hot -- helped me out. i recently went back to school and concluded my four-year degree at a private institution. i have one son graduating now from a two-year college, and i have another son who is about to start in another two-year college. and i have $30,000 of debt from mine. my graduating son has $10,000 in debt.
so my question is, with this program, is there going to be any payback for the people who have put out all of this money? was this going to be a move forward bases for anybody who has gone as deeply into debt as i have to try and get these education? with my son that has a prepaid college fund, is he going to be qualified for it because i prepaid for something, so therefore he is not going to need it? or is that something i would be reimbursed? host: chris, we will hold on. guest: chris, i'm not sure about another the -- a number of the questions you raised. nor would i think that the government would want to do that to you because you have done everything right. host: is there something that you are going to be advocating for as you talk to lawmakers in this process?
guest: there are a number of things, but that would be one of them, for sure. for me, it is personal and professional. we have four kids and 13 grandkids, five in the college today. three in community colleges -- so i have seen my kids struggle personally, with trying to afford higher education. as grandparents, we try to help out into some of the things that this denim and just reference. it is a conundrum, if you will. how do make it work? how do you bullet together? so, yes, we will be advocating. host: chris, did you have a follow-up? caller: yes. about the sun that is just about to graduate. the money just spent, is that going to be too bad, so sad? or is there going to be anything
for those who have been in the last two years say finding out that it is not going to be free for everybody on a moving forward basis? guest: i don't have an answer for that. sorry, chris. host: good morning, damien. caller: good morning. thank you taking my call. i think we spent about 4500 dollars a semester for a full-time credit. it is good because he can transfer to a four-year -- he is taking nursing school, but it is a big option. but i'm afraid of the government getting involved because i think a lot of illegal aliens are going to take advantage of this freebie. if it is going to be free, i think it i should only be for americans. i don't want illegal aliens
shooting up from the cracks. that is why i don't want the government involved. i think the state stood for good by themselves. thank you taking my call. guest: not a concern i share necessarily, but certainly, we will abide by the laws. i think many of the questions -- some inference within his question had to do more with the immigration issues in our country. i think those are the things that the government and congress are still working out. but as it relates as to who would be in the classroom, we do it the law suggests we do. host: we have about 10 minutes left with walter bumphus. we want to especially hear from community college students and graduates. talking about the president's proposal from last week to allow two years of free education for those who maintain a certain gpa did charles is in northbrook, connecticut. on our life educators. good morning, charles. caller: good morning.
good morning, dr. bumphus. i taught at community colleges not only in connecticut, but in california. and i am very much in favor of community colleges. and in favor of this proposal for free tuition. certainly, it will be a political football. let me tell you what i have seen . i have seen degree programs -two-year degree-programs in california with a certain average of guaranteed admission to the university system. of course, there are certificate programs training and many of the positions and jobs that we need. there is also a path to citizenship for the previous caller talking about undocumented people here well, they come in it is a good way to learn english. a good way to get into the educational system for people who are newly arrived in this country. in addition, in connecticut with
the high schools, we have a program with the local community college where juniors and seniors at a certain academic level can take programs at the community college for free. and the colleges are within walking distance of the high school. so there are a variety of programs and needs that the community colleges service. and i think there could be a means test for the free tuition. i don't think that it necessarily should go to someone who is going to spend very part-time and then drop out a not take full advantage of the offer. so, there you go. host: mr. bumphus. guest: well, those are all wonderful comments. and i don't is agree with anything that he said. you know, the interesting thing i think you referenced was --our community colleges today -- they are really full-blown education institutions that offer a
variety of programs and services, as he described. i don't know if you had the opportunity to read the "new york times" article yesterday with tom hanks. he talked about that he owes everything to community colleges, i believe. and he talks about when he graduated from high school that he wasn't the best student, and he sent his grades off and transcripts off to m.i.t., i believe. they may have been ucla or harvard, or something like that, and he opted to go to a community college in the bay area. and what a difference it made in his life. when you get a testimony like that, you see the difference it made, not just for tom hanks but a great piece yesterday by suzy orman talking about the value of community colleges. community colleges work for them.
we are not going to be right for everybody. we are not going to graduate everyone. but if you truly want to have that on-ramp to the middle class, i think we represent the best opportunity. and again, i think higher education is a game changer. so in my opinion, it is a win-win when we start to talk about educating more of our citizens with a higher education at an affordable cost. host: marietta, georgia is next. a graduate of community college. when did you go and what degree did you get? caller: i went to south georgia college, and i got a degree in business. and associates in business. i'm very much in favor of this policy because it has been very helpful. i went on to get my bs in georgia. i think -- [indiscernible]
if we only think about cost, cost cost, we need an investment or something that is going to help for the future. but overall, community colleges are very crucial to the country. and those who take remedial courses, it is not --sometimes they're coming from different high schools . so when they get to community college, everything, like, passes in front of them and they have to bring them up to that standard. it is not their fault that they are not up to their standard. but committee colleges are very helpful. thank you. guest: i totally agree with him. host: here's a tweet from michelle obama, talking about that article that you talked about. i poet all to community college, tongue hanks -- tom hanks
writing in the you are times on the importance of free community college. on our line for parents. lydia, good morning. lydia, are you with us? i think lydia stepped away from her phone. dana is in california on our life educators. dana, good morning. caller: yes, i prescient everything that is being said. and i agree with most everything. i'm an educator myself at a community college, and i really understands the issue of students that put in a financial contribution for themselves for tuition 10 to do better because they do have that financial investment in higher education. and there are students that can
pay for full tuition but my big concern is i feel like-- on the one hand, it is a wonderful idea to give free tuition to everybody. but on the other hand, i look at congress -- i watched c-span every morning and i know we have a republican, conservative congress -- and my concern is -- is there a way to offer a compromise between being free for everybody and -- or having students pay a lower cost for community college? or somehow in between where, if
you qualify for financial aid then you can get free tuition. but if you don't qualify for financial aid, then you have to go ahead and pay the full tuition. host: thank you for the question. mr. bumphus but question -- guest: i would hope that as this gentleman just stated, that the reasonable people could come up with some solutions that would be a compromise that we could have a win-win opportunity here. at the end of the day, again, as i stated earlier, we can provide more access to higher education for more of our citizens at free costs or reduce cost, whatever, i think it is a good thing. host: two point five gpa that
you have to maintain. do you support that? guest: yes. i do not know where they came up with a 2.5, but i certainly support that because it takes at least that to make reasonable progress towards an associate degree, and then hopefully a bachelors degree, if that is with the individual hopes to complete. host: on our line for parents, good morning, jeanne. caller: good morning. first of all, my daughter went to community college. what are they going to do for those question ? the other thing is, we have to make sure that the children who gets this are born in the united states because of the amnesty program that the president just gave. what upset me yesterday on the floor of the house -- nancy pelosi called the illegal immigrants american citizens. and they are not american citizens.
they are illegal which means they have broken the law. therefore, they should get nothing free from us. they should have to pay if they go to college. but the children born here should go to the top of the list. but the ones that have artie gone and have all this death -- already gone and have all this debt those students the to be taken care of, too. and so that is not fair to them. and their medial classes they have to take. when we have a year between high school and college with a goal and that is free? and let them pay when they go to technical school and to community colleges than because a lot of them do need extra reading or extra math. i didn't take algebra, so, you know, try to ease them into college. i know in kentucky, you can go into a four-year college at the same tuition rate.
host: mr. bumphus, if you suggestions there appeared guest: yes. by the way, i am from kentucky. you bring up a great point. it is something i hear most often from parents, and many of our students, and that is about the debt they have incurred as a result of their higher education experience. i have heard everything from the extreme of one student -- who own $400,000 to where you have the average student debt of around $30,000 by the time the student graduates. so the concern about indebtedness is a fair one. the immigration question, again, i don't have an answer on that. host: let's see if we can squeeze in shock, calling from michigan. chuck, where did you go and what degree did you get? caller: i got in associates in electrical