tv Washington Journal CSPAN April 26, 2012 7:00am-10:00am EDT
♪ host: good morning. welcome to "washington journal." the washington post a supreme court justices seem receptive to parts of arizona's immigration law. the oral arguments brought protesters on both sides of the issue. former house speaker newt gives support to mitt romney. the senate passed a coastal service bill that will stop some closures and keep it afloat. it forces early retirement on workers. how do you use the post office? this is inspired by the bill that passed yesterday in the
senate. have your habits changed in the last few years with the merchants of the internet? how much do you a lot -- rely on your mailbox? 202-737-0002 202-737-0001 202-628-0205 202-628-0184 email email@example.com and twitter, @cspanwj, or joing us on facebook. let us look at how "the wall street journal" is covering this. of --
guest: it has been in the works for a couple of years. this has been a real time constraint for the postal service. they argue they need congress to loosen the restrictions on when the bill can be delivered and when the post offices can operate. if you look at the process in the senate, it is a process that is absolutely -- there more restrictions on the postal service. there was a statement last night saying that what was passed in the senate is unacceptable because it will not help easily cut $22 billion in costs in the next three years. host: postal service has talked about closing a slew of their offices across the country. does this head this off? guest: it does. it puts restrictions on what kind of mail distribution
centers are around. in the senate version, they would not be allowed to close any rural post offices of like -- and less the next it was locations was 10 miles away. i know there are facilities that right now are 50 miles away from billick -- the next location. that is the kind of stuff they do not like. the processing facilities after 2001 would have to stay open. there are few examples of that in the midwest. all sorts of restrictions paste -- placed on them in the senate bill. in the house, there are fewer
restrictions on which locations can be closed. you have 100 senators fighting for home state interest. imagine what it will be like with 435 lawmakers fighting for district interests. host: you reported this past along by partisan lines but not everyone supported it. why not? guest: it was the conservatives. there was a tight margin. there were a few democrats who did not like this bill because it did not do enough to protect postal workers and their retirement and health care benefits. most republicans were against it because they said $11 billion back to the postal service will add to the deficit, while at the
budget control act, and it should not be done. host: how diaries' the financial situation at the postal service? guest: if congress does not help them by july or august, they could run out of money. that is mostly because americans are sending in receiving less milk than they used to. a big chunk of their costs is about $5.5 billion they have to pay every year to pre-fund at the health benefits of future retired postal workers. this was put in place in 2006 when the postal service was at a peak of delivery and revenue. it was forcing the postal service to pay ahead. to pay ahead in a 16-year span to be able to pay for their retirement of workers in the up future. now that the internet has taken
over, they cannot afford something like that. they would still be in the hole, but it would not be in the hole as much as they were last year. host: we often think of the postal service being in competition with fedex and ups. they waited on this -- weighed in on this, what is there take? guest: they need the postal service because the postal service is the only service that provides a universal service. the last mile delivery. the postal service will go to be far location in alaska or iowa or idaho where ups will not send a truck because it will not make business better. the postal service relies on fedex to help with overseas deliveries. but to send mail to other posts around the world.
as much as they may draw business from each other, there is a general sense that fedex and ups need the postal service, especially for those last miles. the postal service needs them in order to make their shipping its overseas. host: our question for listeners is how much do they use the post office. how much has the issue of user habits come up? we heard from reporters who said it is a parochial issue. they are speaking about their home districts. what are the hearing from folks back home about how people are dependent? guest: if you are a senator, you are doing everything you can to prove that you are protecting the post offices and that employee a few hundred folks. there is a general understanding that is not what
it once was and we need to figure out a way to -- in an election year, being forced to take this position is difficult because it affects every single constituent in lawmaker has. the postal service will end up with something they do not like and congress will say, too bad. public service, you will service service, you will have to continue to find a way to cut costs by moving them into the city hall or walmart. host: ed o'keefe, you can find his stories on line. thank you. how to use the post office?
let us hear from bob, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i come from a business background. i have a business degree. do you remember years ago when there was a do not call is on people that have landlines in their homes for the bones? -- for their phones? this was something the post office could do that would help streamline their operations. i get junk mail over and over from time warner and century bank and different people. i am no extreme left conservationist, but there is a lot of trees used. i have gotten telemarketing calls from companies and i tell century link and different companies, do not mail me any more mail.
here is a suggestion -- if they had a do not mail list for people that had home delivery and would make a list like a do not call list that would say, do not mail me any junk mail -- people that would get their service would get first-class letters and other things like bills from their banks. that would cut out a lot of volume that the postal service's has to deal with. i am not against advertising products, but the amount of time and effort and trees would naturally cut down the volume that the postal service has to carry and then they could streamline their operations to suit what they are left with. host: motherboard stock about how they make money off the junk mail because -- some reports talk about how they make money off the junk mail. what do you think? caller: there is nothing wrong
with making a profit, but if a consumer, which would be a home delivery mail receiver, does not want to get all of this junk mail, you should have the right -- host: let us leave it there. we are hearing from john, republican. caller: good morning. when you turn the tv on, i am looking at the post office because it just so happens that the other day i called the post office in pennsylvania and i was complaining about some fraudulent mail being sent to my house. they keep sending it, stating that you $1 million and you need to send $30 to them for a processing fee and all of that. this has been continuing to happen across the u.s. it seems like a lot of this is coming from the netherlands. they are using the u.s. post
offices around the country and they are getting a permit numbers and i had a permit number and i called the post office and i complained. i got some kind of a response. secondly, i had another problem where my ex-wife had stolen green cards out of the meal -- mail. nothing came out of the investigation. i said we should put money into the post office to -- for the security for fraudulent mail. what can we say about that? host: let us hear from a republican from nebraska. hello. caller: i agree with bob. host: so? -- how so? caller: it is the first amendment. junk mail.
i agree with him on that. host: okay. how rural is nebraska? caller: 4000 people. host: how many post of this is do you have? caller: 1. host: on twitter -- host: let us go to our next phone call. democrat joining us from georgia. hi, there. caller: good morning. if the post office wants to save money, they ought to get rid of some of the debt in their offices, it takes too long to get an out of there. they stay in there and talk and talk. that is their problem. they have too much help in sight. host: let us hear from donald, a
postal employee. 202-628-0184. he is joining us from indiana. good morning. caller: i am on the wrong line. i am an employee and i still use the post office. primarily -- i have a computer. i will not send anything over my computer to pay a bill or anything. i go through the post office. the reason why people should do that is because when you put the mail in the mailbox, you can guarantee it will get there. if something happens and it does not, there are steps you can take to figure out why it did not get there. look, i understand that a lot of people think that with email, it is ok to do that and it may be
is in some cases. but, the post office does a good job, you know, even though we pay 35 cents for a stamp right now. 45 cents for a piece of mail to go across the country -- that is pretty good. nowadays. host: on facebook -- host: look for cspan on facebbok. -- facebook. -- host: we are going to look at a
story from "that york times" added dishes -- "the new york times" that addresses how the legislation of the senate worked in terms of adding to the deficit or not. before the senate began voting on tuesday, mr. corker and three others race day point of order -- raised a point of order. one of the co-sponsors argue the bill would not add to the debt because any spending would come from revenue generated by the postal service, not from federal sources. illinois, good morning. caller: good morning. i use the post office every day. i get medicine. i pay my bills.
i know it will get where it will go. i can track it. i am wondering, when they passed the bill, did they not make them still pay 75 years in advance on retirees? no other business has to do that and that is why the post office is in trouble. host: i can give you information. what do you think about the proposal to stop saturday's service? caller: i do not like that. host: how come? caller: your mail will be late. how far in advance do you have to send your bills if they eliminate saturday delivery? host: here is the "wall street journal."
host: kim, democrat in california. hi, kim. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i use priority mail to ship my work. i love sending cards and notes. my biggest problem with the post of ce is the snail's pace the employees. i hustle. i am hustling to get my job done. when i going to the post office, i want to see that tussle. these people move like molasses
in winter. if you were on his schedule and you want to get in and get out -- i think the retirement will be a boon because you will get people who are hungry. they want to go to work. i want to keep saturday delivery and the postal service. the service is invaluable. host: 202-628-0184 if you are a post off employees. many post offices will be close in rural areas. you can see the graphic. centers in the states protested and said they have concerns about eliminating options for people in their communities. joe lieberman said --
"washington journal -- [video clip] >> here is the bottom line. the postal service itself says that within three years as sections of this bill are phased in, they will reduce their cost of operating by $19 billion and in the year after that, they will go in the balance. that is what this bill will accomplish. host: joe lieberman supported the postal service bill yesterday. the democrats who voted against it are a cause, -- senator of d other. an 13 republicans voted in favor of it. scott brown.
lisa murkowski. let us hear from gail in dallas, texas on our independent line. caller: i am a former employee. i called to let people know that are complaining about advertisements that they can go to direct mail advertisers association and be put on a list not to receive the their advertising mail. host: one of our folks on twitter said he wants to see more stamp machines, things being automated in the postal service. as a former worker, can more be automated? caller: into the's world, i am sure there are ways. -- in today 's world, i am sure there are ways. we have gone down to employees -- years ago, we had twice what
we had today. i think they can automate even more. they are automated. let me tell you, they are automated. a carrier gets mail from the plants, all sequenced in order. it is way different than it was. if you do not see people sorting mail as much as you used to. host: did you work with customers? caller: i was in the plant operations and then in customer services on the management level and transportation nationwide. host: thank you. let us hear from steve joining us from baltimore. caller: how are you? we mail about a million pieces of mail a day. there are a few things i think people should understand and one, the postal service funds and other government projects
not related to the postal service. that is interesting. they contribute to those clauses. we have seen a decrease in revenue. we see a lot of disorganization at the commercial mail level. they have been changing distribution and talking about using fedex or ups and taking the final mile of distribution and saturday delivery -- that does not matter because your mail is not as a way as people understand. if you build something today, it is 3 or four is to get their depending upon what distribution network is going to. i do not think that that will continue because they're talking about two and three day delivery as opposed to the next day.
privatizing that is a good idea and others have initiated that. other countries do it. but, it is a solution. we have been moving away from the postal system for -- only because the work sharing that they have provided in the past allows them to capture more revenue. it will probably not be in our business services after 12 months. the art -- there are a few things for people to talk about. host: scott brown supported the bill. here is an image of him with susan collins and senator lieberman an. they held a press conference yesterday. let us listen to one of the
gentleman on the house floor to oppose the bill. this is senator corker. [video clip] >> a vote for this bill increases our deficit this year by $11 billion. a vote to violate the budget control act that we just passed last year. so, i appreciate the work. we have worked to pay for this. we have not done that. i would like to remind everyone voting for this that we are, in fact, adding $11 billion to our deficit, more so than was laid out by the budget control act. host: senator corker oppose the bill that passed yesterday for the postal service. here is a tweet -- host: dave, independent from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning.
basically, unemployment is high and they are talking about laying off more people. the taxpayers pay for the bailout. i have a comment for that weeker -- tweeter. both ron paul and all of your problems will be solved. host: paul from massachusetts. caller: hello. how is it going? host: good, thanks. caller: i worked as an electronic technician. i worked at a processing facility that is slated to be closed. they had done a study and in the study, they basically said that we are expendable. although, they want to move our operation to a facility that
cannot even this tribute in this dame -- in the same proportions that we do. the studies, i question them. i do not think they are effective. i think that the problem we have with the postal service was done years ago by management. it could not -- they could not see that the electronic mailing that we have right now would be a challenge. that is a week that impacted. host: what kind of guarantee would you have of a job? caller: we have a no-layoff clause in our contract. it is possible that i could be getting rift and i would be mvoed. -- moved,. . hopefully, within a 50 mile
radius. host: the news is talking about how there might be retirement trigger on this that might affect 100,000 postal workers. could you take advantage of that? caller: i have approximately five years in the postal service and i am 50-years-old. according to guidelines, i do qualify a as a retiree because i am over 55. basically, it is a minimum standard. a minimum level considered for retirement. although, i am too young to retire, i would be impacted. host: let us look at this in "the wall street journal." the shrinking service of the postal service is under intense pressure as e-mail and package delivery services eat into business. you career employees going down in number in 2011. it was 550,000. it the mail volume process --
the mail volume process peak in 2007 but has gone down now. last year, 160 billion pieces of mail processed. montana, bob is a republican. hi, bobbie. -- hi, bob. caller: the government has done all of these bailouts. they bailed out wall street. they build up the auto industry. -- bailed out the auto industry. there is nothing that affects the individual more than the post office. i am in the town of 1900 people. in south-central montana. i am very close to many of the post offices on line to be be shut down. these people who live out in the bushes -- it would be a hardship on them to shut down the post
offices. the distance they would have to travel just for normal everyday activities. i cannot see that the government cannot -- i am not for spending more money. that is one of the areas that really affects the individuals and they really have to help us. host: one of the proposals the post office has talked about is putting a guest in local retailers so you can do postal business over the counter. would that work? caller: we have places where the only thing there is is just the post office. that might serve an area of hundreds of square miles. again, if there is a place where
they need to spend the money and prop up the individual right now, that is the place. they find a place to spend the money in overseas and everyone else but the one to shy away from helping the individual -- everywhere else, but they want to shy away from helping the individual. wall street affects more people than any other bailout. i disagree. it would be the post office. host: 80 to -- -- a tweet. host: tony joins us from maryland. not too far from washington. hi, tony. caller: i am calling because we would not be in this position if the bush administration in 2006 did not put in place where the
post office had to pay years in the advance for pensions and health care. they were attacking unions, trying to make it so unions would be weaker. this caused the post office to be in this position. the wall street journal is affiliated with these people. i want to get more opinions. host: i will read a little bit of the union workers response. let us look at some facebook comments.
host: we are talking about a bill that passed in the senate yesterday regarding the post office. there is not a game plan of where it will go after this and whether or not it will be signed into law. the news says there is a competing reform measures in the house. here is our representative terrelle i sent -- issa commented.
host: that story is by ed o'keefe. caller: i ship a considerable amount of stuff. at the same time that it would take the post office -- it is $25. the reason i use fedex and ups is because they tracking it so i know it gets there. the other reason is i have had stuff show up at postal employees' houses. they need to fund the postal inspector general's office -- i live in a rural area. i appreciate the fact that
people in my area need the post office. get a handle on mail theft. when i am shipping items to customers and they're not getting there because they have been stolen or things not arrive because they have been stolen and they end up in some main distribution center or postal -- oyees' houses host: okay. let us go to lisa, democrat in oklahoma. hi, lisa. turn down your tv for us. you were on the program. go ahead. caller: hello. i am concerned with the closing -- i understand they need a day off, but i am disabled and that you relied on my mail because i cannot drive. -- and i rely on my mail because
i cannot drive. i am really against them closing this. host: 4 going saturday service? caller: right. host: here is "the new york times." host: the response from a group that represents large delivery companies like fedex and ups which rely on the postal service for delivery services applauded the senate bill. here is what was said --
host: let us go to maryland where e. lane joins us on the republican line. -- elaine jones is, republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. since i have retired, i get to watch it more. i wanted to mention that i have received, from a marketing service, a united states postal service survey. it is a research survey. i can fill this out by hand. it is a 28-question survey or they give you an e-mail address. postalexperience.com. they give you a designated blog
in number and password. i am sure that maybe this survey is random. i am happy to fill that out. i love going to the post office. i use it for many aspects. mailing books, stamps, and i am patriotic. american. you know, i love to go out and see these people. of course, sometimes i am late with my bills and i, you know, with russia on saturday mornings to get them in the melt. there is a -- i would rush on saturday mornings to get them in the mail. i think is a part of america and i use it a lot. it is very convenient for me. anyhow, that is what i wanted to say. host: here is an e-mail --
clerking and sorting the mail. the response the one woman said that she would like to see the postal workers moving quicker, and she -- there is a lot of movement in vall to keep the post office running. one of the callers mentioned in 2002 or 2004, they require the post office to fund 75 years in advance, the retirement fund. that is a huge burden, i believe, on the post office to come up with those billions of dollars per year. from what i heard internally, when it gets heated up between the congress in the post office and the postmaster general, there is usually the threat of -- the threat of pulling the post office retirement fund out of the federal retirement fund. the use that to scare us.
that puts strains on the federal retirement fund. people do not really understand how immense the post office is. and the kind of revenue that it generates. and how much of its profits pays employees. $700 billion a year is generated. 1% actually pays for its employees and retirement funds. it is a huge operation that -- it is amazing it runs. it is one of the last american institutions that runs quite well. host: let us go to a comment on twitter -- host: let us look at some other stories. justices receptive to parts of arizona's immigration law.
the supreme court question the view of the limited role states may play in enforcing immigration laws. we get the decision in june. "usa today" -- host: "the wall street journal" -- the obama administration has given leeway to target suspected of kite and militants in yemen with drones. -- al qaeda and militants in
yemen with drones. newt gingrich's dropping his white house bid after poor showings in primaries on tuesday. he tells mitt romney he will endorse him. host: let us look at comments made by senator marco rubio. he was at the brookings institution yesterday. he was giving a foreign policy speech and we will look at some stories that talk about how significant that was for him as a politician. there was a bit of a snafu. let us take a look. [video clip] >> above all else, the 21st century provides the opportunity for more freedom. a world where more people are free to grow their economies. free to pursue their dreams.
free to become prosperous. i left my last page of the speech. does anybody have it? [laughter] host: despite that, the reviews of marco rubio's speech are in and it says that he is getting a lot of attention for this. the speech places him as a possible vice presidential candidate. this is the story from local the washington post became -- "the washington post." host: vice-presidential -- vice president and vice presidential
nominee, joe biden, going to the brookings institution to talk about foreign policy. this is happening 24 hours after senator rubio showed up in the same diets -- dias. finally, "the financial times." host: coming up next, we will be talking with members of congress to brief us on everything from education and student loans to looking at the foreign policies with armed services. we talk with the chairman of the house armed services committee, buck mckeon. also a democrat of connecticut. let us look at the senate
judiciary committee testimony yesterday. they heard from janet napolitano about the alleged misconduct by secret service agent overseas. lindsey gramm engaged unquestioning with her. [video clip] >> the likelihood this was the first and only time such behavior occurred, it do you think that is great or not so great? >> i think part of our investigation is confirming that this is an aberration, or not. but, i agree with you, senator. the secret service does a marvelous job. i have worked closely with them. >> the only reason i say we need to look harder is because we are lucky to have found out about that. had it not been for the argument about a prostitute and the aged about money, we would have never known.
we have a good -- do you believe the agents were conspicuous -- confuse that their conduct were gone? -- confused that their conduct was wrong? >> i think it was unprofessional. as i said in my statement, i think that the people who are most disappointed or the other men and women of the secret service. >> i could not agree more. human beings being human beings, we make mistakes. organizations can get loose. i have been a military lawyer for 30 years. one of the first things we would it buys new commanders, and new squadron commander, is you have a bunch of young people in the military and away from home. go to the barracks at 3 in the morning and were will get out quickly that you need to watch what you are doing because the
commander will show up. is there any supervisor at where the home duty station would visit on a random basis? >> i am not aware of that. i do not know the answer. one of the reasons we are continuing to brief -- >> can i suggest that you look at a program similar? where people from the central body show up on an unannounced basis throughout the world and let people know that somebody back home is watching. that might do good in the future. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest this buck mckeon. thank you for being here. let us start off with secretary to polish town of's line of conversation yesterday with senate members -- let us start out with jan and a polish town
of's conversation yesterday with senate members. is this a problem? guest: it is hard to think that this is a culture. i mean, you get a couple of people out of hundreds of thousands that we have in the military. i do not think so. i think some guys lost their judgment and i guess, i do not know what was going through their minds. it is a terrible thing to have happened. i think that we have systems in place that they can do investigations and that they will get to the bottom of it and get it taken care of. host: have you got an insight into this as the chairman of armed services? guest: no. my staff had a briefing on it yesterday but i have not spoken to them about it yet.
host: does it change the situation because members of the military are alleged to be involved? guest: it is a bad situation. we need to take care of it. deal with it. we have other things we are focusing on that are important. we are in a war in afghanistan. we have problems around the world. we can departmentalize and walk and chew gum at the same time. we have people who will take care of this. host: the u.s. relaxes drone rules. what is your opinion on this? the obama administration has given the cia and military greater leeway in using them against militants in yemen. guest: i have a nephew that flies drones. my wife and i visited him in nevada -- [no audio]
guest: someone actually lance the plane. he is sitting in the left seat. his weapons officer is sitting in the right seat. it is a pretty complicated system and it is well controlled. whenever they continue to do will be free chicken whatever they will do will be good. host: the numbers are on the screen if he would like to speak with him today. host: what is your take on what is happening with afghanistan?
guest: i am concerned that we might draw the troops out. the president says we will drive down the troops by september. that will take us down to 60,000 that are still there and able to carry on operations. they are working on trying to make sure that the afghans are trained and have the ability to carry on to provide their own security. -- if they are able to --
many of the provinces have been turned over them the -- turned over to them for security. we made a lot of progress. i feel pretty good about where we are at this point. if we do not step up to withdraw. i am concerned about that. host: karzai is as to cancel a visit. host: your colleague, what you think about this? smart move? guest: dana as a long history there. he spent time in afghanistan.
under the reagan and ministration when we were -- administration helping the afghans fighting against the russians. he spent time with the number alliance. he has a long history and a pretty good record there. i think he has some real concerns about things that are going on. i think dana can add to the debate. unfortunately, they would not let him go. they still have the meeting over there. they met with the people he had planned on meeting with. so, it is unfortunate they did not let him go. wife moves on. host: let us -- life moves on. host: let us go to the phones.
good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. i think all american servicemen and agents must be subject to american law wherever they are. sometimes when you go overseas, if cocaine is legal in a country, you cannot do it because you are subject to american law. prostitution is illegal for you because you are subject to american law. they will know that they are subject to criminal prosecution if they go overseas -- wherever they go. if you are an american where you go and that should be in the heart of their mission and what they are doing anywhere, anytime. guest: there is no question about that. they understand that and they know that. if they violate it, they will be dealt with accordingly. many of the secret service people have lost their jobs.
if there are service people that have found -- that have been found of guilty of anything, they will be prosecuted or dealt with according to the law. i do not think there is any question about that. people understand that. host: "usa today" reports that nine agents are leaving. three have been cleared. the pentagon is investigating 12 members of the military who were part of the advanced team. the president was not put at risk, but the actions remained inexcusable and such behavior cannot be tolerated. do you have concerns about this being a security risk? guest: i do not know all the details. all i know is what i read in the press. we have built up a frenzy about these things and they become big stories.
obviously, we all look upon the secret service as being very special. when they do something like this, in my lifetime, i have never heard of anything like this. i think it causes us all to shake our heads and wonder what they were thinking about. again, we have realized they are human beings, but they have really fell short in this particular case. they have moved quickly to handle the situation and i think it has been a wake-up call to those that were involved and to the whole service. i felt bad for the rest of the people in the service. when you go into that, you dedicate your life to protecting the president, to doing whatever you are called upon to do. these two guys that -- it sounds
like a spring break thing that you would see high school or college kids doing. it should not have happened in the secret service. hopefully, we can put it behind us and move on. host: texas, go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. chairman. i pose my question in the context of our country's debt problem. we spend roughly 5% of gdp while our european allies spend about half of that. for some reason, we are obligated to set up a missile defense system in eastern europe. it does not make any sense to me. we are deeply in debt. our defense budget is more than the next seven or a countries in the world.
-- 7 or eight countries in the world. why are we obligated to set up a missile defense system to protect the eastern european countries from a suppose a missile threat from iran? when is congress going to realize it cannot defend the world. guest: since world war two, we have taken upon ourselves the obligation to protect the world. 95% of our commerce travels on the oceans, and our navy makes that possible. there are about seven chokepoints around the world. if they were closed off, they would have an immediate impact.
gasoline prices would double. it would have a tremendous impact. people want to take that for granted that we have free passage and safety for commerce to travel. we have not had that major conflict in europe since world war two, and some of these alliances are commitments we have made a long time ago. in we have -- we have pulled back. we're supposed to have a base in poland. we're supposed to pull that back. we have cut back on missile defense in the country. it is something we will look at as we markup this year's bill. yes. we are in tremendous financial difficulties. we cannot blame it all on military spending.
we have taken half of the savings we put in place in the last year out of defense, and they only account for 20% of our spending. what we really need to do to get our fiscal house in order is focused on the mandatory side of the budget. that is what the super committee was supposed to do and did not do it. we find ourselves in a serious financial situation. host: chairman buck mckeon, chairman of the armed services committee. let's talk about your defense spending bill. you're looking at areas like military personnel, strategic forces. what are your top priorities? guest: the first thing is to make sure we provide for the common defense. in the constitution, that is our obligation.
make sure that we and our allies are protected around the world. a lot of people have said everything should be on the table. when i came to congress almost 20 years ago, the whole budget was about $1.5 trillion. president bush put the deficit, $438 billion. we have added to our deficit in the last three years. i realize we have serious problems. we cannot fix it in one year. it took decades to build up. it has escalated. if we eliminated all of our discretionary budget, all
defense spending, all spending on education, national parks -- everything we spend money on, we would still be running a deficit of $0.50 trillion a year on spending. we need to address that. defenses on the table. the budget we are going through right now cuts almost $0.50 trillion out of the defense budget. i have a chart here if you want to look at it. what that shows is the dark blue is what we actually spent on defense. host: we are looking at over $550 billion. guest: the base budget. the yellow -- this is on
today's dollars, without inflation -- the yellow is what we are cutting out if we project out for 10 years. if we did not do the cuts we did not do in this year's budget, we would be spending what you see as blue, red, and yellow. the yellow we are taking out. that is the $0.50 trillion we are taking now. we also passed the deficit reduction act that will kick in because the super committee did not do their work. on january 1, we will have the sequestration, another $5 billion, or $6 billion coming out of defense. so, going forward, what we will
cut out over the next 10 years is a little over $1 trillion. that is pretty big. you have seen the blue we have spent the last few years, and the blue we will spend going forward -- huge cuts to the defense. the navy will be cut to the smallest since world war one, the air force, since it was created, and that the sequestration kicks in we have the danger of howling about our ability to provide for the common defense. host: bob, republicans line in chicago. caller: good morning. i think the cia scandal is astonishing. in world war two, in the philippines compete --
philippines, they were soliciting prostitution all the time. i think this is a distraction. the obama administration is using secrets to decide who is been killed on site. they are turning those drones to the american people. i think we're becoming a police state. it is partly because of the military. nsa post is coming to us, and this is worse than what was done in russia. i am outraged. guest: it is hard to know where to begin there. i mean, there are people that have those kinds of feelings. i just disagree. host: do you worry about drones as infringing on civil rights?
new guest: we do not use them domestically. if we do, it is not under the military. there is talk of using them for surveillance or controlling the border. we have done some of that. using them domestically, that would come under other areas, not the military. the military does not function over the civilians, or the civil affairs in the country. host: chairman mckeon, a comment from twitter asking if you are concerned at all what president obama's whisper to president meant the death -- to the president of russia? guest: i am concerned. we have cut back on missile defense in europe and in the country. the idea -- we have already
given things to russia in the last negotiations without getting anything in return, and to hear something like that, i have very deep concerns. host: dog, boston, democratic caller. caller: your guest is on the record as having a strong urge to bombing iran, and it is proportional to the campaign contributions he gets from the defense industry. in this election cycle alone he has received somewhere in the region of half of $1 million. perhaps he would comment on my observations. guest: i do not think i am on the record for has been to call for bombing of iran. i am concerned that they are moving toward a nuclear weapon. that would be something we could
not put up with. they have threatened to eliminate israel, and they are very close. if they have a nuclear weapon, i think they would probably used it. i think if they were just sincere about wanting to build nuclear power plants they would not have to bury their work under mountains and caves. they could open it up. people could see what they were doing, and they could move forward. they are disingenuous in what they're doing. i did not called for bombing of iran. i am -- i have not called for the bombing of their run. i am saying we cannot let them have a nuclear weapon, and we should have every option on the table. if it comes to that, that should
be one of the options the president has at his disposal. if so, i think it is just very important that we just see that they do not getting a clear weapon in that area. host: eureka, california. mark. independent. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. when you spoke about the drone program not being used in america, i did not know if you are ill-informed, or lying to us, but there is a program that has authorized different colleges to use the drones all over different parts of america. i am concerned about that. my second question is are you a member of alec, and why do you think that we need to have voter
suppression in order to make it safer? host: what do you mean by a voter suppression? caller: the voter id act are trying to test. actt: the voter i.d. s and alec. guest: i am not a member. that is the first i have heard about it. if he says i am misinformed or lying, i could be misinformed. i am not lying. i know the military is not using drones over cities or in the country. we do not do that. if a local police department
wants to use a drone, they would have to work with the faa. it is very difficult to get faa clearance to use drones in the country. i have worked with the faa. i am the co-chair of the un manned systems caucus. in my area, in my district, they build drawdowns in one part of the district -- drones in one part of the district, and want to fly to another part for testing, and you have to get faa approval. if there is civil use of drones, i am not aware of it. i know the military is not using it. host: from twitter -- daniel asks how well as the
afghanistan nation-building objective transitioning from a tribal to a central government? guest: that is not really the goal. that is not our goal. we are working with the local system. you know, we have been, in our experiment with democracy, going on two hundred years, and we still fight about this state control against federal control, against local control -- they have a totally difference system. we do not want to go in and change their system from the ground up, or the top down. we just have to realize they are not america. we are not trying to get them to become america. we are trying to get them so they can govern their country so they do not have areas where al- qaida could come in, train, and
plan, like they did against us in the 9/11 attack. they are highly uneducated as a country. when i was over there, a sergeant was trying to train gaius to fire their weapons, and he said put four -- train guys to fire their weapons, and he said put four cartridges in your weapon, and they did not know what four was. it is not the they're stupid or dumb, but they have not been educated. the general when i was there really put the effort into educating the army recruits. in the 70,000 recruits, the educated most of them to the third grade-level. it is hard for us to comprehend and understand that, but if you
take the old western movies, before you were born, when we first came into the country, you would have the explorers, and they would run into the indians, and they would show the main mirror, and they had never -- and show them a mirror, and they have never seen that. that is what it is like in afghanistan. it is hard for us to understand that. we have children 3, four years old that know how to read, no basic things. their way ahead. we are starting the they are way ahead. we are starting at 8 -- they are way ahead. we are starting at a higher level. the mission is to get them up to basic education and the ability to defend themselves, and not have territory that is not governed where terrorists
can come in and launch attacks. host: not so, tennessee. -- knoxville, tennessee. jeff, independent line. caller: it seems to me this afghanistan bill is getting a little old. we have spent trillions of dollars, lost countless american lives, it is sickening. it is sickening to think the america that a lot of us have grown up in it is gone. we are being run by a bunch of crooked lawyers from the top, to the senators, to all the way down the line. it is really disgusting to a lot of a. a lot of us have opened our eyes to what is going on in the government. we have not like it. hopefully we can get some changes.
thank you. -- we have not liked it. hopefully we get some changes. thank you. guest: i understand his frustration. i have seen a lot of change in my lifetime. we have added more levels of bureaucracy, more red tape and everything we do. it makes it harder to start a business, harder to just about do anything that we want to do. government is infringing more and more on our lives. we definitely need to pull back. if we could get back to what the constitution says, where the federal government provides for the common defense, and most other things are done by local government -- i served on a school board, and as a mere and on a local civic -- as a mayor, and on a local city council -- if we could give school boards
the abilities to run schools instead of washington, we would be better off. pioneer standard frustration. people across the country see and feel it. we saw all lot of that in the last election. that was a huge -- a lot of that in the last election. that was a huge election. people are getting frustrated. they can get out and say what they think. they can get involved in the process. if they do not like the way people are performing, they can change those people. more power to the people. >> host: as our guest -- host: as our guest mentioned, he was a part of the city council, and served as a mayor. he is in his 10th term in the u.s. congress. he is the chairman of the armed services committee. we're looking at the budget for military endeavors, also talking about afghanistan and other
foreign policy issues. clint, republican, texas. caller: i am actually a libertarian, but c-span does not have a line for us. on the cia, what they have done in getting involved with the prostitution scandal, it is in my opinion a good idea for america because they have opened up prostitution for debate. should consenting adults be allowed to exchange services? in a free country, the answer should be yes. but guest: well, i guess that will be debated and talked about. there are people that have strong feelings otherwise. if i were not a republican, i would be a libertarian, but there are a few things i cannot go along with him libertarian philosophy. i tend to be more toward that
side of things. i think less government intrusion in our lives -- in fact, when i first ran for congress, i decided to run because i was a businessman and i was tired of professional politicians, and i have only met one congressman or two congressman in my life at that point, and i told a friend i was going to run for congress. this said collett press conference. tell people. -- this call a press conference. tell people. i said how do you call a press conference? i gave my speech. one reporter's first question was where are you on the abortion? on the city council, we did not desk that question. i said the government should
stay out of our lives and our bedrooms. >> he said you are pro-choice. -- he said you are pro-choice. i said no. i am pro-life. it is interesting how there are certain buzzwords that you learned have connotations. i did not have a clue about any of that stuff. it is a great education. it has been an interesting process. i have learned a lot, and i am not happy with the way direction is going in the country. we need to do what these callers are indicating. get involved. let your ids -- your ideas be known. take out a candidate. get out and be part of making change host: we talked about defense spending -- change. host: we talk about defense
spending and sequestration, and how that will start in january if congress does not come to a major budget-cutting decision. cindy rights in -- cindy says i am hoping sequestration kicks in. guest: that is what is great about this country. people can express their different years. what will likely happen to the defense of our nation would be tragic if sequestration did actually kick in. the way the law is written, it will kick in. people have their heads in the sand thinking that if we just ignore it it will go away or we will fix it during a lame duck session. it should be fixed right now because it is affecting lives right now. host: on the committee website you call it basically catastrophic.
guest: here is what happens. the pentagon, everything they buy, they buy on contract. so, there are hundreds of thousands of these contracts. what will happen on january 1, january 2, we will stop paying. pick out a company. xyz company. they build a certain thing we use for our war fighters and they do that on a contract, and negotiate the contract over eight period of time, which could sometimes be extended. once the contract is agreed to, they will do certain things. we will do certain things. they build the product. we pay them. if the contract -- all the
sudden sequestration kicks in, and we ask what the secretary was doing to prepare for it, and he said nothing, the way it is written, they just take up the budget, go down every line item, and take out 8% or 12%. once you do that, it nullifies of the contracts. we can no longer pay the contractor what we negotiated. i spoke to one of these companies and said what are you going to do, and he said we will stop paying the subs, who will want to have the contract closed out, the penalties paid, we will go into litigation, that could take years. will be a field day for
attorneys, and the pentagon will be paralyzed. how do you move forward? we are a nation of laws. we follow the law. the law says that is the way it will work. i think it will be devastating. how will we -- how do we pay the military? the president is supposed to decide what we do about personnel in august. if he says they are out, they will be out, we will still be able to pay the military, but that is it. the contracts, the things we buy that they need -- ammunition, gasoline, power -- it all stops. host: representative buck mckeon has a bill to avert sequestration, house bill 3662.
it is called the down payment to protect national security act. yesterday, congressman adam smith came on our program and talk about the defense budget. [video clip] guest: the defense budget has doubled since 2002, ended doubled in response to 9/11. there is no question about that. the threat is and was very real. without question, there is no question the defense budget could be brought under control. it doubled. over the next 10 years, we can find savings. the president proposed nearly $500 billion in reductions. that is something i said i support. i think that is appropriate. we can build a strategy to protect us within that number. we need to look for savings anywhere we can. host: chairman mckeon, your
response? guest: when adam smith is talking about the budget having doubled, inflation has accounted for a lot of that, and because they kept the war expenses outside of the budget, that is also a big part of that. we passed the actual budget, and on top of that, we paid for the war effort. that has been running -- when we were fighting in both iraq and afghanistan -- about $150 billion a year. we know that is going away over the future. they still have it in some of the planning, but we know that is not going to be spent because the troops are out of iraq, and in a couple of years they will be out of afghanistan. those costs will drop way down, and we get down to the base budget, which about half of goes
to paying for the military, their housing, and the things we paid for four providing for our personnel and people. the rest of it goes for the war fighting materials they need, and we shoot up that equipment over 10 years of -- chewed up that equipment over 10 years. money will be needed to give them the tanks and the things they need to continue to defend us. i think there is no question, and i have never said we can not find savings in defense, i'm just saying we need to be realistic. if you take a pie, and looked at all of the spending of the petrol government, defense would be -- and look at all of the
spending of the federal government, the defense spending would be less than 20%, and we are taking 50% out. when you looked at the needs to defend around the world -- look at what is going out in iran, north korea, china, the air of the spring, the things that happened there which the arab spring, the things that happened -- the arab spring, the things that happened the we did not no word going to happen. we have in his three pulled back after each for -- in history pulled back, after every war, thinking there is not a point to be another war, and then we have another war. this is the first time we have
done a big drawdown when we are still fighting the war and there are other potential hot spots around the world. there are people pushing to go into syria. we had libya out there with our navy, our air force. we did not have troops on the ground, but all of the cost money. missiles, we shot a lot of those, and on average they were about $1 million apiece. we spent a lot of money there. there are people that think that was a good thing, and people think we should not do that. the president made a decision. he is the commander-in-chief. when he says for the military to go, they go. host: we have this chart from the congressman's office. you can see it tracked through time with big events like the cold war buildup, afghanistan,
iraq, the iraq drawdown, and a drawdown in afghanistan. here's the fiscal year 2013. but here from a democratic call in vermont -- let's hear from a democratic caller in vermont. ron. caller: good morning. i think it is a foregone conclusion it will be all drones. i'm a baseball guy. shoeless joe jackson, when he got caught, he was banned from baseball completely. j. edgar hoover had files on people. when those kind of things happen, people get compromised. you might say it's only prostitution, and it was legal in that country, but, you know,
how much more potentially could be compromised? it is a very serious thing. i was just wondering, are these secret service agents, in the future, are they going on a no- fly list? will they be prohibited to interface with government, even get hired by government contractors? you know, should we take their right to bear arms away? host: we will leave it there and get a response. guest: i do not think anyone has said we should not worry too much about it. everything i have read about it and seemed on the media sees this as a very serious thing. nobody is giving a wink and a nod to this. most of the people involved are already out of the secret service. they are investigating it
thoroughly. they understand the seriousness of the incident. those in the armed services that were involved will be investigated and handled accordingly. you are talking about going forward, after they have been released from the secret service, should they be -- should they be limited in their ability to provide a living, or carry weapons? i do not know. they have lost their jobs. i do not think they have been tried and found guilty of any crime, and i do not know how that will go forward, but you do not take away people's rights without giving them due process, and i think that will remain to be seen how that all plays out. host: one last call. oklahoma. jim, republican. good morning. caller: i will do the best i
can. i am a partially disabled veteran. there are three things i need to talk about. ok? what is i am fourth defense spending, but i'm not for military waste. we have roughly 950 basis, and roughly 150 countries and that spending is not necessary at all. it does not make us safer at all. another thing a wanted to talk about it is iran. iraq and afghanistan were to waste of military spending, human life, and we cannot continue. now, some people are beating the drum about iran because they might a nuclear weapon. we are not a policeman of the world. host: let's leave it there and
get a response from chairman mckeon. guest: first of all, i thought he said he was a disabled veteran. i want to thank you for your service. i could not hear all the things you are talking about. i understand you are against the war in iraq and afghanistan and do not think we should worry about iran. there is room for disagreement on this. people have different views. i think that will be the case. there probably were people that felt we should have never gotten involved in world war two, and people that think we should not have gotten involved in korea or wherever. we will always have those disagreements. the commander in chief is the only one that has all of the information at all times, and he has to make decisions to defend
this country, and he does. when he takes us into iraq or afghanistan, or libya, or iran, i think the military will salute and they go. that is our system, and that is how we operate. so, i understand not everyone is going to agree. i heard if you have two people that agreed to everything, one of them is an idiot. i expect to have differences of opinion. we are fortunate to live in this country where we can express those views and celebrate their freedoms that make us what we are. we are americans, and thank goodness. host: congressman buck mckeon represents california's 25th
district as a republican and he is chairman of the armed services committee. thank you very much. coming up next, we will talk with congressman joe courtney, and then after that we will visit with the first prize high school winner for the studentscam competition. first, an update from c-span radio. >> in what is being referred to as a historic ruling, former liberian president charles taylor has been convicted of aiding and abetting war crimes and crimes against humanity for support of rebels in sierra leone in return for blood diamonds. is the first head of state convicted in an international court since the post-world war two, nirenberg military tribunal. marc grossman, a senior american on void is meeting in islamabad to try to open up
supply routes to afghanistan. ambassador grossman says he does not expect immediate commitment that the routes would reopen, but the task is to begin a conversation about how to move forward. islamabad shot the supply lines in november, protesting against an inadvertent u.s. air raid that killed 24 pakistani troops. the 2012 election campaign is taking. the first rallies will be with mrs. obama. ahead of those rallies, press -- vice president joe biden will deliver a speech. the obama campaign released experts -- experts, and they say if you are looking for a bumper sticker to sum up how president obama has handled what we inherited, it is pretty simple -- osama bin laden is dead, and
general motors is alive. those are some of latest headlines and seize the radio. >> i seemed to have earned a certain place where people will listen to me, and i have always. about the country. "the greatest generation" writing that book, it gave me a platform. i thought not to squander that. i ought to step up not just as they citizen and a journalist, but as a husband and a grandfather, and if i see these things, i ought to write about them, and try to start this dialogue, which i'm trying to do with this book about where we need to get to next. >> in his latest, "the time of our lives," tom brokaw writes about the greatest generation,
the 1960's, and today. live, noon eastern, and on booktv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative joe courtney. thank you for being here. you presented legislation that would prevent rate increases on student loans, what happened then, and why is this coming out as a big issue now? guest: when i first came to congress in 2007 when the great accomplishments was passing the act that caught the interest rate for the stanford student loan program. we cut the rate from 6.8%, to 3.8%. it was sunset after five years. it was well-understood at the time.
it is an issue, just because of the way i came to congress, i followed it closely. i have the university of connecticut in my district. it is an institution with 13,000 undergraduates, and i heard first hand how important the rate cut was a time when student loan debt exceeds credit card debt and car loan debt. president obama called on congress to avoid the rate going back up to the prior level. the sunset will happen on july 1. immediately thereafter, i filed legislation that would lock in the lower rate. as of yesterday, we have won 51 co-sponsors, and said we only one republican has taken the step to join us in that effort. there has been a lot of effort over the last week or so because the president has turned up the heat, raising visibility around this issue. about 45 days ago, senator jack
reed and i held a press event with 130,000 signatures on a petition was dropped off at the speaker's office. we have been trying through the external communications with the congress to get people's attention. this is a profoundly important issue in terms of workforce needs, the ability to compete in the future, and obviously try to help stem the rising tide of debt that surrounds young people as we leave college. the stanford program is really by far the best program for kids to use. there is a grace period of six months after you graduate where you do not have to make payments. interest accumulates while you are in school. the meter starts running the
minute you get that the plot -- the deployment. this is important. i'm thrilled the president has made this the national spotlight. it looks like we are finally getting movement out of the speaker's office, which, frankly, up until yesterday, was pretty much stonewalling this issue. host: if you would like to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call. host: let's listen to president obama talking about student loans at the university of iowa yesterday. [video clip] >> are a couple of things i would like congress to be doing this year. first committee to extend the tuition tax credits i put in place when i came to office
because it is saving middle- class families thousands of dollars. they get a tax break helping their kids go to college. that is important. [applause] >> second, we need congress to safeguard aid for low-income students so today's freshmen and sophomores know they can count on it. number 3, we have to give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work- study jobs of the next five years. that is an achievable goal. [applause] >> then, most immediately, and this is where i really need you guys, congress needs to act right now to prevent interest rates on federal student loans from shooting up, and shaking you down.
host: president obama speaking yesterday. let's go to the calls and hear from david in arlington, virginia, republican line. caller: thank you for your service, congressman. i'm a former student, on the grant, and i have my masters, and i have well into six digits of student loan debt. it seems that congress is treating the symptom and not the disease. regardless of what their rate is, if the kids are not majoring in something that will get them a job that helps them pay back the student loans, it is all a wash. we are behind the rest of the world in science is, accounting, finance, it degrees that will pay dividends rather than hieroglyphics, or something to
that degree. there are mandates sent out all the time. how about a mandate that gets the kids into a degree program that will pay dividends in the long run? guest: thank you so much. that is a great question. you're absolutely right. we should not throw money at a situation where, as you correctly point out, the u.s. has been falling behind in terms of hard science skills of our workforce really needs. as you know, and there are studies that show this, including the minnesota federal reserve board, there are job openings of there, but there is a skills mismatch in terms of what countries are looking for -- companies are looking for precisely the areas where we have to beef up performance in our higher education system. secretary are the duncan initiated an effort -- secretary duncan initiated an effort to make the for-profit education sector, at least, the schools
that advertise early in the morning and frankly use a lot of this title four money, and the loans to finance students to use these programs -- he was proposing a system of accountability along the same lines of what you said, were basically, the schools would have to measure up in terms of gainful employment for their graduates. if they do not measure up, they would be subject to losing title for. we need to look at those efforts across the board. thank you for that call again. if you look to what the president was talking about at iowa state, or by a white university, rather, the fact is -- i will university, rather, he has thrown out proposals to
major universities are not going crazy with tuition increase. yes, we have a lot of carrots and sticks we could hold over our education system, and one of the nice things about the issue is it is opening up a much bigger dialogue about the effect of this country has to get serious about stepping up its game in terms of higher education performance, and secondly, it is not just limited to this one issue. clearly, with the ticking clock, we are 65 days away from the july 1 doubling of the rates. host: rates go up july 1, but there is a port from republicans as well to stop the clock. the question is how to pay for it. speaker john boehner said there would be a vote friday. let's hear what he a to say yesterday. [video clip] >> friday, the house will vote
on a bill to extend the current rate for student loans for one year. we will pay for this by taking money off -- in one of the slush funds in the president's health care law. this week, the president is traveling the country on the taxpayers' dime, campaigning, trying to invent a flight where there is not one, and has never been one on this issue of student loans. we can, and we will fix the problem without campaign-style theatrics. host: your response? guest: i applaud the fact there is finally some moment. as someone who has been involved in this issue going back three months, in january, the way he characterized his caucus' response is not borne out by the effected -- by the fact. the education and workforce
committee has not held a hearing. they said locking in a lower rate was bad policy, and the chair will and was on the radio saying she had no tolerance for people with high debt levels, like the caller we just heard from. look, it is washington, and the speaker saw the tea leaves get this issue has great power. 7 million students use the student loan program, tens of millions have used it in the past. this strikes a nerve out there politically. the pay-for they are proposing to -- it is unfortunate that we have to get into this super- charged, politicized rhetoric, calling things a slush fund. when we are talking about is funding in the health-care reform law that pays for wellness and prevention programs. i come from connecticut.
a fortune 500 company, 15 years ago, they went through their health care expenses, and said we need to fix this, and they did some work in terms of increasing co-payments, and try to get more patient involvement in terms of utilization. what they also did was say we will incentivize people to stop smoking, have a healthier diet in our cafeteria, promote exercise, and actually installed exercise rooms. what they saw it is their health-care costs went down because people were just following better practices. you know, this is the way we solve our health care systems challenges in my opinion without pushing people financially with high deductibles, co-payments, and premiums. that is exactly what the funding in this program is that mr. john deere is talking about.
we would eliminate a tax loophole -- john boehner is talking about. we would eliminate tax loopholes for oil companies. frankly, the notion we need to prop them up with more tax credits defies common sense. the senate has a proposal to close a sub-chapter s local. my hope is that we are talking of the same baseline of moving on an issue, and is really now a question of when and how, as opposed to whether we are exit point to fix this problem. host: maria, the bronx, a democratic caller. caller: good morning. i want to talk about the loans of the students. how could we get it to pay in for all of these kids that keep popping up?
another thing is that a lot of times in class, these kids do not do their homework. they get these loans, their grants, and everything that people pay, and these kids do not even do the work. the other thing, the bilingual classes. i do not get it. we never had that before, all of these years, and the kids were doing just fine without this. how come we are bobbing down so much to all of these kids -- d'alene down so much to all of these kids and the students instead of just leaving the schools to do their work the way they used to? they do not even want to test these kids. >guest: it is important to remember that this is a loan program. these students are obligated to pay back the money with interest to the government, which administers this program to the u.s. department of education. this is not a giveaway.
this is creating an obligation. i suppose, are the 7 million students that use the program, you could probably find instances of people that are not working hard, or not really doing their school work, but having said that, that does not mean they are not on the hook for repaying these loans, it stood in bed is not discharge a ball in bankruptcy. -- student debt is not discharge will in bankruptcy. -- cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. this is a serious obligation for young people to take on, and frankly, the batting averages outstanding on balance. we had a story in "the connecticut press call call about a young woman undergraduate who has $50,000 in student loan debt. she works three jobs in addition to going to school.
you know, she is an outstanding student, and someone that is really going to contribute. she is into mental health, career path there will be great need for in the future. every american, when they themselves and their own families -- i have a son who finished college, a math major and a daughter who is in her -- on high school budget in high school -- we are focused in america and try to make sure they will succeed in life, and a post-high school degree in the 21st century it is as important as a high-school degree was in the 20th-century. we have to do this to succeed as a nation. it's called let's look at some statistics on student debt -- host: let's put some statistics on student debt.
it's called roger rights -- phonelet's go to another call. james, a republican, -- oklahoma. caller: do you feel responsibility for what you did lowering the rates in 2007? that got more people into the system that cannot afford to pay their loans back. guest: i not only take responsibility, i feel that as one of the proudest accomplishments that we passed the cost reduction act. the united states of america was number one in the world in
graduation rates in the 1980's. we have dropped to 12, and that has been a steady progression. cost is the biggest reason that young people are struggling in terms of trying to complete their, you know, chance to improve themselves and our country as well. again, this is a loan program. people are obligated to pay the money back. the fact of the matter is if you are a kid graduating from high school and you want to pursue a technical career, a vocational career, or a manufacturing specialty, you cannot do it with a high-school degree alone. this stafford program allows that opportunity. this is, in my opinion, exactly the type of program that democrats and republicans should come together. by the way, stafford, robert stafford, was a republican
senator from vermont. we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of abraham lincoln, the founder of the republican party who signed the college of agricultural land grant program back in 1862, which created a national investment and priority for education in this country. it was a land grant devoted to agricultural sciences and mechanical engineering. he did this in the depths of the civil war. by the way, his predecessor, who was a democrat, buchanan, vetoed that measure. i was a history major. i love the stuff. even in the darkest depths of our nation's history, we have had leaders who have had the vision to look forward and have said we have to protect the crown jewel of this country, our people. his stronger than even our wonderful military, or even more
important, in my opinion, then the great natural resources we have in our country. if we stop investing in the stafford student loan program, we are going to go backwards as an asian. -- a nation. host: h. robert tweets in. barbara, independent caller bank in rapid city, s.d.. caller: hello. thank you for c-span. i would like to speak to the congressmen and tell him that i am really upset about the state of education in our country. i have three grandchildren who are going to college today. my middle grandchild is going to a foreign country in europe to get an education, because he found out to be a mechanical
engineer, it would cost him a minimum in student loans in this country of $80,000. he found out he could go to finland, where his ancestry is from, and get a four-year degree for free if he passes the s.a.t. test. kind of ashamed that our american children have to go to europe to get an education, but our country will spend billions of dollars on a border fence and $20 on a little plastic part they can buy for $5 but they cannot pay to educate our children. guest: thank you. you pose exactly the challenge our nation faces right now. the cost barriers that your grandchild is running up against, it just inevitably in the country, and in terms of the
population, is going to have an negative impact. he has chosen to go into mechanical engineering. you want to cry to hear that story, because it is exactly what our country needs right now, for young people to go into those kinds of skills and trades. guest: well, again, there are some forms of debt that are very harsh. private stood alone borrowing, the rates are much higher. the interest accumulates while you are in school. we increased the pell grant, the other work force of college affordability. frankly, we've got to get that right balance in terms of making sure these and get loads go down. frankly, we're not going to do that by letting interest
rates pop up, and that is what might legislation is aimed at preventing. host: our guest offered legislation in january, and now the house will be voting on friday on a republican-let bill. from rodney in orlando florida, a democrat. caller: how you doing? guest: good morning. caller: my problem with the whole situation is abraham lincoln would be rolling over in his grave, the way the student loan a thing is. it is the form of slavery. you tie these young people and old people in debt that lasts a lifetime. it is ridiculous that you get a four-year degree and you end up paying for 25 years, something for the rest of they lives.
the bank has taken you to court and you end up getting your check, and you end up paying this thing for so long it is ridiculous. you can never get out of it. host: civil rights issues. guest: what we are focused on right now is making sure the interest dozen double july 1, and all of the things the caller describe would get worse. the interest rate cost of having a 6.8% rate on a student cost average staffer portfolio, an additional $5,000 over a five-year period, $11,000 over a 10-year period. public interest research group that has generated those numbers. i completely agree we need to have a broader discussion about controlling tuition costs and trying to get the right balance
of making sure people are not overloaded with debt. we need to have a better system of making sure people understand obligations they are entering into at a very young age. this is almost like buying a house right now. certainly ideas for a four-year private school. frankly, some of the horror stories out there in terms of excessive debt loads -- i think, frankly, not enough good information was flushed through with families. at the end of the day, a college degree, people with post-high school degrees at fare better than people with or less. that is a fact. we as a nation have to recognize that trade families know that, in terms of making sure the families succeed in life. this is what we're trying to protect. host: this story in "the wall street journal" today.
you can read more of that there in "the wall street journal." they talk about fewer americans getting degrees compared with their parents. fairfax, virginia. caller: thank you for c-span. do you know what the odds are for the student loan forgiveness act i have been reading about making its way to a republican-led house? it seems like it would be a good idea, at least up front. i also realize the political reality that this may not happen. guest: that is the bill that says if you are correct on your payments after, i believe it is a 10-year payment, the balance would be forgiven again. the province to the land market is totally outside the scope of those kinds of -- the private student market is totally outside the scope of those kinds of measures. it is a longer time frame and terms of when people would be
eligible for it. we sort of astonished to be told in that program. -- established a beach-hold in that program trade for some people going to keep professions like nursing, key public sector jobs like public safety, etc. again, the congressman, who was on the floor of me a couple of nights ago, i think it is great that he has raised that. it is doubtful that we will see something like that between now and the end of the 112th congress. the focus right now is that we don't go backwards with increasing the rights. -- rates. host: matt asks on twitter -- guest: i do, actually, and thank you for asking that question. senator durbin has introduced a bill to include student loan debt within the scope and pepsi
protection. every member of congress, if you ask them what happens in the district staff, they have a case worker that deals with the student loan issues. when you don't have that sort of bankruptcy leverage to negotiate -- particularly people encountering layoffs or medical issues -- frankly, it is almost mission impossible in terms of getting relief. bankruptcy is a protection that was built into article 1 of the constitution. this exemption for student loan debt was done by a prior congress based on, really, just advocacy and lobbying by lenders. given where we are right now with almost a crisis of high debt levels, we should change the balance of power by going along with the durbin law.
may inet's hear from houston, texas. republican caller. caller: good morning. i'm calling from houston. i would like to ask mr. courtney i think is his name -- guest: yep. caller: i don't understand why these kids cannot pay for the student loans by working. i heard him say that kids are working two to three jobs. my son started college, and his first semester he took a loan, but he realized that it was going to cost him a lot of money. he started working and going to college. it took him longer to finish. i am glad he did, because i believe in education. i just don't understand how you think america can get saddled
with all these student loans. we are $16 trillion in debt. i don't understand it. host: let's get a response from congressman courtney. guest: we are talking about a program or the government provides loans but gets repaid with interest. non-payment as creep up a little bit, but we are still talking about 7% or 8% delinquency. that is not a bad batting average for a program that is clearly focused on a public good, which is trying to make sure the people that agrees that they needed to succeed in life. your son's situation is fabulous, and what i would say is that we need to make sure that some people really understand better what the obligations are, like your son did, when they make these life decisions, really, about going to college and boring money. -- borrowing money.
there are strategies you are seeing schools pursue, like community college, transferring to other universities, which, again, community college transferability of credit now has become almost seamless. state universities are in more affordable option that people are trying to sharpen their pencils and look at. the bottom line is that we cannot let interest rates go up, because under any, i think, approached here, that just takes us backwards. again, these are kids who are taking out loans and will pay them back at a batting average, even in the middle of a recession, of an over 90% rate. that is good for the country and does not at, at the end of the day, to our national debt. host: representative joe courtney is our guest.
he is serving his third term in the house. one of our tweeters asks -- again, the stafford program, as you mentioned earlier, is a government- guaranteed program to 7%, 8% default is covered by the government. the question is, over the entire scope of the program, is that trade off balance by the good that the standards do amount -- that the stafford student loan program accomplishes? this program was created back in the 1960's. it fuelled the rise, in my opinion, of the middle class in the 1960's and 1970's and the explosion of talent that we saw with the rise in technology in the 1970's and 1980's. it has, frankly, gotten deteriorating support in congress in the more recent decades. i think a graduation rate in
this country has deteriorated -- we have to keep that affordability there so that students can pursue critical degrees. line.connie, democrats' caller: thank god for the loans, that kids are able to get them. my three kids when, at they had jobs and had to get loans, and they never missed a payment. i have a granddaughter who is going, and she works. from the time our daughters and sons went to college, it doubles what it costs now. i was reading where boehner ut of thisake pay fo
fund that goes to pay for cervical cancer screening and seriously ill children. i would not call that a slush fund, because so many women that cervical cancer today -- get cervical cancer today. as far as i know, there is no cure for it. guest: your story about children and grandchildren is so powerful. tens of millions of people have used these efforts do not want program. -- have used to be a stopper student loan program. -- used the stafford student loan program. so many people said, "thank you for pushing this fight to pay for the program." i think we are quick to see the wrangling over which one prevails. as i said, the house dems put
forth a proposal to roll back a tax credit for companies. again, i think the president has done great work in terms of storing this issue. -- stirring this issue up. speaker boehner tries to portray this as politicking. to me, it is about governing. kids are getting acceptance letters right now for next year, going to college. financial aid offices are trying to send out letters to help people plan for next year's tuition costs. this week has been a big week in terms of getting some traction on this issue. host: here is "the new york times" reporting on how to pay for this. look at an e-mail that
came in to us. guest: again, for the record, i came to congress in 2007. i think that measure was a step backwards. senator big durbin in illinois as a proposal -- senator durbin in illinois has a proposal to roll that back. i believe there is a companion bill to roll that back. i would vote for it in a heartbeat. we have got to change the balance of power for families at versus lenders that, frankly, right now is totally one-sided. host: ohio, republican.
caller: it seems like there is several problems going on. one is that if we had jobs, people could pay for their education. the value of education is only what you all can get. there are people that pick the right degrees and run into new jobs because the economy is 8%. there are other people would just pick the wrong fields. the other thing is that we have illegal immigrants coming in at 200,000 a month. taking care of just the immigrants that come in -- in order to block of that, we have to be way past that. guest: i come from eastern connecticut, one o -- a home of one of the rich shipyards in our country.
they will be hiring 200 to 300 new designers and engineers as part of this project. i have been to drop fares at eastern connecticut where they are scouring the countryside, looking for young, talented, well-trained engineers to fill their ranks there. the fact is that we have got some struggles in terms of trying to hit that target. i could not agree with you more that we really need to have a lot more focus given. that starts at a younger age than freshman college. giving advice about how schools, where your career courses are headed, and how you are going to pay for it. financial literacy about student loan debt is something that, right now, because of what we're seeing with the trends, has become a critical part of the work that high schools do. your call's points are well
taken, but we've got workforce needs and job openings here, we have an educational system that in some instances is down here and we've got to link the two of them together. guest: it is a good point, and if you look at the president's proposal, which is not just about throwing money at the system, he wants to tie the door dollars to tuition increases that would go to the heart of how money is being spent on these campuses. that is, by the way -- that has, by the way, never happened before. we've got to get serious about ways to control some of these costs. host: congressman joe courtney, a democrat represented connecticut's second district, thank you. guest: terrific.
great calls. host: coming up next, we will winner of the studentcam contest, carl colglazier. we will also talk to daniel brenner. >> this year's studentcam competition asked students across the country, what part of the constitution was important to them and why . >> patents and copyrights is one of the essential specifically enumerated powers given to the government of our nation's founding. >> the constitution says control over patent laws is one of the enumerated powers of congress. >> whenever working on a video project, intellectual property really affects me. from patents and the software
and equipment i used to the copyright's i would have been allowed to use on my video. this goes back to intellectual property. i guess a promise from the government to protect -- it is a promise from the government to protect content for a limited period of time. this is to spur economic growth and encourage progress. it started back in england and became time to setup a new government, where founding fathers major intellectual property was included. >> the funny fathers recognized that in order to -- the founding fathers recognized that an order to overcome divisions of labor, they would have to rely on innovation. the weight to incentivize innovation is to provide rewards for it. >> specifically, it gives
it power to " promote the power of science and useful arts by as specifying for limited times to authors and vendors the specific rights to their writings and discoveries." >> during the second industrial revolution, at u.s. economy grew at the fastest rate in the countries history. infrastructure created, jobs and industries were made, and america's best britain to become a world leader. -- america surpassed britain to become the world leader. but is our current patent system still supporting innovation? >> one record, one of many details. >> a lot has changed. we have gone from an era in which most inventions were made in similar fields into a world in most inventions are across fields and collaboration is required. >> the patent system has not
been able to keep up. >> there are 700,000 applications that have not even been opened yet. >> it has flooded our court system. in 2011, an act was introduced and among other changes, it would convert the patent system invent systemst-to- to a first-to-file system. as opposed to having the patent office go back and look at prior versions of the invention. the detailed debate ensued. does this fit constitutional criteria? >> it gives protection to the first to invent. first bill's inclusion of inventor system is constanconsit
with the constitution's requirement. >> some have argued that the first-to-file provision violates the constitutional provision, but does not say how it can work do so. congress has decided it is consistent with constitutional powers. >> with that decided, congress had to decide whether this bill would promote science. opponents criticized the bill for the possibility of harming the patent system. >> it will further entrenched interests of lobbyists. >> the new system is very clear and transparent. the new system will enable the true inventor to file a provisional patent application, which ensures that the person
has access to patent coverage, and know that there is no one else who will be able to come in. >> when thomas edison filed his patent for the photograph, his application was approved in just seven weeks. and these days, that process is taking an average of three years. the bill that will put a dent in the huge stack of patent applications waiting for review. >> a new, more streamlined system would allow the patent backlog to go down for the first time in many years. >> we have made some progress, but with a lot more work to do. >> with the explosion of new copyrighted text, photographs, and videos, the copyright field,
like the pettitte field, has faced many challenges. namely, online piracy. >> there are pieces of privacy legislation working their way through the capitol hill process as we speak. >> a representative introduced sopa. >> went a website is foreign- operated, that is when the sopa act comes in. >> supporters of the bill claimed it would help eliminate online privacy. however, the bill has faced much backlash. >> they start meddling with the domain name system grid that is the fundamental architecture. >> it would affect websites that "engaged in, and able, or facilitate infringement."
>> what they said is we are going to criminalize the linking and structure of the internet itself. if someone posts a copied video, we are going to force the intermediaries to take willing to downgrade this is known as -- take the link down. >> this would include some of the most popular web sites on the internet. this would cause much damage. some may use these resources for harm, but there are many, many more uses for good and worthwhile purposes. for me, such an act would eliminate some of my greatest resources and means of distribution. the provision making this dreaming of a copyrighted words of felony would make a product such as this highly dangerous. >> there is a problem, but this
is not necessarily the right remedy. >> such a system would not even work. one could go around id by typing in the -- around it by typing in the ip address. when we view changes in intellectual property field, we must look at the balance. how else can we support the constitutional role of intellectual property to promote the progress of science and useful arts? >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos, and continue the conversation about the documentary on our facebook and twitter pages. host: the winner of our first prize high schools studentcam competition, carl colglazier, joins us now. we also have daniel brenner, a partner at hogan lovells law
firm. tell us how you came to focus on intellectual property for your entry. guest: the topic is "the constitution and me," so i thought it would be best to figure out what part of the constitution best place to me by reading the constitution and picking the section that would make an interesting document right intellectual property is right there in article one, sexua hundred -- i thought tha -- article 1, section one. i thought it would be interesting for me. that is why i chose intellectual property. host: how does it relate to you personally? guest: i have a lot of the video and digital content i publish on the web. it is important to me to maintain ownership of the property as it gets into the market it affects not only how i consume content, but how i create content. host: your talking with the
winner of the first place of our high school competition, carl colglazier, an attorney at daniel bernard. -- and attorney daniel brenner. intellectual property -- tell us about the latest innovations and hot topics being discussed right now. guest: probably the hottest topic, which was covered in carl's film, was the debate over that on the internet. the two bills, sopa and pipa, aimed to increase the ability of copyright owners to police and prosecute copyright infringement, particularly weithorn websites -- by far and websites -- foreign websites. host: let's look at what the
basis was for carl colglazier's entry, article i, section 8 of the u.s. constitution. carl colglazier, what was the most interesting or surprising thing you learned by doing a documentary? guest: the most interesting thing i learned from the documentary is all the history behind the patent system,, what the original intent of the founding fathers were in treating the system, how it worked. the biggest surprise was all the debate on first to file versus first to invent. it was originally a first-to- file system, which surprised me when i found that out. host: daniel brenner, expand on what that means. guest: the most famous case
involved a patent that alexander graham bell filed for with the telephone. there is a historic argument that bell was not the first to invent, but he was the first to file, because at least the legend goes that he was tipped off by someone in the patent office to file ahead of elisha gray, who worked for western union at the time. it is not clear who invented it first, but we know that bell for a while successfully argued he was first to file. this goes to the underpinnings of intellectual property law. any of us have great ideas, think of great songs, great invention, but you cannot have a legal system that are taxed unless there is some system that says even if i thought of its second, i put in first. it is impossible for the
government to know who invented it first. people can say they in a minute it first, but, state and complete department and application -- but unless and they complete the patent application and describe in detail what they intended, it is still up here in the head. >> let's go to the phones. caller: hi, how are you. congratulations to your student winner. can you tell us exactly what language in the constitution you drew on that relates to intellectual property? tell us more about your thoughts on how much creativity is stifled by the current intellectual property laws, current practices here in america, and the company's and legislation and such. host: carl, while you talk we will put the exact language on
the screen. share a little bit about your thoughts of the creative issues our caller asked about. guest: i based it on the words "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." will these various different pieces of legislation that the proposed to promote the progress of science and useful arts? i did a lot of conclusions based upon that in my documentary. as we go forward with this legislation, it is important to look at analyze whether or not they do pursue and i pulled the progress of science and useful arts. host: dan brenner, talk to us about the difference between copyrights, trademarks, and patents. guest: copyrights and patents are covered in article i,
section eight. it looks like the coverage of patent, coverage of copyright should be the words used to describe patents, and vice versa. the important point is that copyright is a federal statutory system until 1976, both state and federal copyright protection. it allows for another -- an author whose work is fixed in a permanent form. once it is fixed, you have copyright protection for individuals. and seven years for work-for- hire, like a movie studio that makes a movie, the terms based on when it was treated or published. -- created or published. patent law gives a patent holder at 20-year production, exclusive production, and i just really a monopoly for the first 20 years
-- and it is really a monopoly for the first 20 years after a it is file. many drug patents go off-patent and you get generic drugs based on the end of the patent life. trademark law is different. if there is a federal trademark law that protects service marks, you should register those, and they can go on indefinitely. there are also state protections that relate as well. for example, trade secrets. coca-cola's formula was not patented in the sense that people can go up and discover it. it is a trade secret, and that can go on indefinitely. other forms of protection for
trademark-like issues are all covered by a law for unfair competition. people want to be sure that people are not attending the service -- you don't want the customer to be confused by the -- what a business does. that also can be indefinite. host: rick is a democratic caller. caller: how you doing? i am really impressed. you have done a wonderful thing. i liked the documentary. it was absolutely wonderful. i have a question for you, sir. what would it take an order to free up patents for the gasoline, the carburetors -- back in the 1930's, we had patents that were offered up, and oil companies bought them out. what would it take? it has almost become a national security problem to rehash the
spirit you, sir, i think, gu young man, i think you have political aspirations. you probably will be meeting the president pretty soon. bring this up and give me your opinion, what you have to say. guest: i really didn't study that particular topic in my documentary. that did not really come up. i really don't have -- host: we will go to dan brenner about that, but do you want to respond to the color bang's -- caller's comments about political aspirations? you are the grand prize winner in last year's competition. what do you think about your future? guest: i think it is is quite open at this point. host: you sound like a politician already. guest: by the way, if you of not
granted c-span the rights to show your prize-winning film, talk to me later and we can pursue the infringement suit. if there was a set of patents -- one of -- another big problem in intellectual property is what are called patent controls -- buy patents and prosecute against other companies and say you are infringing our patents. as to whether or not there are patents from government industries in the 1940's, those would be available for others to use. big oil companies, large energy companies are constantly inventing new processes which can be packede -- can be patented. if you look at the energy sector, you find that they are
frequently developing patents. i guess what companies do to create values -- it is what companies do to create value for shareholders. they are the only ones that can use that as long as the copyright or patent is still in force. host: democrat, texas. welcome. caller: thank you, thank you for c-span. i wanted to complem -- compliment carl, like the last unamended. i don't know if he had aspirations for politics, but he did an absolutely wonderful job on that particular documentary. i have a question. he helped me understand some things that i did not understand about patents. about 11 years ago, there was a little item that i tried to invent, only to find out it had
a patent almost 30 years ago, and the person who received the patent never brought it to market. then something a very similar happened -- i don't know if it is related -- there was a corporate name i filed for, and there was a lady who held that in whenever done anything with it. but was willing to sell it to me. i wonder if the two things are at all related. again, carl, you did a wonderful job. you are an exceptional young man. host: let's go to dan brenner to get a response. guest: if there was a patent, not all patents are brought to market. the application is filed. if it is granted by the examiner, if it is more than 20 years, it will not be in the
public domain. the owner of the patent cannot block anyone. he may have gotten incorrect information when you got his -- yea you may have gotten it incorrect information. the two people with the telephone, and ended -- invented at just about the same time. if the name is not in use, if the name is no longer in use, he would have a good argument to use that name. the question comes up, was it in use? if something is a local car dealer or repair shop for food store at 1 area but not in another, that person cannot extend the claim of unfair competition in north carolina against the state of washington. the internet changes some of that because they have national
and international coverage but he may not have gotten the best advice on either one of them. many times these things are gray areas. people are not sure. this is an area where fair use comes out. cerpts video had ex from c-span and others. did he ask permission? was it fair use? it probably was, because it is is good and documentary one of the enduring problems is that if you're not sure, it will take effort to find out. it is very easy to get material of the internet and use it in a documentary. him not of hate to see be able to use four or five seconds of something, not have to go to a lawyer to get it
cleared. host: robert is in dallas, texas. independent caller bang. cal -- in a band a -- independent caller. caller: the creator of the material for whatever purposes is authorized with the inventor's or creator's name. host: he said two different words, "authorized" and " attributed." guest: if you have something on hulu -- host: came from nbc or c-span.
guest: rightly or wrongly, they don't give you the right to make copies of that and solid -- and sell it at a flea market. you have to go back to the owner of the copyright. if you are using one of the enumerated rights, to make copies, you have to go and get permission. i don't think that just because ideas on the internet you have --it is on the internet you have carte blanche to use it. host: brenner was on the faculty of the ucla school of law. he was an adviser to the fcc from 1981 to 1986. carl colglazier is the first place winner of our studentcam competition. he has a home school student in
north carolina. -- he is a home schooled student in north carolina. good morning. caller: i have said before, speed dial is bad for this program. we are performing farmers in the ozarks. that is my intellectual property i can hold onto. by the way, the young man is awesome. i will look at your documentary again. keep it up, buddy. to the lawyer, i heard a program on npr about a year ago, and they were talking about sampling and stuff, taking little bits and pieces, and they were getting down to, like, three seconds. i know you were talking about this, and my ti -- anybody out e
this young man, you can probably do something about this -- if there was a program for a person intome to put my music -- only 8 notes in music. everyone of them passed to have been played before, but there have been lawsuits over and over again for bits and pieces of music. that is where sampling comes into play. i enjoy your program but thanks. i will be listening intently off the phone here. guest: sampling is another form of using copyright material. in the jargon of copyright law, what you're doing is creating a derivative work of that sampled content. sometimes it can be extremely valuable. important beats become critical
to this success of music. sometimes the sampled author won't object because it creates new interest in music, music from the 1970's that gets was erected in this decade, and they may be ok with the -- gets resurrected in this decade and they may be ok with it. it is true that there is a limited number of notes, but the genius of musicians is the way they sequence the timing of th ose notes. the people who created those pieces of music are entitled to get paid. there is some kidn of -- kind of room, but if i was representing a major artist today it was going to be
releasing music for a very large audience, i would want to make sure that this was fair use or that i had permission of the sampled artist. host: of course she is talking about that little copyright mark -- guest: she is 100% correct. it is fixed-rate if i tell a joke -- it is fixed. if i tell a joke -- if i tell an ad-lib, i don't have protection for that if somebody writes it down and uses it. there was a story that robin williams would say things in
night clubs and not remember he had taken them from somebody else. -- once it is fixed, you do not have to put the c notation. it can be a necessary prerequisite, although i don't think the key is required for original works of art -- don't think it is required for original works of art. what the listener is talking about is that you have to register the work or submit a copy or version of it in terms of our original paintings or something to get statutory damages, which are often the most important damages, because i guess hard to prove actual loss. -- it is hard to prove actual loss g. on the other hand, you can get a nice touch great damage and attorney's fees. -- nice statutory damages and
attorneys' fees. host: bernie in michigan. caller: i am a working-class person, i got an idea for a clipboard, spent several years, got it patented, $120,000. when it was all said and done, a friend walked into my house and he had the clipboard and his hand made by rubbermaid. i called this patent firm, and they said rubbermaid has 50 attorneys on staff, when the idea comes through, they duplicate it, and if you try to defend it, it costs you and less amounts of money. i don't think you can afford it. this is what happens.
so my question is if the government runs and controls the patent office, why don't they defend it? host: before we let you go, how did it turn out in the end? caller: i have made 20,000, and to this day they have never broken. host: we're talking about a clipboard with space inside for storage? caller: you open it up, and it has a storage compartment, one inch deep for paperwork . when a driver makes a delivery, he takes the signed copy, puts it in the compartment, and it is say. it became wildly popular in the trucking industry and never were all spirit within six mon --
it became widely popular in the trucking industry and everywhere else. within six months, rubbermaid makes them. guest: these are not uncommon problems. i don't know the specifics of what rubbermaid's position would be. there are efforts by people, once the product is released, or they were about -- learn about it, to try to do a work around. is the subsequent invention is sufficiently different from the filed application that both are entitled to protection? the examiner, if yours was patented first, with a padded and they might attract -- object , saying there is not
sufficientl originality to the second one. there is a cost, of course, to prosecuting patents. in many cases, small inventors look to larger companies to sell or license goods in hopes that they can carry some of the legal costs. the other point he says, why doesn't the government do this -- the idea of the government would be able to do it, it is one way, but it is more efficient that someone who has an economic interest in the patent rather than have the government make these cases, because in some cases be patent examiner may have failed, made a mistake, failed to notice prior art that would have invalidated the earlier patent. by and large, our system does not look to the government to enforce any rights of that kind.
the government's use on its behalf, but not on behalf of individuals -- government sues on its behalf, but not on behalf of individuals. host: carl, did you learn of stories of people who invented things and it felt like they were not able to either make it or make money off of it because they missed the boat when it came to getting a copy right, getting a trademark, getting a patent? guest: i think it is a very interesting discussion, from the transfer to the first-to-invent system to the first-to-file system. there will be cases where people in at first but neglected to file -- invented it first but neglected to file. overall, for efficiency of the system, it's going to be interesting to see how that works out. host: carl, do you know what you
do if you were to announce on the right now? -- if he were to invent something right now? what have you learned about how to go about the process of creating something? guest: definitely. with the new system, it helps the purpose of the patent, which is to get things out into the market as soon as possible and to provide rewards as soon as possible. the first-to-invent system -- first-to-file system rewards you for filing earlier and getting it to market earlier. if i were to invent right now, the first thing i would pursue is getting a patent. host: felicia, maryland. caller: good morning. let me compliment the young man. oh, as a former teacher, i am so
proud of him. you are doing a wonderful job blessings to the troops wherever you are. i publish some material in this country. i am a native of this country. usually, the colleges that are going to use my material worldwide toomey and get permission -- the colleges that are going to use might and get write to me permission to use the material. in canada, i dealt with one company, or one publication. the next thing you know, some of my work was in another publication. i am not worried about that. but the next thing you know,
some of my poems were on the internet. how do i get protection from what goes on on the internet? i don't even know this person. guest: this is a common problem . people close all kinds of copyrighted material to their facebook page. they may post elsewhere, on websites. there is a process under the digital lanham copyright act of 1998 -- digital millennium copyright act of 1998 -- if you notify a website that you believe they are carrying your copy, they have an obligation to take it down or do an inquiry to disprove that ids copyrighted. in most cases, they will take it out on a vacation. you need to contact the website
-- take it down upon notification. you need to copy it the website and tell them to take a down. even short poems, if you have fixed it and it is written down, you have that right. in most cases, internet sites will take it out, particularly something like a poem, where presumably the website wants to be sensitive to the rights of authors. host: one of our tweeters -- who owns your tweets? guest: i don't know if the law has decided that. it seems to me, if you typed it, it is fixed, who own