you can make a comment on our facebook page. and finally, send an email. the president will be holding a news conference this afternoon at 1:30 pm eastern time. it will be live on c-span. obviously, this will be one of the areas he addresses. the front page of the "wall street journal" this morning -- for response ggles to hack. the u.s. government is looking retaliate to north hacking of arent sony pictures, according to familiar with discussions -- u.s. officials have evidence that could point to north korea as directing the attack. officials are still investigating who is responsible. north korea has denied responsibility. one of the co-authors of this story is devlin barrett of the "wall street journal". mister barrett, how close is the u.s. white house to naming korea government is responsible? guest: they are pretty close. i think it will name her later today, and it would be pretty awkward if you didn't answer that question today -- he ddidn't answer that question today. so much of this has happened so fast. much evidence is there? how much evidence -- have you seen any? guest: well, i am not an investigator. i just talked to people who do that kind of work. what i have been told is that is an increasing number of evidence that points to north korea. of that is similarities hacks on his hacking south korean institutions that have happened before. there is also really where, at one t point, we were told that one of computers actually pinged back directly to a north korean computer. they're still trying to figure out exactly what that means. that is not normally how hacking would work. part, you would essentially proxy servers -- servers and other places to discuss the trail -- but they incident where a to y computer talk to agree a north korean computer at that point. this essentially tells them korea was behind this. host: in your story this mister barrett, general dempsey is quoted. could there potentially be a military response? guest: i think that is really unlikely. one thing that is really sony nating about the fact, in particular, is that the government has drilled and exercise all sorts of hacking that word response -- require some sort of world response. this is an entertainment company being embarrassed and pulling a movie. they are trying -- part of the discussions in government is is the appropriate response of that kind of action. they will take it seriously, pretty unhappy about it, and they want to discourage anybody else from doing it in the future. they t the same time, don't have some off-the-shelf plan. about the justice department? guest: well, the justice department is investigating, principally through the fbi. they have an interesting to because many times these international hacking investigations will take months, if not years, to piece together. they are basically putting what they have so far together in a you know, days -- maybe weeks, sort of. that creates its own challenges for them, in terms of how solid is the evidence. how sure they're not misunderstanding what they're saying. and they, too, a left for some interesting decisions. host: and finally, does this raise the profile of the cyber security command? guest: i think it does, but it also points towards the limitations of potential problems. i think this hack, in a weird puts hacking in general higher in the public consciousness. of, you s also kind know -- it is just such an odd heck. writes about ho hacking frequently, this is such an unusual set of facts that it is hard to know yet what sort of facts should be drawn from it. host: devlin barrett of the "wall street journal". the front page story this morning. thank you, sir. guest: thank you! host: a little bit more from his story -- martin dempsey u.s. he was concerned that to ders were leaning conclude that a nationstate was behind the attack. made, nd if that call is it will be a moment to confronts that reality. if you want to join a conversation this morning -- 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. 202-748-8003 for outside the united states this morning. the sony tors view attempt to contact the north korean government as possibly implicating the government. it is possible somebody else using the een malware, which could have reached out to north korea on its own. the attacker creates a very for the obama administration, in part because such a breach is not the hacking scenario contemplated drills government's many and contingency planning. eric is calling in from hyattsville, maryland. eric, what you think about all this? caller: yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. or angry , very mad against sony because we all know that the united states not bow to terrorists. only the fact that the movie has been canceled is very, very ery, strong message to any in the rship who, future, would not like a movie start rica to just another cyber attack. my second point is -- this is our freedom of speech because this is what we are in america. we are who we are in america because we can say what we any fear of t retaliation. so now, sony, by canceling that movie, is sending a very, very strong message to terrorists. host: thank you, sir. next up is paul. a republican in orlando. caller: hi, peter. happy holidays to you. i think i should probably just hang up because that first caller, point for point, hit nail on the head. i wish that the white house to sony ve quietly gone and said -- have your premieres, we will have your back on this, security wise. statement with the that, if indeed any 9/11 attacks are carried out on any of these theaters, we would hold north korea responsible. and we would consider it an act of war. hey, peter, as a sidebar -- i have not heard the peterson's call in in a long time while you are on. i hope you're doing well and i hope to have a happy holiday. host: you know, i appreciate that. i hope they are, as well. maybe they hear that it will:. paul, would you have gone to the premier? caller: you know, i would have. not because i thought it was but just to vie, stand wwith fellow americans and say we are not going to be intimidated by you guys. we're not going to allow you to free speech -- threaten oour free speech. host: thank you, sir. from the "financial times" this the cyber attack takes u.s. into new territory without rules of retaliation. over the apparent victory sony, north korea has exposed one of the uncomfortable truths of cyber attacks -- governments have no clear idea how to respond. by indicating north korea's role in the attacks, the obama administration will find itself under pressure to react in a cyber world where the evidence is not always rocksolid. where there are no clear rules of international behavior. and where the risks of elevation are fraught. xenia in rockville, maryland. the independent line. caller: hi. about the sony hacking incident? caller: i think we should take a step back and make sure that these types of forms, we should make sure that korea is the one who actually do this. we should all take a step back out use we don't know who there might be making it look like it is north korea. i'm really concerned about that. host: would you have pulled the movie if you are sony? caller: no, i would not. what is going o on, what you're basically -- you know -- everyone has validation in the threat. and i would not give anyone validation. host: thank you, ma'am. only witter -- sony has itself to blame for what they said in the emails and allowing hacking. the front page of the post" this morning -- north korea uncovers hollywood's hidden truth. the truth of the sony interview all films are t political. we aggressively sent to the especially rkets -- in asia -- and account for around 70% of the movie industry's profits. that the -- o say the point was inadvertently proves with perhaps the most of vocative kernel information that emerged during the disorienting past few days. in the middle of this world, the "daily beast" revealed the sony tions between entertainment chief executive who the state department, told him that the potential of actually moving the needle and north korea. bruce bennett l, wrote to lynton -- i have been clear that the assassination -- i believe that a story that talks about the removal of the kim family regime, and the creation of a new government by the north korean people, will start some real thinking in korea and, i believe, in north once the dvd leaks to the north. which it almost certainly well. and responded ck -- bruce, spoke to someone very senior in the state. you greed with everything have been saying. everything. i'll speak to you soon. this is brian and maryland. the republican line. caller: yesterday at c-span, reading a commentator the news -- talking about the news. comments that obama's on this topic was that he was congress to pass legislation, essentially helping cyber warfare. i don't know whether that quote was accurate. i don't mean to call on the conservative line and give obama a hard time. does anybody else think that is kind of a dumb quote? isn't cyber warfare are the illegal? why do we need congress to go pass legislation? why are we not just acting? i'm sure there is already a body of law that would warrant whatever our reaction is going to be. that is my comment in question. is in wilmington, delaware. a democrat. caller: hi. my comment is that i think that probably encountered liability issues. in fact, if the people who want to the film don't and people who won't come out to see it because of fear, then they will probably them in ase against terms of the financial injury. likewise, the other people who don't go to the theater. looks just dden, he like a -- a legal nightmare. that is my comment. host: and wild and wonderful the same lines t -- so, who here wants to step save d bond the dollars to and hold harmless if the theaters go ahead with the debut and something does happen? david in the "newyork times" -- a breakthrough in cuba comes as rises in north korea. writes, no cyber attack on the u.s. has provoked a national response. when banks and retailers have denial of service overwhelm a ch computer system but do not permanently disable it, companies have been left to defend for themselves. but tony is different. the senior officials explain the reasons this attack was briefed to the president on an almost daily basis over the past week. the company is a company on american soil, the official said. and the second is the manner in data is being en used tto influence the actions their company and prevent a movie from being shown. but it is unclear what pain mister obama can inflict and to create some semblance of deterrence. return cyber attacks are north le, but since the is such an unwired society, the targets are few and the for retaliation are vast. has calcitrant leader who concluded that engagement with richer nations amounts to a suicide pact for the kim family dynasty. in charleston, west virginia. brian, what you think about all this? the sony hacking case in the u.s. response. caller: hey. i just think that this whole losing tons t sony of money because -- i'm not convinced there is a real threat. the department of homeland security said on wednesday that there is no legitimate threat. so i just think this is sony afraid of future hacks that will expose more dirty laundry. and cause them more loss of money. host: all right. do think that if it is north korea there should be retaliation? caller: as far as retaliation goes, i'm not sure what the state department could do about it. but i know that aas far as sony goes, then there would have been no future loss for them to go ahead and release the movie all said and done -- u.s. think that the government should just try to prevent these sort of things, instead of trying to retaliate the sort of renegade attacks. i don't think we can really to a real government. host: michael from new hampshire. a republican. hi, michael. caller: yes, good morning, peter. that has been ing ongoing for now two years, of action r some type or a bill regarding the cyber security. yet, the retailers are hit with debit g personal wwith information being stolen, issues regarding different among the private sector, but also within our own government. you might recall recently the today" had an article about terry's embedded in our power grid. i'm not sure how true that is. party of t sector the republican national committee was doing an essay on hillary clinton. they threatened cnn that they were not be allowed to partake in any of the debates. that is similar, in a way, i using as using cyber or some type of issues regarding -- i think i lost you. host: nope, we are still listening. michael, are you there? from the washington times -- trying to are not fathom that the nation is in a multidimensional cyber war. after north korea's strategic architect, prompting the of an upcoming film with an estimated loss of $200 million in revenue loss alone, the ever existing newt gingrich with a tweet -- no one should get themselves. with the sony collapse, america has lost its first cyber war. mitt romney recommended that sony released the film for free online and asked viewers to dollars to evil research -- ebola research. of irate tinseltown stars joined the fray, accusing the studio of bowing to the mysterious hackers. meanwhile, three class-action been filed e now against sony by employees after their personal information was capitalized. once the hackers threatened an act of terrorism in the u.s. and ters, the white house lawmakers joined in and fired potshots. revealing all cyber were with the cascade of aftershocks. robert and palmdale, california. an independent, good morning to you. good morning to you. i would like to express my about the sony actions, consider to be cowardly and kind of beyond reproach. with that being said, i think is another story here is not being told, and that is -- considering the fact states has, by and the greatest capacity electronic communication hacking and these things, it would be more interesting to see what is it that we are a broad and elsewhere against our opponents -- or call these other states. doing over there because i think that would be a much more interesting story. if -- if i were to be dropped space and watch tv, be very shortly impressed that the united states is besieged by hacking from north korea, from china, from russia, from who knows where else. the truth is somewhat different. i don't think we're kind of passive victims in all of this. my comment and e suggestion to maybe find somebody who knows something about this. host: next up is dark in covington, georgia. caller: hi, how are you doing? some more ke to see those emails. there is racism in hollywood against the president, and i to take them ght down because i would like to see the rest of the emails and see what hollywood has to say about the president. that is the trouble with all of them -- the progressive whites like a black don't man. thank you. i know, ck tweets in -- let's overreact. if north korea is at fault, them only elevates their -- some say there is little that can do to protect against a sophisticated cyber attack. there are very few companies that can withstand that kind of large assault, said rich, aan firms t with security securoisis in phoenix. companies need to improvewhat they're doing and security, i see it every day with companies i work with. invest es also need to in identifying vulnerabilities on their networks and were quickly to address them. a ran ommends undertaking to review to ensure that outdated files, such as digital copies of all contracts and electronic conversations that occurred years ago, are no longer being stored in a corporate networks. there is a lot of stuff just sitting there waiting to be that kind of d for thing that is happening at sony right now, mister sanders said. he said the sony breach has in every ng up customer meeting that they have held since the stolen information began leaking out and making international headlines earlier this month. final paragraph -- most companies need to focus on the ability to detect tax quickly, aand limit them as fast as possible. currently, the average amount of time it takes a comedy to breach is 200 to 230 days. that allows the attacker time a lot n the knowledge -- of knowledge -- and do a lot of damage. omar is in atlanta. omar you are on the "washington journal". what are your thoughts? caller: yes, let's go back to the beginning. "the interview" was scheduled for release on december 25. the movie wasn't going to make that much money. then suddenly, i think this is a hollywood thing in regards to promotion. okay, you pull the movie. then later on -- whether it is two weeks m now or from now -- they release the a long line u have of people coming to view the movie. make much more money because of the controversy. but then you look at this - kim jong un is no threat to us. he is meaningless. now, you have elevated him to this grand thing that he is not. now he o irrelevant, but becomes relevant in a very of way because, again, the man poses no threat to the united states. he means absolutely nothing, yet now the media has made him into this thing. you have seen it was saddam hussein, you have seen it with gadhafi. have kim jong-un. but at the same time, they are going to push this and push that this e point movie -- that wasn't going to make that much money during the holidays -- now is going to be next ckbuster within the week or two because of the controversy. and i think that is sad. host: nancy. new york. democrat. what you think? caller: yes, can you hear me okay? host: we are listening. caller: okay. basically, america's arrogance never ceases. i am no lover of north korea nor its leader; however, if jokes ant to make these film are or whatever, tthat is absolutely fine. to go out and make a movie leader is totally ridiculous, especially at a time in the world when everything is in total chaos. what could we expect? you look at everything -- everything that -- even 9/11 -- the united states has done something. this is totally ludicrous. said what the heck are they doing? leader of a nation, okay? respect ct for him, no for his country -- host: nancy, what is the difference between telling a joke on tv -- because there are more audience for a movie. has a limited audience. nationwide, a movie theater is a whole different thing. it is just about the subject. just about this later. okay? it is an attack on north korea. it really is. host: all right. the "wall street journal" -- drop the interview on pyongyang. an alternative would be for the u.s. to buy the movie rights from sony and release it to the public domain. anyone could venture the without ile online violating the copyright. love to watch movies smuggled across the border from china. could give the movie two koreas to make sure the movie gets to its target audience. even if washington had to pay cost ovies full production of $44 million, that would be money well spent. if the kim regime is behind the sony hack, it has what he said were victoryby inflicting losses on the studio and causing it to compromise of human expression. that could embolden pyongyang to undertake a more dangerous provocations. washington to turn north korea's victory into an own goal, and show the west won't bow to threats. lewis. homestead, florida. on the "washington journal". caller: good morning, first of all. my thoughts are that sony is their millions of dollars, but what they should have done is released this. by y said it was picked up the cyber attackers. is just a kidnapping. in the united states, there is no more kidnapping anymore because we have a lot of if you pay the ransom, you are just as guilty. sony is doing here -- they are paying the ransom on a cyber attack. the information is being kidnapped and being told -- if you don't do what i say, i'm going to release it. i think that sony should just and release this movie and just put it out there, even if it goes out for free. i agree with the information that says that the united states should pay for production of this movie and get this movie out there. we are not being held prisoners by terrorists. i don't believe that. should believe a nation be held -- to be held like this. of speech is -- just, no. okay, thank you, lewis. tweets that says -- wait until health records are hacked from within our own government. and -- where is dennis rodman when you need him? sony and mister kim's thugs -- pictures pull "the interview" fearing threats to their employees. believed to have worked for the north korean government, although governments are cautious. this could further embolden rogue regimes and criminals. retaliation by the obama risk istration would escalation of tensions on the korean peninsula, and between north korea and japan, where sony's corporate parent is however, there are things the united states can do. are already re heavy sanctions on north korea, there may be ways to inflict more economic pain. washington could seek an to ernational panel investigate the attack and demand condemnation by the united nations security council. the united states also needs to work with japan and south korea and mprove their defenses develop common responses like imposing sanctions. the is a little bit from "new york times" lead editorial this morning. up next from iowa. what are your thoughts about the hacking case, the u.s. response, etc.? caller: hi, sir. i would just like to create a visual for everybody. we just got out of two wars. now picture our guys overseas. the same voice -- if we we are e ongoing where going -- eventually everything leads to were with our country. that we have ence to my t north korea -- knowledge -- is the cyber attacks were similarly used against south korea. and the language that they are speaking is a language typically used in north korea. and my -- my idea of this would be, like, how many people in the world speak english? and how many people in the world use windows 8? so, i think everybody could learn a great deal out of this. it is not really a big deal. how much money does sony entertainment have? rogen w much is seth going to lose at the end of this? it is not going to affect anybody. it is just a movie. iis ink that everybody hyping it up, and it really deserves no attention, like you had mentioned earlier. host: the president is holding press conference today before hhe flies off for christmas break in hawaii. 1:30 pm live on c-span. kim. manchester, tennessee. democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. to say this like -- i think we ought to show the movie. i think everyone could benefit from it. we should do not mind putting movies out on 9/11 when we were attacked. we should retaliate against them. we have to sit and watch tv and our people's throats cut, to when we do something someone else's -- or we have a prisoner and we do something to or retaliate against them don't hear nobody fussing the day 9/11 happened. everybody pull together in this world and the united states. that is where we need to be today. need to rnment, they give themselves -- get themselves together. it is us. show them the movie and let our government and the white house get involved and do their job. kim in hat is manchester, tennessee. the business day section of "new york times" -- tthe attack unraveling relationships in hollywood. prominent members of creative community fumed about what they saw as philly by sony to make a stand for artistic freedom. steve carell called it a sad expression, tive wwhile zach braff described sony's move as a pretty horrible precedent to set. judd -- also , to social media to laments the demise as keeping taxes. are on the air. caller: good morning. i'm wondering where this sony stion about paying the $44 million that it cost to make the movie comes from. i have not gone online to look at the earnings for sony's last quarterly report, but -- not sony had any at problems that that caused, but the idea our government would pay sony $44 million -- that sounds like another bailout, to me. that is really all i have to say. thank you. along aand bill tweets in the same lines -- what the hell are we talking about a multinational company that has of money for -- they should have protect themselves? the best cyber security is to unplug your computers from the net. and take tweets in -- north korea has an army of hackers and causes many serious problems for south korea. the syria war and the rise of isis cost the region about 35 according to research there. the "new york times" -- the un is seeking 8.4 billion for syrian refugees. lawrence, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. amen to the lady from tennessee. she is a democrat, i am a republican, but we can agree. couple of comments -- concerning showing the movie, you had an earlier caller that we shouldn't a cause it was an attack on foreign leader that is still in power. age, we made y movies during world war ii -- was still in ar ii progress. many movies. serious and comical. one comes to mind. the name of the movie escapes it was a satire making fun of hitler -- host: are you talking about "the dictator"? with jack benny -- with jack benny, i believe that was the movie. "the dictator" might have been the silent movie. the are thinking about little tramp -- but there was a movie made with jack benny. spoofing and making fun of hitler and the entire hitler regime. this is in the 1940's. are so know why we afraid now. we should not be afraid. we are worried about a youtube video spoofing islam. movies, they are comedies, even serious movies should be allowed to be made. as far as the hacking is concerned, i am not that technology savvy to understand what's danger i'm in. i do all my baking and everything online. i just had to protect myself. one other thing -- i have been away from c-span for a couple was out of cause i town and my hotel dinning at c-span, so it is good to hear from you guys again. i always call in on the republican line, what i would like to identify myself as a liberal conservative. by that, i mean that everyone should be allowed to buy a gun, to take a ould have test in iq and logic before you can buy ammunition. have a good day, now. host: was the movie "to be, or not to be"? oh, she hung up. into north f giving korea -- it could be said that this movie is just a comedy. charlie chaplin's "the great dictator" was also a comedy. is worth remembering that when chaplin movie was being made, neville chamberlain's government wanted to ban its distribution in britain in service of its policy of appeasement towards nazi germany. by the time the movie was released in the nineteen for britain was at war -- the 1940's, britain was at war with germany and everything and changed. why does a terrorist threat from north korea produce appeasement, where threats from islamic terrorists produce crude, defiant and resilience? i suspect it's because we are is ly aware of the barberry among jihadi terrace, but we tend to think of north korea somewhat comical terms -- the are dictators with a haircuts, aand the weird, synchronized mass adulation and stadiums. in fact, north korea is one of repressive and t brutal dictatorships. it abducted e that thousands of people from following g countries the korean war, and allowed 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 of its own people to starve in a famine from the 1990's. tony from san francisco. a democrat. thoughts about all this? caller: yes, i'm just so sick hearing about these movies that i will probably never see. it is like an airhead kind of movie. i will probably watch it on cable when it comes out like four years from now. but enough is enough. please, let's move on. thank you. host: hayward tweets in -- need a new concept oof liability with that can't be considered. after the threat of the i bet the gop tea party and libertarian. saying the nsa needs less power. that a day" editorial -- $44 ator like kim can get a million from canceled is a deeply troubling assault on free speech. with this as a precedent, he and others will undoubtedly be emboldened to go after other targets. they always have an opposing view, as well. today, it was written by david austin. sony pictures did not respond to requests for an opposing view. mister austin writes -- the first amendment gives people and institutions, sony included, the right to make whatever movie they want. but by dangerously teasing a nuclear state with artistic license, sony does not really honor our freedom of speech. next call is larry in new york. larry, you are on the air. caller: yes, i agree with the lady who called an earlier. i think it was inappropriate, given the sensitivity of our relations with north korea, for that movie to be made. concerning the hacking -- i mean, look at what the nsa does into the of looking going on of politicians and others all over the world. i do not think it would have been made if there were a western leader that was going comedy as being potentially assassinated. so i think that sony has doing what taste in they did. host: richard. louisville, kentucky. the democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. i think everyone is really missing the point here. 3000 north korean into ary hackers can hack the united states, and anyone want on nything they the internet, it just really concerns me that this -- this silly movie has brought the united states to its knees. 3000 -- i ning those understand that they are based in china. you have mister chang coming up if that is true, if these 3000 north korean military whose sole purpose is to hack the united states -- if they are based in china, and is supposedly our alley, could you please tell me what this administration and what this country is going to do if us own allies are stabbing in the back? host: we will ask mister chang he get off your. thank you. hi, ed. caller: greetings. i'm a life member of veterans of foreign wars. i served in korea, and have come to understand that the korean war is still on. so this is an extension of the korean war. north korea is an army with a country. 40% of the korean war, our pows were psychologically tortured, and ultimately died. war, "the manchurian candidate" came out. you can see what we're up against -- psychological warfare. solution to the situation -- dropped food and north korea, not bombs. those people will overthrow the government. if you notice, the only weak person in north korea as their leader. why is he overweight, and the is in a famine? like forrest gump, that is all i have to say about that. host: and gary is next. gary is in florida. that r: i have a comments sony should not make any movie about killing any president in any country. and -- can you hear me? host: we're listening, sir. caller: and if they do make a a fantastic movie about reappropriation. a st: coming up in just minute, gordon chang is going to be with us. he writes for the "daily beast". he is a lawyer. and he has spent quite a bit of in china, as well. he has written quite a bit on this. we are going to continue this conversation, so if you are on the line, just hang on. after that, we're going to be about drones, droned regulation, and safety, as well. now, seth rogen is pretty lot of the a conversation ggoing on about this. him up at covered harvard at a harvard lampoon event. we want to show you just a little bit of seth rogen at to our before we get next guest. [video clip] >> i would never make a joke that i would think would get a laugh that has a political view personally believe in because i might get asked about that one day and i do want to look stupid. it is like -- i do think that a lot of people who try to be edgy or political -- who they are unfairly targeted -- forgets that they have to be funny as well as political. and i think that if you really look at the people who complain the people who don't, the people who are complaining about it are hilarious. and most of the people who are are y hilarious -- who incredibly edgy -- never complain about it at all. i think every time you make a your head you know in is, like, slightly -- there is a group of people who have to react negatively to some jokes in order for the job to be valid. that is almost the point of the joke is making -- that there's a group of people who think that there's this thing that you think is not necessarily what they should be thinking, you know? they will say the thing. say sometimes they will something, though, that the fence just more than most people by accident. do think that -- i do see comedians apologizing sometimes. i have never done something i have done something that i need to apologize for. should ah, maybe they apologize for that. it is an admission that they need to do. maybe they went too far. i think that, you know, we screen are movies a lot. and a lot of the early screenings of her movies, there are jokes that go too far. by the time they reach mass consumption, we have filtered those out. we were, like -- we didn't even realize it. just the way it would play in the room, we were like -- oh, we didn't mean that. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and that full of event with seth rogen will air on saturday, december 20. now on your screen, from new york studios, is gordon chang. he is a lawyer. has spent a lot of time in china. mister chang, when and why did you start following north korea? very : well, i was interested in chinese foreign-policy. and their most interesting bilateral relationship is with north korea. on many levels, it doesn't make sense. so i was just fascinated by what was going on. i was looking at the between beijing and pyongyang. host: should the u.s. retaliate? guest: well, north korea is responsible from the sack from all that we can tell. for instance, the code that was used against sony pictures entertainment was virtually identical to the car that was used against south korean businesses in march and june of last year. they trace those attacks back to north korea. first refused ans their involvement, then they had a very unconvincing -- it wasn't me. clearly, it was the north koreans. and we're going to find out from the administration today. they probably will directly attributed to them. host: what kind of response be from the u.s., in your view? be a military response, a cyber response? guest: i don't think it to be a military response or a cyber response. should impose sanctions that in bush administration put place in 2005, when we cut north korea off from the global financial system. effective that when pyongyang wanted to carry money around, they had to give cash to the diplomats and their suitcases. we need to do that again. also, we need to start enforcing security council resolutions against the sale of ballistic missiles and nuclear technology. we haven't been effective enough and that. and maybe the most important thing we need to do is that we need to call out the chinese because the chinese have been involved in north korean attacks. sony was acks on routed through chinese protocol addresses. we also know that a number of north korean cyber warriors based in the chinese republic. china has been very involved in training north korean cyber warriors, and protecting them. and because these attacks went to china, the chinese knew what was going on beforehand. host: do think china instigated this? guest: i don't think that they instigated that. we have no evidence showing that. but we know that these two countries have cooperated for a very long time on cyber issues. instance, north korea sense it's -- sends its future cyber were supposed to china and russia for training. we have unit 121, which is a cyber warfare unit based in pyongyang. we don't know whether they were involved in these attacks, but they probably will were. we know that there's close cooperation between china and pyongyang. they knew what was going on. they undoubtedly know that there's going to be attacked and sunny because they maintained the great firewall -- on sony because they maintained the great firewall. north koreans cannot be hacking sunday from within china without the chinese government knowing. host: gordon chang contributes to the "daily beast". he has lectured on north korea and china. has testified before congress and given briefings at the national intelligence the cia, the pentagon. and an author of a book. the numbers are up on the screen if you want to participate in a conversation with him on the sony hacking case. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. comment via make a social media -- twitter or join the conversation on facebook. chang, the "financial times" lleads with this morning -- sony surrender is a setback for free speech. do you agree with that? guest: well, i certainly do. because anytime you have a foreign government being able to affect this course in the especially es, and in this way with the threats that were made, clearly this is a setback for free speech. what should sony have done? like everybody else, i would of liked to seen sony give the movie. but i can understand why they might have legal liability. really, it is not their responsibility to defend liberty in the united states. that responsibility blocks of the federal government. like what e don't sony did. we don't like what paramount pictures did with the other movie. but the point is is that it is not the responsibility -- it is the responsibility of the american government. host: jim tweets in -- i find believe that to north korea has the internet experience and know-how to break a corporate firewall. guest: well, you know, the firewalls of many companies are really inadequate. sony's, obviously, was. sony could have done a better job protecting itself, but this whole issue is about the north koreans and our perception of them. yes, the country is destitute. yes, it is bizarre. but nonetheless, north korea is very, very good at cyber techniques. we have to understand that, and we cannot underestimate them. into nited states gets trouble when every underestimate -- whenever we underestimate adversaries and opponents. and that is what we are doing right here. when you look at our with north korea -- most of the time, they get the better of us. we need to start to understand that. yes, we may be the most powerful nation in history. but nonetheless, destitute north korea is usually able to get the upper hand in its dealings with washington. host: sam. you are on with gordon chang. caller: look, we are making too issue out of this. i mean, it is nothing. play the movie. let these guys run their mouth. we know we can do better than. i was in the military for twenty-four years and i have been to all of these places. let's play the movie, okay? it, t: i would love to see even though everyone ssays it is a dog of a film. but, unfortunately, we are not to get that opportunity. at the end of the day, this is sony's decision to make. clearly, they made a decision that most companies would make in their circumstances. after all, paramount made that decision with the other north korean movie. host: mister chang, do you think the decision to pull the movie was made in hollywood or tokyo? guest: i do not know the answer to that question. i do know, though, of course tokyo was very concerned about this whole issue of dealing with korea. the most , one of sensitive issues between tokyo state of yang is the japanese abductees -- japanese taken from o were japanese homeland and from europe and transported to north used -- i've talked to the mothf one of the abductees, who has led a nationwide movement to get these people back. this has certainly affected sony. i wouldn't be surprised if this decision was made at the top of the company. host: this next call comes from fort collins, colorado, dave, a republican. caller: just a quick question. are we looking at the wrong shore? private sin -- private ameri citizens are getting monitored. suddenly, hollywood gets a taste of the american medicine and everyone is our guest. -- is aghast. should we not be looking within before we look without? guest: americans have the right to change their government. we have the right to go to the ballot box and tell our government what we want. this is what we do. if we want better policies, that's what we need to start doing. this is a foreign government dictating to the american people what they will see, by the use of threats, by the use of cyber means. clearly, this is a different issue. i believe we always need to take care of our own society. there are many things we have to do. we need to get this balance between privacy and surveillance right, and i'm not sure we have, but we need to do both things at the same time. as a meanseets in, of retaliation, "shut off their internet." is that potential? guest: that's my first emotional response, let's turn off all the lights in north korea. we shouldn't do that. the reason is we do not want to disclose our cyber capabilities. we very mail -- well may need to use those capabilities in a warlike situation. i don't want our adversaries to know how good we are. i think we are very good, but i do not want to disclose that at this time. there are so many other things we should be doing. i think those things will be effective. i think we should start there. at the end of the day, we very mail -- very well may need to do something in the cyber wrong, but i don't think that's where we should start. guest: andy in atlanta, georgia, a democrat. caller: hello? host: please go ahead. caller: in 1776, when the declaration was signed, freedom of speech was intended for good, people.umiliate other it has grown into where people are saying the f word in music and songs. and the way we are using it, it is in the modern-day era, to where it needs to be updated. and our forefathers wrote it 1776 -- time, in i'm trying to say in needs to be updated. cleaned up. you understand what i'm saying? guest: i understand. i understand what you're saying. and i think that is a view that many americans have, but, unfortunately, you cannot have government dictating these things. it really is up to the american people to enforce standards of good taste and to punish those who actually go beyond the bounds. i understand what you're saying, but i don't see a way to do it, unfortunately. i think that what the american people need to do is to make sure that those standards of good taste are indeed enforced by themselves, by commercial means of punishing those who go out of bounds. that's the only way i can see of dealing with the problem. it's unfortunate. there are some problems that government cannot solve. there are certainly problems like this, that government should not solve. host: we read an article earlier that said this is the first time the u.s. government has taken such a direct approach. the president was briefed daily on this. instead of some of the cyberattacks on denial of service that we've seen in the past, why do you think this case is different? est: this casegu has gotten the attention of the american people. here you have an iconic american business, hollywood, basically being intimidated by a foreign government, and, of course, it's north korea, which adds another layer of an -- of interest to all of this. this has been going on for a very long time. governments like china, russia, perhaps iran, have been taking american intellectual property to the tune of somewhere between $20 billion and $75 billion. this has gone on and people haven't noticed. when you do something like this, it is like a 9/11 event. americans begin to understand the gravity of this. that's why i think right now we are talking about this, where we wouldn't have been talking about this a month or two ago, even though maybe the attacks are no more serious today than they were a couple months ago. host: next call for gordon chang comes from texas. please go ahead. caller: yes. people that makes our movies and stuff have begun to put out trash. they've got potty mouths. they are showing too much sex. and we have people that make fun .f people in other countries we are not even allowed to do it to our own president without being shut down. nothing bad about him. what's the difference between him and korea? on top of that, there is a lot of talk going on about this bad language in the movies and what they are doing -- we can't even watch these movies. they are talking about quick going to the movies at all -- quit going to the movies at all. you can't watch but one because it's got bad language and other stuff in it. host: any response? guest: this is really important. if this offends you, then what you need to do is talk to your neighbors and start a political movement. get hollywood that message. i talked to the mother of an abductee in japan, as i mentioned. and she felt helpless because her government wasn't doing anything to get her daughter back from north korea. she just said, i'm going to do something about it. she created a movement that changed the politics of japan for more than a decade. that's what people can do in democracy. whatever issue you have, whether it's language in movies or whatever, this is something that you can deal with, because you are in a democracy for you do have the vote. you do have the right to speak out, as you've just done. i encourage you to do that. other people may not agree with you, but the point is that the way we saw things in a democracy -- that's the way we solve things in of democracy. it's important to speak up. host: i want to get your wildonse to this from and wonderful. "in my opinion, this whole thing korea."rror by north guest: i agree. we have not paid attention to what the north koreans are doing. because of this, we are having a national conversation. out of this national conversation, we could have more effective policies. there is a bipartisan failure in washington for a very long time over north korea. we need to have much better policies. i hope this is the pathway to it. what the north koreans have done is certainly get our attention. they've done something nobody has ever been able to do, which is to get a hollywood studio to pull a movie after a cyber attack and threats of terrorism in the united states. clearly we need to deal with this right away, because these issues go to the core of american democracy. it goes to the issue of the freedom, marketplace of ideas in our country. that's where our strength is. that's why we need to deal with this. host: mr. chang, how is kim jong-un different from his father and grandfather as a leader? guest: i think he is more .illful than his father was i think that part of it is because he is trying to establish his position in the regime. at the head of the kim regime is a very dangerous job, because you have 300 other people who count. many of them want to be the number one guy. is a series ofen executions going back to 2010, when he became supreme leader, and which have been continuing through today. this has been a very destabilizing environment. that's why kim jong-un has been much more active during the three-year. -- three-year period of mourning. he was much more provocative, much more willful during the three-year mourning period where the founder died and kim jong-il took over. i think we will see a much more active north korea. kim jong-il, his father, who died in december of 2011, for all of the horrible, tragic, irresponsible things heated -- ways, hee did, in some was much more clever than kim jong on. this -- then kim jong-un. -- more clever than kim john-un. -- kim jong-un. host: what does north korea want? constitutepeople who the regime want to continue in power. to do that, kim jong-un has announced economic development. i'm not sure they will go through on the economic development part of this, because the regime needs to keep people in north korea more or less destitute, so they don't have the means to respond. essentially, north korea wants survival. secondarily, it wants to absorb south korea in a korean state -- in afrom pyongyang korean state governed from -- aboutwhen we are talking north korea leadership, we are talking about the kim family and about 300 other people? guest: that's right. , ais a very small group country of maybe 25 million people, but very tightly controlled. it's a one-man regime. it's a very small number of people who actually count. host: is he a deity in north korea? guest: no longer. clearly his grandfather was considered to be a deity or demigod. his father, at least at the start was created that way as well. kim jong-il was sort of abnormal , and in a way that offended north koreans. that really started the takedown of the myth of the godlike status of the kim family. kim jong-un has a lot of disadvantages, in the sense that he is young in a confucian society. people see him as mortal. kim jong-un has helped people see him as mortal because of all of his physical disabilities, as we saw him walking with a cane. heard the stories about diabetes, hypertension, and all the rest of it. those stories have circulated in north korea itself. right now, the north koreans as't view the kim family deities anymore. in the 1940's, 1950's, they certainly did. host: thanks for holding. you are on with gordon chang. caller: thank you for taking my call. i guess i have a couple questions. if thest one being, guest could answer this, what is the north koreans' true capability to carry out their threat of physical attacks here in america? is sony's capitulation to those threats warranted? and my other question is, in terms of north korea's population, is there really much rebellion -- not rebellion, sorry. there is very little resistance to kim rule. i think people don't like the kim's. they love him. now, i don't think so. i think they just tolerate the kim regime. they don't buy into the myths and mythology of the kim family anymore. if they get the chance, they are going to get rid of this guy. and i think they will get their chance fairly soon. you don't really see an organized opposition movement, because that's not possible in when theea's system regime fails, it will fail all at once. it will melt away. people understand the government needs to be better. in terms of the first question, do they have the capability to all you need is one or two people to attack a theater, and it's not that hard. so, the north koreans probably could have attacked one or two theaters in the united states, but they are not known to have a well-organized security apparatus operating on american soil. that threat to deal with theaters in a very explosive way -- when you have a threat like that, corporate norms dictate the behavior that they've exhibited, which is unfortunate, but they did not want the legal liability. but i don't think the north koreans could mount a large, sustained attack against theaters in the united states. host: from "the washington an e-mail toang, the ceo of sony entertainment from bruce bennett of rand corporation. " i have been clear that the assassination of kim jong-un -- "i have an that the assassination of kim jong-un is the most likely path to the collapse of the north korean government. while toning down the ending may reduce the north korean response, i believe that a story that talks about the removal of the kim family regime and the creation of a new government by the north korean people, at least the elites, will start some real thinking in south korea and, i believe, in the north once the dvd leaks into the north." do you agree? were not concerned about the theatrical release. the ordinary citizen is not going to a local theater in the united eights to watch -- united states to watch. south korean activists said they would take dvds of the movies and put them in balloons lofted across the demilitarized zone that separates north korea and south korea, so the ordinary citizens could get these dvds and watch them. the other thing they were concerned about is what goes on all the time, smugglers taking in dvds to north korea across the chinese border for profit. the north korean leadership was obviously very concerned with people in north korea seeing this. people in north korea have a pretty slanted or very narrow view of the world, because they only know very little about what goes on. the leakage of dvds and to north korea has been one of the primary ways where north koreans understand what's going on, first of all in south korea, and also in the rest of the world, so they did not want this dvd getting into north korea. that is what they were really driving at with regard to this movie. once people start to understand their leaders could be , as the researcher talked about, then, obviously, they might decide to do the same thing. and that's what the regime was really concerned about. this tweet, "sony is a japanese corporation. where is japanese government outrage?" guest: the japanese government outrage right now is not to be heard. now in because japan is pretty difficult, intense negotiations with the north koreans over the return of the abductees. it didn't want to offend the north koreans. as ourly, they feel, government feels, that it is not good to get the north koreans angry. i'm not so sure that is the right theory. when you show that you are starting to show weakness to the north koreans, and that's the worst thing you could possibly do. in any event, that's the way the tokyo government calculates its interests. therefore, there is no outrage in tokyo over this incident, at least none that we can detect. host: has beijing spoken up? guest: no, it hasn't. and certainly, i don't think that they want to get involved in this discussion, largely because then people are going to start to focus in on the close relationship between chinese and north korean cyber warriors. the last thing that beijing will be doing is to talk about this issue in a public way. that's the reason why i think the obama administration needs, at a point like right now, to raise this issue of china's involvement in complicity in these attacks. host: charles, republican line, you are on with gordon chang. go ahead. caller: may be a solution for this would be for the united states government -- maybe a solution for this would be for the united states government to buy the rights from sony, post the rights to download, the rights to broadcast freely. or any cable networks and stuff. they kind of win out, because freedom of speech wins. $250 million to buy it and do that would probably be cheaper than some sort of political or military response or anything like that. the united states government would be taking the responsibility. if someone wants to see it, they can see it. we are not going to be stopped by some terrorist. -- terrorists. host: we've got it. guest: i'm voting for you for secretary of state. north korea tried to prevent people from seeing this movie. i think that the u.s. government, one way or another, and one of the ways maybe rights fromg these sony, compensating them for it, so that we can have those dvds go into north korea, because that would raise the cost to the north koreans. that would be proportionate and appropriate. i know our government is not going to do that. but that is something that, indeed, should be considered, and i think it would be one of the first things we should do. i hope that president obama gives you a call today and says, talk about this idea. they havether tweet, " no food, but average north koreans have dvd players?" guest: they have food. there was the great famine in the middle of the 1990's, where, somewhere, as for reads a car yet -- as was mentioned, millions of people died. also, the chinese supply about 45% of north korea's food. north koreans have enough to eat. it is true you don't see fat north koreans, by and large, as callersyour mentioned. i actually think right now the north koreans are not in a food emergency. the people with the dvd players, many of them are the very wealthy north koreans, members of the regime. those are the people we want to influence, first, as initial matter. these guys do have dvd players, and we should be supplying the dvds so they can watch this and other things that talk about life outside of the democratic people's republic of korea. host: good morning. caller: good morning. here is one i haven't heard anybody call about. there is nothing to stop our government or any other government from using the demonize or start war with a country that opposes our policies. i'm 78 years old. come upn our government with things like this to smokescreen our domestic policy. and right now, our domestic policy is what really bothers me. it justain thing is, can't be used by the hawks. thank you for taking my call. guest: this is really interesting and important. foreign governments have been using the internet to try to change discourse in the united states. sometimes, they do it within bounds. sometimes, they do it out of bounds. clearly, this is something that we need to start thinking about in terms of foreign participation in the discussions in the united states. the united states should be using these means as well, where we have legitimate ends. especially when the united states has been attacked, as it has been attacked in this case, then the internet is one of those tools that we can use. host: mark williams tweets in, byth internet surveillance nsa, fbi, homeland security, and our military, i'm baffled how this hacking by north korea was missed." guest: i'm sort of baffled by that as well. and that really points out, that is this issue americans have about over surveillance of americans. at the same time, we are letting these cyber attacks continue. it's not just sony we should be concerned about. we should be concerned about the attacks on every major u.s. company to steal american intellectual property. this has been going on for a very long time, and our government hasn't done nearly enough to stop it. one of the ways we can deal with this is, of course, calling out these governments in public, and imposing costs on these governments for cybercrime, which has been called the greatest criminal hacked -- act in history. nonetheless, as this points out, there is a cyber dimension to it. we have superb facilities and superb organizations and capabilities, and we are not using those to protect what is the crown jewels of the united states, which is american intellectual property, held by american companies. host: milton's in richmond, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: are listening. -- we are listening. please go ahead with your question. caller: i'm calling in reference to the sony picture movie. i really don't have a problem with the movie itself. a lot of movies have been made in the past in reference to the president, the vice president, the secretary of state. the problem with the movie is that the character is to factual. too factual. the character looks like kim too factual. the character looks like kim jong-un, or george bush, or something like that. it is not justified to hack into the u.s. system and to take our property and to benefit from whatever the case may be. maybe they felt that this is an imposing -- imposement on their leader. it's not going to be good for us. when you take the movie away, your opening the door for -- you will have people downloading the movie and selling it on the street, and you will be losing a lot of money. it is a situation. host: thank you, sir. gordon chang? guest: i think, probably, wee interview," the film are talking about, is a dumb movie. it's probably inappropriate, ill-advised, and all the other criticisms we've heard. that's not the point. the point is we should not be allowing foreign governments to dictate what americans see or hear. because this is not just about a silly movie. right now, this is a question of what's going to happen the next time the new york -- "the new york times" writes a story that beijing doesn't like. beijing may very well decide to do more than just denying visas to "new york times those quote reporters, which it doing right now -- it is doing right now -- reporters,k times" which is what it is doing right now. there will be a next step if sony gets away with this. , the white house press secretary, talked about a proportional response. i have nothing against proportional responses, but the most important thing is the response be effective. we need an effective response to prevent the next incident and the incident after that, because, i think if we don't do that, we are going to have other incidents which are so much worse than sony. host: ruth benjamin smith tweets chang sounds like he has an agenda. he is pushing awfully hard for some kind of retaliatory action." guest: yeah. because if you don't do that, the opportunity -- alternative is you're going to have beijing, moscow, pyongyang, any other capital dictate what the american people see or read, and that's where this is going. i don't work for anybody. i don't have any affiliations. this is not something where i'm trying to say, well, i work for the motion picture association. i have an opinion on this. the other people have opinions. but i really look at this and i say to myself, we need to prevent the worst actors in the world taking away the first amendment for the american people. it's as simple as that. that's my agenda. host: joanne is in san diego, republican line. caller: i heard your interview on "imus" this morning. it was excellent. would north korea take out this cyber attack without the knowledge of china? you mentioned something this morning about china's list of 13 cities in the united states that they think should be destroyed? security overlax our utilities? obama'sfrom president recent trip to asia, which i thought was kind of embarrassing , do you think he would retaliate against north korea? guest: the president, from all the early indications we've seen in the last 24 hours, will come up with some countermeasures. as i mentioned, josh earnest highlighted that yesterday. we will probably see that today. we will see whether those measures are going to be effective or not. what i was referring to on out those 13 american cities, last october, chinese state media, across its main ran identical stories about how chinese submarines could launch a listed missiles with nuclear weapons and incinerated tens of millions -- launch ballistic missiles with nuclear weapons and incinerate tens of millions of americans. the united states did not react to that. that's a problem. what we are showing to the rest of the world is that this concept of nuclear deterrence, which has kept the peace since the end of the second world war, by and large, is eroding. and this is a problem. because this whole concept of deterring foreigners from doing things, whether it is lobbing a nuclear missile into omaha or whether it is taking out sony pictures entertainment, which is what we've just seen, this is going to be a problem, as other countries think they can do this. we don't react, by and large, because, for various reasons, but, nonetheless, what we are seeing is the erosion of peace and stability in the world, and i think we need to take a much more active response. otherwise, we are going to see continued erosion of peace and stability. we have enjoyed a very good period by and large since the end of the second world war, certainly since the end of the second world war -- the cold war. we need to stop this erosion as quickly as we can. host: jason, springfield, illinois, democrat. caller: yes, sir. i will ask a couple of questions. do you know of any provocations or similar attacks on north korea that we've used using cyber warfare? are we meddling in their affairs , that you know of? guest: let me answer that one first, if i could. the answer is no. i'm sure the united states has, through nsa, through other means, have probed north korea's cyber facilities. certainly, we spy on other countries with the nsa. but i don't think we -- we certainly haven't done what north korea has just done to the united states. and the other thing we don't do, and this is not just north korea , we don't take information from the company's of other countries and use -- and give that to american corporate to better compete in -- to american corporates to better compete in world markets. we don't do the other things we have just seen. your second question? caller: it is kind of a different question. you think there has been any large-scale uprisings in north korea we may not have heard about? is there anything that had to maybe quell? is there anything going on as of recently as far as the people getting together? host: thank you, jason. got the point. guest: there have been minor rebellions throughout the prk.ory of the d we have heard reports of execution of whole units in the military. there have been popular uprisings. they have all been put down. have affected the kim regime, except to make it more insecure. host: the final call for gordon chang comes from georgia. caller: i have three short points of interest for me. first, how much of this hoopla has to do with the fact that it was a liberal entity that was targeting hollywood? second, you mentioned fareed, his article. did he write it? was he paid to write it? three, it would be stifling of the first amendment. obama the only one that can quell the first amendment? host: anything you want to respond to? guest: i don't figure was because this was liberal, i think it was because this is hollywood. hollywood is iconic and does get our attention. franco are james very prominent actors. i think that's what got us. this cuts across the political spectrum. do you thinkweet, " if hackers told the nfl, if you play this sunday, we will murder fans, that the nfl would cancel games? yes, they would." guest: you know, i don't know. you have to talk to roger goodell, the commissioner of the nfl. if you thought it was a threat -- if he thought it was a threat -- democracies are very resilient, but we are also easily intimidated. we've seen this with sony and other incidents. clearly, the question about the nfl, i think, is absolutely fascinating. because, of course, football is as iconic as hollywood. important to many people. i'm a giants fan, and i would not like to see again canceled. nonetheless, this does show how vulnerable we are as an open society. host: another tweet, "what is the state of our cyber tools? could the u.s. take out other countries' companies and/or their infrastructure?" guest: yes, we could do that. we are very good at this stuff. we don't do it, and that's the real issue here. we don't do the other things that countries like north korea and china are doing. the one thing that we did do, in all probability, and of course washington will deny this, we net virus inthe stux the iranian nuclear weapons program, which is a controversial act. that is something that we did do , i think. we do not do what the sony , which, the chinese do is to steal intellectual property and give it to our own enterprises. there are very important limits to our very awesome capabilities. host: finally, this afternoon, the president's press conference , what would you like to hear from him regarding the situation? guest: i would like to hear those three things i talked about, cutting north korea off from the financial system, enforcing prohibitions on the sale of weapons of mass destruction, and calling out the chinese. and i would like to have him not use the work proportional. i would like to hear him use the word effective. at the end of the day, what we need to do is effective to protect american society. host: we've been talking with gordon chang. thank you very much. guest: thank you. host: coming up, two more segments on the "washington journal." we will turn our attentions to drones and from regulation, with the head of the association for unmanned vehicle systems, michael toscano. after that, we will look at the well-being of children in america. we will be right back. ♪ >> here are some of the programs you will find this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday night at 9:30 on c-span, actor seth rogen discussing politics and humor instead at the harvard institute of politics. sunday, katie pavlich. saturday night on c-span two, william argues that -- on c-span deresiewicz. sunday morning, just before indiana totv visits interview several of the city's authors and tour its literary sites. and on c-span three, saturday at six it got p.m. eastern, on the civil war, a historian talks about the life of irish -- at p.m. eastern, on the civil war, and historian talks about the life of an irish american soldier. and an investigative piece on the history of police brutality in neighboring oakland. find our complete schedule at www.c-span.org, and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us. span,nd us a tweet, @c #comments. conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> this month is the 10th andversary of "q&a," presentation -- and we are featuring an encore presentation of. the importance of the african-american experience to u.s. history. 2007, 50 years of reporting in washington. 2008, the value of higher education in america. conservative -- 2010, a decade of compelling conversations. december 22 through 26 at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. the: michael toscano, president and ceo of the association for unmanned vehicle systems international. guest: we are the largest nonprofit organization for the advancement of unmanned systems, those things that fly, drive, and navigate. it is a capability -- the organization has been around for 43 years. we started with a military emphasis, but we've now shifted to the commercial and public safety side. host: so, you are a drone lobbyist? guest: we advocate for the use of unmanned systems, drones, as you call them, as well as driverless cars, automated vehicles and systems that go on the water as in well. advocacy is one of the things that we do, but we also try to provide good information here it -- information. is of the main themes educating people, decision-makers, congress, and others, of the full capability. what as we sit here today, kind of regulations are there with regard to drones flying around the country? guest: as many people have good knowledge, the regulatory side. that is true of any revolutionary or disruptive technology. the laws have to catch up and we have this thing called the internet. here we are 50 years later and writing bullying laws because people are misusing the technology can with any new technology, there does have to be a period of time where the regulatory process has to be allowed to come up to speed. for unmanned systems, safety is paramount. that's the aspect of it that we have to make sure, before we are ever going to use this technology and understand the benefits we can derive from it. airlinee head of the pilots association spoke recently at a house hearing about drones and airlines. here is a little bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> hello? who this? host: and that is the wrong video. -- that ""the interview was the interview -- "the interview." should there be limitations in your view on where drones can fly? guest: it's all about safety. because this is a new capability, we have to assure that it is safe. and therefore, there are applications you can utilize even today that you can do an operational assessment or determination that, if we use it under these conditions and this environment, the value that you get from it will definitely outweigh the risks that you face that there could be a potential downside to the technology. when you talk about search-and-rescue, firefighting -- the faa has a section 333 exemption, where industry can come into and ask for these objections -- these exceptions. the movie industry has seven of them approved. you've also seen it for agriculture, construction site monitoring, and for gas tax. -- gas stacks. d's, dirty, dangerous, missions. and dull this technology is a tool that allows them to do it in a much more effective, efficient, and, in some cases, lifesaving way. [video clip] >> the safe use of unmanned aircraft systems. we recognize the potential benefit to our nation's economic competitiveness, but we also recognize the potential for a safety risk if we don't treat them as what they are -- airplanes in airspace. we've all seen photos of the damage that can be cost to an airplane by a bird strike -- can be caused to any airplane by a bird strike. unmanned aircraft can be much smaller or much larger than birds, but they harbor added risk in that they carry batteries, motors, and other hard metal components. this is a bird strike. please take a look at this on a commercial airplane. and this next photo of a military airplane's encounter with an unmanned aerial vehicle. we must not allow pressure to rapidly integrate uaf's into the nas to russia process that must be slow -- to rush the process that must be focused solely on safety. standards must be in place to ensure the same level of safety that is currently present in the before an the nas uaf can copy of my desk and occupy the same airspace used by uaf cane nas before a occupy the same airspace used by commercial airplanes. host: michael toscano, reaction to what he had to say? guest: he is a very good friend. i concur with his concern and approach, that we have to make sure that anything that flies in ,he national airspace, the nas has to do so by following the rules and do it in a safe way. when you fly in the national airspace, if you are an aircraft, you cannot bump into anything else in the national airspace. you have to have the ability to see and avoid, since and avoid, or detect -- sense and avoid, or detect and avoid. do no harm. those are two things the faa focuses on. that should be the premise for all aircraft, whether it is manned or unmanned. the difficulty we have with any technology, especially one like this, there are people out there that either don't know what the rules are, having been trained on how to operate the systems, or don't care. what he mentioned in his testimony is spot on. we have to make sure that we integrate these systems -- they support the use of this technology. they understand the benefit that could come from it. but like with any technology, you have to do it in a responsible way and you have to hold people accountable if they misused the technology. just like if you misuse driving a car, where you go 100 miles when you are only supposed to go 55, you will be fined and thrown in jail. host: will drones be part of air traffic control's responsibility? guest: when you say drones, you have to understand there is a spectrum. most people right now think the low altitude ones, commercially, will be utilized first, then the very high-altitude, then the media not to new -- then the medium altitude. most passenger airlines fly. when you think low altitude, 55 pounds or less, altitudes of probably 400 feet and below, but probably even up to 3000 feet. we haven't figured out quite what that is. and you're talking line of sight for these first applications. eventually, when the technology is mature enough and the rules are in place, you will go beyond visual line of sight. what are the possibilities of utilizing this technology for small applications or low altitudes? 400 feet and below, there are a lot of good applications you could utilize the technology and , literally, almost all fixed wing airplanes don't fly 400 feet or below unless they are taking off or landing. you have crop duster's in some applications, but those are usually confined to a specific operational environment. ,f you do this in a smart way like the introduction of any technology, you have to understand the cause and effect. if you do it in a proper way and you hold people accountable if they misuse it, then you can take full advantage of the technology. anythingthere preventing us from buying a drone on amazon, going down to the north end of the national runway andort's flying that thing off in the park? guest: yesterday were not supposed to fly them within five miles of an airport. -- yes. you are not supposed to fly them within five miles of an airport. the faa can find you $10,000. if you do something irresponsibly and you hurt me, i'm going to sue you, and you're going to lose everything you have. you can buyogy -- one of these things online. if you misuse it, it's no different than if i took a hammer and threw it into a crowd and hit somebody with it. you are going to hold me accountable. you are going to say i did something irresponsible with a tool or capability that wasn't meant to be thrown into the middle of a crowd. host: we are talking only domestic drones or unmanned vehicles, correct? guest: this is a global capability. the world is already starting to experience this. we do not have a technical edge. we do have the most busy skies. the rules and regulations have to be appropriate to make sure that we have safe utilization of it. what is safety? safety is understanding what the risk acceptance is going to be. we have technology today that we use all the time that we accept risk to it. i mentioned the internet. the internet has some downsides, pornography, identity that, bullying, other things, which were never intended for the technology, but people are misusing it. if you misuse it, you have to be held accountable and you have to be sure people understand the rules. host: we will put the numbers up on our screen, if you would like to participate in the conversation about drone safety. how many drones are flying domestically, nonmilitary, in the united states? guest: we don't have an exact figure, but it is hundreds of thousands, if not millions. when you stop and think about how many people are buying these, buying them off amazon, google, brookstone, wherever it may be. robots are cool. this is a technology that inspires the young people to get involved in science, technology, mathematics, the stem products -- projects. holidayagine over the season, there will be hundreds of thousands of these things purchased. one of the companies, they said since their inception date sold over 700,000 of their platforms -- since their inception, they have sold over 700,000 of their platforms. each person gets better and better. we have geo-fencing. they can put in coordinates of all the airports and make sure none of these systems can fly within five miles of an airport. it's almost like putting up an electronic fences for your dog. you cannot fly higher than 400 feet and you cannot go past these dimensions. is maturing every day, but i would think this is more of a leadership issue than it is a technical issue. people don't question our ability to fly, drive, or navigate to what the question is how safely can you do it -- or navigate. the question is how safely can you do it. the numbers of anybody quotes you are going to be wrong and low. 2% of ther 2000, world had a cell phone. here we are and 80% of the world has a cell phone. in the year 2000, you could not have predicted this large increase. once the technology was given to folks and they started to use it, they came up with waste utilize the technology -- with ways to utilize the technology and enhance their lives. it creates jobs and opportunities. it makes your life better and easier. that's where you understand what the risk acceptance is going to be. i use the example of the automobile. the automobile is a tremendous technology we have. we kill over 33,000 people in this country every year, over 6.3 million accidents, and it costs almost $300 billion in medical costs and damages, but we drive cars every day, because the benefit is a large to us that we are willing to accept the downside. with any technology, once you start utilizing it, you start to understand what the rules have to be and the laws need to be, but you also understand how it's going to improve your life. host: michael toscano is our guest. george is in merced, california. was also against people having drones, even though it is an advancement. i worry about the white house, obama, somebody putting together a drone that could go up high enough and dive into it and maybe hurt our president, or congressmen, senators. that's what i have an issue with. host: thank you, sir. george does not feel people should be able to own drones. guest: like with any technology, you have to hold people accountable. you can use technology to your advantage. my dad once said, you can't stop people from doing bad things, you just have to hold them accountable. and whether they are educated on how to use it right, or if they choose to act in an inappropriate way -- thatith any possibilities you have, yes, the technology, like any technology, can be used for not the appropriate application. host: paul is in mountain view, california. good morning. caller: you can't hold accountable people that you don't identify. how are you going to stop north korea, russia, isis from using drones to spy on, extort, and murder americans? it sure won't be faa regulations. again, a situation where, with any technology, whether it is this, satellites, cameras, other things that we have, people are going to do inappropriate things, and we have to make sure that we have the resources to protect and, again, this is a technology that could, in fact, help our defenses, to make sure that we keep apprised of things that are being done against us or in an inappropriate way. "dronestt tweets in, have already been used by peeping toms with impunity. how could we stop that?" he goes to some of the privacy issues around this. guest: again, you have to hold people accountable. if you say to me that the privacy laws we have today are adequate, then unmanned systems is just another platform that allows you to do that. we have the fourth amendment. we have feeding tom laws. if i had a letter and put it -- we have peeping tom laws. if i had a ladder and put it up outside your window, i would be breaking the law. if you break the privacy laws, then you need to be held accountable. if you want to have anonymity to it, there are things we can do. i believe that every commercial application of unmanned systems should have a chip or identification, just like every manned system identifies who claim belongs to -- who are plane belongs a to. we can instill verification. the upside of the technology -- agriculture will probably be better -- one of the best uses will see -- we will see of it. in the next 35 years, they billiona net gain of 2 more people. the secretary of agriculture said we have to do 70% more food in the next 35 years. this technology will help farmers grow more food in a more effective and efficient way. it will help to apply pesticides in a much more efficient and effective way. we will put less of it into the groundwater and more of it where it needs to be used. there is outside -- upside. if people are going to use the technology, they need to be held accountable. host: good morning. caller: greetings. i have two questions, peter, if you'll just allow me real quick. first of all, with the drones, what are the requirements for of,, youok at a career drones?ou know, flying back in the springtime, on saidington journal," they that the university of phoenix, the online college, was opening up a drone program. know, doondering, you you have to be a pilot? thendly, i'm thinking about u.s.a., our country. and this is -- the drones take off like you said, i think you just admitted there are hundreds of thousands of them out there already. another wdeap -- weapon. another dagger they could use for terrorism. host: we've got the point. thank you, sir. mr. toscano? tost: if you're going utilize any technology, you have to be properly trained, depending on the operational environment. if you are talking about low altitude, there has to be some proficiency to make sure you understand. when you operate these systems, there are three aspects. you have to make sure the platform or aircraft is airworthy. you need to make sure that the pilot or operator is properly trained to be able to utilize this technology. and you need to be able to make sure you understand what the or the regulations are, operation environment from a safety standpoint. to fly over hundreds of acres of corn, you are probably going to fly from 10 feet to 100 feet. there are very few people that are going to be in the middle of a cornfield. that's a great application that you could have. when you talk about firefighting, search and rescue, powerline, monitoring, pipeline monitoring, wildlife monitoring, whether determination, -- weather determination, these are things that can save lives. we don't even fully understand all the applications. if you had one of these after an earthquake or natural disaster, where you need to inspect bridges. on the 14th street bridge, if you have to do an extension -- inspection, you close down the bridge and send people below it to do the inspection. how many people die in car accidents because you closed out a lane of traffic to do that inspection? now you can do it from the side of the bank or some other location, and just fly one of these unmanned aircraft systems underneath the bridge to do it. it's much more cost-effective and efficient. it doesn't cause all those accidents and loss of life. that is just the second and there is a tremendous job creation that will take place with this technology, as well. within the first three years, we will create over 70,000 jobs. the economic impact is in the billions. so this is why this technology it is a better -- than human beings do everyday. host: what would you like to with regards ress to regulation? guest: well, the faa is for the national airspace. what i would like congress to do, or the decision-makers, is make sure that we put enough the asis on getting out rules and regulations to allow this to be done in a safe way. i think most -- the hearing that took place last the on the hill by aviation subcommittee -- i was pleased at the tone of which the congress folks and congressmen and women asked the questions. in the stions were more line of -- what is it going to take? why can we do this now? how are other nations during this? it was a very positive attitude and understanding that this is brings many, that many benefits. with this benefits, we have to make sure we do it in a safe and responsible way. and hold people accountable if they misuse it. host: joseph. maryland, you are on the "washington journal". caller: hello. i was wondering -- when remote-control planes came on market, with a concerned about the same things as they are about drones? will we have to be insured, also? are ending on what they being used for. guest: joseph, that is an excellent point. with any technology that has in it, rs or software you always run the risk of people hacking at. and that is definitely a concern. if you asked me about some of the technical challenges -- secure wireless communications probably one of those up there at the top, along with power and some of the other frequency issues. so you are spot on with that question. that is a concern we have with manned systems and unmanned systems, as well. you look at most airline systems or not, they have an automated system to them. could someone hack into that system? yes, but we hope that we have prevent attackers from getting their. host: remote-control planes. guest: well, those are basically a drone. it is a system. the thing that actually flies 30% of the system. it has a communication link that goes between the operator and the platform. it has a ground station. but most importantly, it has a human being. if that person misuses the technology, or doesn't to use the how technology, tthen they need to be held accountable. i cannot stress that enough because that is what it comes down to. it is all about safety and how many women will utilize this technology to do tremendously good things with them. and hold them accountable if they don't. host: michael toscano, is the u.s. government using drones domestically at this point? guest: well, you have to remember that this came out of the military. military has utilized this technology forty or fifty years ago. in the last 5 to 10 years that this is transitioning to commercial applications. this is no different than the internet, gps, satellite -- things of that nature that we utilize. these are technologies that were developed for military purpose. were very costly, usually, at that point in time. and what happens is when they get commercialized, they become more reliable and more affordable. to see this oing technology used in almost every aspect of her life. military men and women know how to do their jobs better than anyone else. host: darlene, las vegas. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. an excellent conversation, as usual. i would like to know your the ghts on whether or not use of uav would be a different set of standards, legally, for a city or any kind of government entity within my state of nevada? versus myself as a personal citizen. guest: well, again, the answer to that is yes. if you are a public servant, your help to standards -- firefighter, re a a park ranger, a law it orcement entity, whatever may be -- it is another tool those men and in harm's way -- you read about the firefighters down in arizona, or texas -- this technology allows them to two things very well. it allows for spatial awareness. and it is good as a delivery system. as for spatial awareness, i firmly believe that if you give good information to smart people, they make smart decisions. middle of ses, in the an incident or hazardous situation, time is critical. in a ng good information a mely matter -- you look at katrina incident -- getting that information we don't have to send human beings in harms way, or allow those who have to go in harms way to do it in a much more efficient and effective way. what is your connection and what is the connection what we're talking about and driverless cars? guest: there are a lot of similarities. again, safety is paramount. with an it has to do on-demand system -- it is situational awareness. and make sure that it doesn't bump into anything. so to detect and avoid. we have smart cars. to se cars have the ability look 360° around. as cars get smarter and smarter, it allows us to take that technology and make better decisions. someplace between 87% and 90% of all accidents are caused by the human being. link in the eak system. human beings, inherently -- you cannot improve too much more on. you technology can allow to do this. host: brian is in michigan. hi, ryan. caller: hi. of hunting a lot to use ay, and i want drones over and i shoot it down. who gets the remnants of the drone? i'm not advocating that, sir, you get the cart ahead of the horse. we are using antiquated systems, such as radar which i'm quite familiar with, and we upgrades en have the that we need. the legislators have been for this for decades, and now you are putting more up there. so you are confusing the issue. we are running off of old great stuff from decades ago. now you're putting one mechanical things in the air. if you fly over my 80 acres and be out there shooting, could i shoot down your drone? host: brian, do have a connection to the aviation industry? caller: i do not have a connection to the aviation industry, other than we have a lot of and to credit systems up in the air -- antiquated systems going up into the air. i mean, i just see also to problems. i'm not against you, michael. i like you, but -- host: brian, i'm sorry. i hung up on brian. brian asked a question about this technology in the sense that when you build an unmanned system -- low cially some of these altitude systems -- you are a detect have to have and avoid technology. and that technology will have a proper price point for you to utilize this technology. i believe we will make general aviation safer because the technology that you developed fit into unmanned systems -- that technology can be migrated into the manned systems. i think we're going to make safer by iation utilizing tthe unmanned technology. them down shooting and whatnot, dislodging a firearm -- would you should add flying over was your -- your house? or helicopter or anything of that nature? you take responsibility for the actions you have. this, again, is someone's private property that is utilizing it, but if they are doing it inappropriately, they need to be held accountable. host: kind of along with brian was talking about, this was a treat that came in -- the imposition on common-law property rights. aeronautical airspace arty redefined at once. does somebody on the airspace above the property? guest: you know, this is a question that has been in the courts since aviation was created. when aviation was created, and wright brothers broader reform the faa -- in and the faa was don't own from u the ground to the heavens. the law will have to be done. and they'll have to be different challenges made and court decisions that go down. have words like reasonable for the domicile of what you own. is that 10 feet above your house, or is that 100 feet above your house? we will depend on the cases have. host: robert is in sacramento. hi, robert. caller: this is a great conversation. i would ask a question about the high-quality drones -- who happened to have some evil intent of their. if you purchase one of these under the chemical agent, and flight over large -- targeted populations -- to create mastic panic, what rules and regulations or other for permitting that situation -- from permitting that situation to develop? guest:, well, robert, again -- someone has bad intentions, or has the intent to do something upon, this is a technology that, if misused, can cause ill effects. but that is to with anything we have from a technology standpoint. that is why i say you have to people accountable for that. you could do that with command system, just as well. that doesn't prevent them. we have seen incidents happen in this country, we have been attacked numerous times. and, unfortunately, we have to hold those people accountable. will also help us tto protect ourselves by to, in some cases, utilize it in a way that can be sort of either some situational awareness for the delivery of capabilities to men are involved in it. as a system, there is a human being that is involved in this capability and this technology. that human being will utilize technology to their advantage. it is just a tool. he or she is operating it from a distance that allows them to do it in a much more effective and efficient way. host: tom is in red bank, new jersey. a republican. have a question -- he talked a lot about the consumer, but i didn't hear anything about the manufacturers. do they have to put anything on their boxes? guest: actually, that is one thing we are doing along with the academy of modelers association with amazon. in that every package, if this for ing to use recreational purposes, go to the site and understand what do's and don'ts are. and the sites will refer you back to what the faa says is the rules to pertaining to operating in utilizing the system. a lot of this is about education, what you can and cannot do. basically, it comes down to safety. where you can't use these things, it would be obviously are populated ngs areas are. host: and wayne is in san diego. hi, when. caller: hi. i fly a short landing and takeoff aircraft. i take off and land from backcountry strips. and i fly low. not below 500 feet, but i'm concerned that what we have here is a -- a technology that premature at this point, regardless of how technically amazing it is. and that people are out there now using these things off backcountry strips and small, airstrip set of that defy any suggestion that they can operate more safely elsewhere. only have t well-intentioned people in addition to the well-intentioned people who can misuse these things, but just because you can do something not mean that it makes sense to do it. current level of system of , and the regulations -- and outside that system of regulations -- you disaster looking for thousands and thousands of places to happen. have you ever experienced a drone in the air while you are fine your airplane? friends i haven't, but of mine have -- locally, here. just the other day to a drone ggested operator that it wasn't safe for him to be operating around an airport. argued with him and finally told him to mind his own business. we have no regulations in regulations, in particular -- where the sheriffs know what to do with these people if they can find them. there is no way to find the people who are operating these things. like the gentleman here -- i machines, e are neat but with thousands and thousands of them in the air, they will be running into each aand into regular aircraft -- just because thousands of people are killing cars every year, this is a bit vicious to suggest that you can compare to that. guest: first of all, you highlighted an excellent point in that there are the unaware to what the here as systems -- how the systems should be used in a safe and responsible way. i think you're exactly right, people of educate the dangers if you misuse this technology. you're right, we are at an stage of this technology, and this is why i believe the technology should be used in the operational environment in we can have a high assurance that it will be done in a proper way. early the analogy to the cell phones -- they had a very long antenna and he dropped at 50% of the time. but as that technology matured, now we are where we are today. replicated e have of a dog -- smell your point is a very well taken point, it is about safety. we have to make sure that these systems are being introduced in a safe and responsible way. that is the essence of what this technology is going to be. i don't believe that you are going to stop this utilization because, in nology many cases, it is a safer and more effective and efficient way of doing things. companies will be formed, businesses will flourish, jobs will be created. you'll be able to do those remembered about the mentioned about the four d's. that is what you're going to see more and more of. and you are spot on, when, that -- wayne, and that it has in an utilized appropriate way so we don't have instances in a way where things are undesirable. host: when some people think these drones, we remember reading about amazon wanting to deliver with the drones. would those be operated locally? with those be operated from seattle? guest: well, what he articulated on sixty minutes have his they want to fulfillment centers that within 10 miles of a fulfillment be able to y would deliver a 5 pound package or less in thirty minutes. 80% of the deliveries, i think, are less than 5 pounds. so the operation -- understanding of the operating environment is very critical. there is regulatory ones and there are technical want, as well. we have to make sure we are doing this in a safe manner. i have to believe that he understands the challenges that face as the technology. be able to -- will not be able to utilize this technology in such a way that it would not be done in a safe way. the hard part of any delivery leg of it the last -- getting from the major highways to the offloads to the house itself. so you may see, in the future, ups or delivery trucks that have the solid top. a certain get within distance, they ttake off, drop it off, and go on. there are ways that we haven't even thought of how we can utilize this technology. host: michael toscano, what can you expect legislative wise in the next congress? guest: i think you're going to more of sitiveness, or an interest of fueling this technology, sooner rather than later. already granted twelve extensions to utilize this technology, one of them being in the movie industry. more found it much efficient and effective to 25,000 pound platform with a human on it with a drone. bastard tweets in -- you don't need to be a pilot to fly a drone, just good at video games. guest: as long as you are properly trained and have assurance that the platform you using a certified -- you are properly trained to operate in the operational environment in a safe manner. and you understand that you are operating in an environment not going to be causing harm to human beings, then, yes. host: these rules and regulations to control commercial and were very useful ruin it for them. guest: again, the ama has been in existence for decades. and they have a code of conduct. have a training mechanism, where a lot of the people involved in this technology people come into it. they have hundreds of thousands of people who belong to that operation. people have been using drugs for over seventy-five years, and they have done it very, very safe. can be done right, if people understand what the rules are and you hold of people accountable. host: michael toscano, head of unmanned iation for vehicle systems international. thank you. guest: thank you, peter. merry christmas. last segment here on "washington journal". that is going to begin in just a minute. but this weekend on "book tv" "american history tv" -- fforty-eight hours of nonfiction books and authors on "american history tv", c-span3. featuring ng to be the cities of lafayette and lafayette in indiana. the home of perdue university in west lafayette. and we are going to be looking at their historical and literary sites. is a little bit from that visit that we made to lafayette in west lafayette. [video clip] is a midsize city in what we would call central indiana or north-central indiana. we are an industrial town with a lot of advanced manufacturing. it is surrounded by soybean fields in cornfields, so we are kind of that typical midwestern that has grown up around transportation. think that transportation history of the wabash and erie went , the chains that through west lafayette, the spirit of creating the town and we found a d that way to take that -- that spirit it into, you know, a great place for people to live with great paying jobs. i think that is what has been lafayette's history. of hink folks take a lot pride in that, and the fact that we build things that help help move world and world commerce. i think will continue to do that. on west lafayette is located the wabash river. we are sister cities with lafayette, but we are unique and different. the city of lafayette was basically a committee -- community that grew up on perdue university. ago, they years establish purdue university. is how purdue university the game. just this year, the university became physically part of our city. added about hem and 4000 citizens to our population. that is predominately what we're known for. knows anything about -- anyone who knows about college towns -- we have this massive economic stabilization factor because of the university. it is an economic engine, and it provides for an economic stimulation. and ourse, all the research all the biosciences and industry that come out of the university. we have over 127 countries campus nted just on this in west lafayette. this says that it is not just localize, it is something that has worldwide influence. this week on "q&a", katie on what she sees as the liberals were on words. said, o back to, like i where the idea for this but came from was the 2012 dnc convention. this they were showing tribute video -- portraying him as a women's rights champion when he left a young woman to drown in his car. if he had not gone back for to save rs and tried his own behind, she would have probably survived. you can't do an entire video at claiming to be preaching and fighting the war glorify someone like that, while not including that part of his life in a video about his women's rights record. >> sunday night at 8 o'clock eastern and pacific. on c-span's "q&a". we are airing one program from starting on december 22 at 7:00 pm eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: well, this week on are ica by the numbers, we going to be looking at the well-being of the children in the u.s.. we are basing this discussion on a recent u.s. census bureau report. lynda laughlin is with the u.s. census bureau. how do you define, first of all, well-being when you're the well-being of children? we asked well, questions about parental engagement with the children, academic performance, neighborhood characteristics, well as reading habits and mealtimes that can't have with their children. that is the approach we take. host: what is the importance of those things? well, it helps -- at survey helps the parent to sort of provide a picture about the child still experienced. it helps us understand what children are ities engaging in, and also how parents are engaging with their children. host: has it improved, the well-being of children? guest: we see a lot of differences for children, particularly about their living arrangements. we see differences in outcomes children, as well as children who come from poverty. by t: we are also joined doctor christian more of child trends -- kristin moore of child trends. of all, what is do well-being of america's children today? guest: i see that it is diverse. there are ways in which it is of well-being are problematic. compare the we united states to the other countries, we are not doing so well. the ave had a decline in teen birth rate, yet when we compare ourselves to other countries, we're host: which countries are doing well? we are going to put the numbers up. we have divided them by parents, teachers, and all others. you will see them on the screen in just a second. we are doing less well than a lot of the european countries. the variation across states. some states have better measures of well-being than others. what are some of the european countries doing that we are not doing? guest: there are differences in health insurance. there is family leave when a child is born. there is extended leave. there are income supports. there are a lot of differences and how families are supported. host: what are we doing right? guest: i am seeing a move toward prevention. we are working to develop evidence-based programs. we had a long period going on the basis of pensions -- hunches, good intentions and now we are becoming more rigorous and more empirical. to the promises that they make actually happen? some ofnda laughlin, the results of the census bureau. six out of 10 children participate in extracurricular activities. why are these important? are just a sample of the many detailed statistics you can get from the child well-being report. these are some that we have pulled out. we wanted to highlight participation in extracurricular activities because we see such variation in access to these activities by poverty status and participation levels by the living arrangement. rate.ample, the poverty we wanted to highlight and talk about that. is one in the place where a lot of daily experiences happen and children have access to social and economic resources. we see that families that are below poverty, around $23,000 per year, that is the federal poverty line for a family of four, we see children below poverty and they are much more likely to be living in a two parent unmarried household and that 41% of children below poverty are living in a one parent household. if you compare this to families , we00% of poverty or higher see that 46% of children in those types of households live in a two-parent married household. this is important context. the living arrangements and poverty situation dictate the outcomes in participation activities, reading levels, academic performance. host: can you predict what a child's behavior home life is going to be life like income? -- on income? guest: not completely, but there were a strong correlations. what we see is that the things -- these things go together. low income, young parents, single parents, they are going to occur together. all of thosee challenges, they often have last .ich experiences i want to commend the census bureau for doing this kind of report because it tells you what income disadvantage means to children. the differences in their daily life, the opportunities that they have and the challenges that they face. what is the role of parents? what is the role of teachers? parents can do something like monitor screen time. when children can watch television, what kinds of programs they can watch, they can ensure that children get enough sleep. they can make sure the children value education and work hard at school. we are seeing a shift. it is not just about testing and doing well at tutoring. children need to be in good health. they need to get eyeglasses so they can read well. , theyy are being bullied need to deal with that. the climate of the school as part of the academic success. we have scouts and afterschool programs. opportunities for middle-class kids. we see quite a large difference for kids from low income families and whether they are .ble to take lessons host: those extracurriculars make a difference? guest: if they are high-quality, yes. i recall one person describing their out -- afterschool program as 100 kids, a basketball, and in a dolt. -- an adult. host: below poverty is the all .f green line you can see a real correlation in income and participation rates. guest: it is important to highlight that children in households with higher incomes are more likely to participate in all three at ever these. we continue to see a gradation in terms of participation and income. host: let's take some calls. let's begin with robert in long beach, new york. you are on. thank you for accepting my call. i have a question to the panel in reference to academic success. my nieces and nephews overseas do very well in gender separation classroom settings, where girls are learning with girls and boys are learning with boys. not the school itself being separate, but just the learning classroom phase. what is your opinion about that? is it relevant to the party level? there was higher achievement than a lot of my nieces and nephews in the states. guest: i'm going to respond as a researcher to that. that is a really interesting idea and there are lots of reasons to expect that that might be true. separate classes are good at least for some kids. but i would want there to be research, rigorous research that proves that that is an effective approach. the things we might want to look at. host: is that studied? guest: i have not. that is something that is beginning to be studied. we are beginning this evidence-based era. we are becoming like the public health field. we would like to do that in the fields of education. host: have you looked at it anecdotally and what is your impression? there are certain places where you might want to do gender separate classes. we have had it in physical education for a long time and we might want to do it in sex education. have some of the sessions be separate for boys and four girls. that is one of the real questions. host: keith in florida. everybody.d morning, merry christmas and happy holidays to each. i think in math and science, they have had a lot of studies were girls do a lot better because they seem to be intimidated by young men. growing up, there was a lot of .tudies on the family unit family and of the that whenever a child needed , another parent or direct family member should be there to provide for that child at all times. has there been any studies of ?he modern day time whenamily unit that bond with the family, has there been any studies of the modern day where they go into these warehouses? guest: we do know that boys are more likely to participate in sports than girls in afterschool activities and we see that equal percentages of girls and boys participating in clubs. girls are more likely to participate in those activities and lessons and clubs. there are some differences we see by sex for children between the ages of six through 17. in terms of family structure, 62% of children live with two married parents. more of the majority are living with two married parents. often to unmarried parents as well a single parents tend to be younger, lower educated, and have less access to higher pay jobs, which can have an impact on academic outcomes for children. we also look at information about academic experiences. we see that for children of six , summer and the gifted class. these are parental reports. it could be higher depending of the parent may know if they are in a gifted class or not, but you are seeing high levels of an .auge meant when we looked at differences in academic experiences, we did not large statistical differences between boys and girls. we did not see a lot of differences based on living arrangement of the child. look at these issues, the overlying factor is poverty. host: 62% of children live with a two-parent household. guest: a two married parent household. host: what percentage of children live in poverty in the u.s.? guest: i don't have that exact number. one in five. host: is there a correlation with married or single parent? by all means. single parents usually only have access to one income and if they get child support, it is modest. they tend to be low income. times low income before they become a young single parent and then that continues after the child is born. we mentioned the importance of parent held relationships. often, they don't have a relationship with the biological father. parent held relationships are very important to children. we see single parents work hard and try hard, but they face a lot of disadvantages with circumstances. host: autumn is calling in. kristin.hank you to i highly agree on the fact that parents are important. my mom had seven children. she got divorced when i was nine. she did a very good job of raising us. i would just like to know your opinion on things like the share program. it was incorporated in my education and taught me a lot and growingonships up and puberty and things like that. i was also involved in planned parenthood when i got involved in high school. i volunteered for almost three years ended outreach programs and talk to children about stds and now they call them sdis because it is an infection and not a disease, which is good, but anyway. i would like to know your opinion on why these things are being taken away? thatf these parents think it is not necessarily a good thing for the children to learn in school about, where i believe you are not just in your parent's home and where it is going to be biased. you are around other children that have different opinions and it opens you up a little bit better. host: how old are you now and what you doing? i am 22. i work at a pet shop in marietta, ohio. to be in social services. i want to go to school to work with children. host: how did your life change after your parents divorced in a family of seven? did the income drop? caller: thank you for asking that. it changed drastically. my father was a maryland state trooper for 14 years. he served in vietnam. he just had a hard time. mom is a gypsy soul. we moved around a lot. my older siblings went to live with my father and me and my younger sister went to live with my mother and we lived in nevada for six years. it was very difficult because the curriculum was very different. when i moved back here, i was a sophomore in high school. away five of took my credits just because the curriculum was different and it really frustrated me because my sophomore year in ohio, they have a test that is the ohio graduation test. place youosed to help in college. it is almost like the ect or the sat. i passed it. i was at the top of my class. i was in the top 10. fry in beverly, ohio. it was 300 kids in that school. i easily placed at the top because in nevada, i went to a school that was 3000. my graduating class was 900. we had a boys and girls club built into our school, we had a day care on our school campus because there were so many kids that were having kids. when mom and dad got divorced, everything changed. glad that i was raised there where was. i was very lucky to experience a school like that and the teachers that i had. host: let's hear from dr. kristin moore. guest: thank you for sharing your experiences. i think your life illustrates a lot of what we know from research. you are clearly a resilient person. you have recovered from a lot. single parenthood presents challenges for kids. in terms of moving residences and in terms of income. you also illustrate the importance of relationships and good school and afterschool programs. high quality programs that can help you three cover from challenges you are experiencing. your experience with planned parenthood shows the importance of delayed childrearing. or younga teenager adult poses a lot of challenges for individuals, couples, and for the baby. you also illustrate the example and importance of volunteering. thatteering is one way people really build skills and commitments and gain all kinds of knowledge that is useful to them in the labor market. think auto mentioned it and we see this happening for older children is changing schools. that can be a disruption for young adults. they are trying to make their way through academic experience. we have data that shows that for older children, 39% have at least changed schools once. survey benefit from the that we have federal statistical data that can look longitudinally over a child's lifespan, a three to four year period to see how often economic changes happening in the household, how often there is a family disruption, a change in marriage, a new partner coming into the household. we do find that moving tends to be the most disruptive for kids. moving did have an impact on participation, particularly in a curricular activities. moving from one city or one to enroll in programs, find out about a program, or something like that. that is something we can look at with their data. stan is in massachusetts and he is a teacher. what do you teach? caller: i taught elementary education. i'm an elementary school teacher. i took many years also in barbados, which is a very .nteresting system our kids go to school from 4.5 up to 11 in elementary schools and as soon as the kids get into separated., they are they have all boys and all-girls schools. this has worked very successfully in barbados. we have one of the highest rates of literacy in the world. secondly, i have a concern about prayer. there is no prayer in our schools. we learned the 10 commandments and we build character and it is not done here. that is one of the problems we have here. we have to get back to religion in the schools. the boys and girls have to be separated if you want to be effective. host: as an elementary school teacher, what were some of your frustrations, what do you think the school systems are doing correctly? frustrated?u it is completely different. education is three stages. for stages. you go to the concrete to the simple, from the simple to the complex and the complex to the abstract. it is not a foundation. they are not foundational. they give them paper. we were doing different things .n school his kids going to school at 4.5. there are no books. penmanship. we go to school with a double line book. it does not happen here. you notice that most of the penmanship is very terrible. i see kids come home with a piece of paper. it is all of those things that are destroying the system. host: we are going to leave it there and hear from kristin moore. guest: you raise a lot of important issues. correct that we don't test as well as many other developed and developing countries. we have room for improvement. we need to be open to how to improve room including bringing character education into schools. there are some good evaluations being done. i think we will start to learn about what works and what is proven to work. i think it is important to think about her parents are interacting with their children. from our survey data, we are seeing a high level of engagement between parents and children when it comes to meals. we see that parents are more likely to have dinner with a child and this is regardless of age. we are seeing a fairly consistent participation in reading as well. for mealtime, regardless of age, we are seeing a majority of children are eating dinner with her parents seven times per week. it is time spent at the table, it is a way for parents to interact with their children, ask them about their day, get an understanding of what may be going really well for them or what is not going so well. in terms of providing nutrition on the table also. the data that we have shows that the myth that we are not at the dinner table anymore is not necessarily true. i wanted to concur. there is lots of research that shows that having dinner together is important if people are doing shiftwork, they can have breakfast together. that is in the data. spending time. the current held relationships are critical. caller: how are you doing? hello? host: we are listening. caller: you are both making some good points. but if you are sitting on this side of the television, you are talk aboutladies children from beverly hills. i am a grandfather of 26 grandchildren. issues.one of the myived a rough life and did wrong things and made a lot of mistakes. world, we in the poor have the mistakes we made to offer our children, not the rights we did. our children don't want to take our advice. a daughter that works every day and has three beautiful kids. she has a boyfriend. she has two kids living and one that is step. the stepchild gets treated different. you understand what i'm saying? they beat him. you don't listen to what the adults tell you, that is a problem. i used to do that with a son and now i know that is wrong. i can tell them that is wrong. another thing, they bully him. this child is going to school. we dealt with it and it did no good. another thing, i got this going young menese kids, will get a job, they will get a work, they will spend their sending their kids to camp while the money is -- mother is paying for the bills. guest: i'm hearing about the potential value of intergenerational help. people we do know that don't like to get advice. they don't want to be lectured to. they want role models and they want help. the older generation has a lot to offer and it is wonderful when that is not interrupt did by nonmarital childbearing or divorce. when you have one parent and one set of grandparents are one parent and a grandmother, that does not have nearly the amount of support. host: let's go back to where we started. is the well-being of american children better or worse 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago? guest: i think it is better in many ways. we have not really addressed mental health issues. we have issues around behavior our test scores need further work. i think we are making progress. we have an enormous diversity. some children are privileged like no generation in history and other generations -- other children are facing enormous challenges. host: what does the statistical data say? ,uest: in terms of fun things we have seen high engagement. we have seen a widening gap. it is important to have federal statistical data to be able to continue to look at the widening gap and what that means, especially when we have a population of children that is becoming more diverse. host: thank you both for being on the washington journal. thank you for being with us.