On Tuesday's NewsHour:

Is the Chinese military behind cyber-attacks on U.S. agencies and companies?

At the Supreme Court, a farmer's will against agribusiness

After Newtown: The impact of violent video games

And, the Oscar Pistorius case

While the above promo is written for the radio in the morning, it is a tentative snapshot of what we're covering on the show. With the ebb and flow of news headlines, chances are segments will be added, scrapped or moved to another night.

Tune in to the broadcast at 6 p.m. ET, online and on-air.

Follow @NewsHour

Support Your Local PBS Station

On March 5, 2001, 15-year-old Andy Williams walked onto the Santana High School campus with a loaded .22-caliber revolver taken from his father's locked gun cabinet and opened fire, killing two schoolmates and wounding 13 others.

Now 27, he resides at Ironwood State Prison, a correctional facility in the middle of the California desert. He will face his first parole hearing at age 65.

Not long ago, NewsHour science correspondent Miles O'Brien had a phone conversation with Williams, who called him collect from the prison.  Parts of that  conversation will be included in a broadcast report on Wednesday's PBS NewsHour and on the hour-long documentary, "Mind of a Rampage Killer" to air the same evening on PBS's NOVA.

The audio beeps and automated voice heard in the interview are due to the call being monitored and recorded by the prison. 

Below are extended video excerpts from their conversation and the complete transcript.

MILES O'BRIEN: I know we have a limited amount of time, so we’ll cut right to it.  We are talking to a lot of people about what goes on in the mind of somebody who does a rampage killing, a rampage shooting.  You’ve had now 12 years to think about it. Take us back to that moment, and if you could tell us what had gone one in your mind at the time that would really help us.

ANDY WILLIAMS: Umm.  Even now, being so far removed from everything, it’s like, there’s, there’s really like no coherent, like, thought process at the time.  I mean I can only speak for myself. I can’t really, I can’t  give you any insights to all the people that like, went out, and and did all these mass shootings because at least in my mind it’s not really the same thing.  To me it was just like a numbness at the time.  You know what I mean, and like I couldn’t really, at [age]15, I couldn’t really comprehend like the consequences. Or I knew what I was doing was wrong but I couldn’t really comprehend, like, the finality of like, of the wrongness that there was gonna be some severe and lifelong consequences to everything I was doing.

MILES: Was it the bullying?  

ANDY: Yeah, that played a part in it, yeah.

MILES: I mean, did you feel suicidal?

ANDY: Definitely.  

MILES: Tell me a little more about that.  What do you recall when you first thought about ending your own life?

ANDY: I mean yeah it was, it was like an eight-month constant, like, I wonder if things would be better if, you know what I mean, like, if I wasn’t, I wasn’t in this city, in this state, or even on this earth.

MILES: How does it go from thinking about suicide to thinking about shooting someone else?  

Watch Video

ANDY: No, I’ve always, I’ve always, like at least to me in my mind, I didn’t want, I didn’t want to like go out hurting, I didn’t want to be the one to like kill myself, you know what I mean because like everything to me was so painful at the time.  I didn’t want to like go out like in pain.  So the whole grand scheme, my whole grand plan was like suicide by cop.

MILES: So you thought the cops would come shoot you, and for whatever reason that didn’t happen. In a way, was that kind of disappointing?

ANDY: Um, no.  Not necessarily disappointing.  I mean now it’s a bummer because, like, that was – that was my – that was my brilliant 15-year-old plan and that didn’t really work out, but like now, the two people that bare the brunt of what I did, like you know what like - they had nothing to do with what’s going on. I didn’t – I didn’t really factor, like the severity of what I was doing into my decision because I didn’t think, I didn’t really think like all that stuff through.  I didn’t think two boys were gonna die.  I didn’t think 13 people were going to get shot.  I just thought I was gonna make a lot of noise and that the cops were gonna show up.

MILES: But you really, you wanted to improve your status at school in a way without hurting anybody.  Is that what you wanted? 

ANDY: Not necessarily improve my status, I just wanted, I wanted to like get away from everybody and not like, not, not be there anymore.

MILES: Can you tell me a bit more? When you say you were in pain, what do you mean?

ANDY: I was addicted to drugs at the time, like the bullying was going on there, some, there was some abuse at like, with like, at the hands of my buddy's stepdad.  There was, there was a lot of stuff going on for me to try to process, frankly.

MILES: You said you were addicted to drugs...marijuana?

MILES: It was pot.  I was drinking a lot, and my buddy’s mom had, had Lyme disease, so we used to steal her painkillers.

MILES: Oh, so you had painkillers, pot and booze.  What kind of, what were you drinking?

ANDY: Whatever we could get.

MILES: Wow.  So, in retrospect, do you feel a lot of remorse?

ANDY: Oh, absolutely.  And that's the reason why the, the, the two families that lost the most out of this had, had like nothing to do with what it was I was going through.

MILES: Have you ever made any attempts to reach out to them or have any contact with them?

ANDY: I think one day, one day I would like to but I mean, in my mind like, I’ve already taken so much from them, like I don’t want, I don’t want to take from them, like, the ability to dictate the timeline of, of them getting in contact with me. I don’t want to write them and be like, “Oh hey, I’d like to get in, I’d like to, I'd like to apologize to you guys," because, cause that’s not, that’s not really fair to them. But I have, I have every intention of like, whenever they are ready to confront and everything.

Watch Video

MILES: Would you like to tell them you’re sorry?

ANDY: Oh, absolutely.  And, and I, I am sorry, and I will always be sorry.

MILES: Here you are. You were 15 when sentenced, you are two days away from your 27th birthday, right?

ANDY: Yes, sir.

MILES: So, and you face your first parole hearing, as I understand it, will be when you’re 65.

ANDY: I will be 65.

MILES: What’s that like?

ANDY: I mean, it sucks but I just, one foot in front of the another.

MILES: One day at a time, huh?

ANDY: One day at a time.

MILES: Let me ask you though. Is that justice?

ANDY: You know, I don’t know, man.  I don’t want to say that like, “Oh I was only fifteen so I should be absolved of all responsibility," cause that’s not fair, but at the same time, like, I, I, it’s not me, it’s science, man.  Like the, the 15-year-old brain ain’t the same as a 16,17,18, I mean 27-year-old brain.

MILES: Tell me about that. Do you think your brain was different than it is now?

ANDY: I mean, it’s not what I think, it’s what all the smart people say.

MILES: Tell me what you read about it.

ANDY: No just about how, like the frontal whatever can’t process like the, the, the consequences of actions as well as a developing brain could.  And it’s more like impulsive.

MILES: Were you impulsive then do you think?

ANDY: Oh absolutely.  I was jumpin' off of roofs and trying all sorts of skateboarding tricks, and all the dumb stuff I could do.

MILES: When you look back on it, I’m sure you thought about this a lot.  How could it have changed for the better?  Was there anything that you wish you did or that you wished your dad did (inaudible) happen?

ANDY: No, I wish I was brave enough to, to tell someone what was going on with me.  I wish I was like, courageous enough to confront, you know what I mean, everything that was happening to me.

MILES: Yeah. Your father says he didn’t really know what was going on, you know. He saw that you'd changed (inaudible) more like a teenager, that you weren’t as close as you were, but that happens when boys become teenagers.  You never (cut off.)

ANDY: I was an awesome liar.

MILES: Really, tell me about that.

ANDY: Yeah.  No, yeah. I would, I would.  Like if I was out doing drugs I would cover myself up with cologne before I came in.  And like if, if I got beat up I’d tell him I got in a fight, and it wasn’t that big a deal. I would try to get my report cards before he would get them.

MILES: So, why were you holding back from your father though. He was your only family member out there.  Why were you holding back?

ANDY: I don’t know, man.  I think I like, I think I was just too ashamed to like confront like my failures.

MILES: Confront your what?  There was a noise.

ANDY: My failures. I didn't want to let him know that like my grades were slipping, that his son’s a drug addict, you know what I mean. Those aren’t things, those aren’t things to be proud of.

MILES: What do you think, when you hear about something like the Newtown shootings, what goes through your mind?

ANDY: It’s just tragic, man. I want them, like, I want, like, the next one to be the last one.  I want like all this, because everybody, everybody is all up in arms, “Oh we gotta stop this, blah blah blah...

Watch Video

ANDY: For like two weeks straight that’s all we hear about is, oh how everybody’s outraged, and how big a tragedy this is, and then, and then, two weeks later the new story is about how cold it’s gonna be. You know, I mean like, it’s, it’s, the attention span of this country's so short that it's frustrating.

MILES: But what’s, you know, I've got less than two minutes according to the recording there. Share with our audience, what’s the lesson that you can share from behind bars to others here?

ANDY: I mean, at least in my situation like if you, I think there is, there is a handful of red flags in my case, you know what I mean. You can talk to your kids, you can make them tell you what’s going on.

MILES: Do you think its possible to identify kids like you who might do something like this in advance?

ANDY: I mean it’s certainly possible but you're always gonna (cut off)

Watch Video

ANDY: (inaudible) slip through the cracks, but I mean you can, it’s totally possible.

MILES: Have you thought about where you would want to be right now if this hadn’t happened?

ANDY: Oh, sure.

MILES: Where would you like to be?

ANDY: I mean, at least now, like doing, doing good somewhere.  You know what I mean, like, helping people out.

MILES: I saw one of the letters from when you were younger that your father shared with me, that you wanted to go to the Naval Academy, and he said that you wanted to fly helicopters.  All those dreams. You still think about that?

ANDY: Yeah.

MILES: What’s it like on a day-to-day basis with you?

ANDY: Ah it sucks. Jail sucks.

MILES: Are you scared, are you sad?  What happens?  

PHONE CUTS OFF.

I knew something was amiss when I was on a Skype call with my longtime television production partner Kate Tobin as I was thrashing through the final stages of editing of “Mind of a Rampage Killer.” She seemed rather grumpy, and so I naturally assumed I had done something to offend. But when I asked her about it, she confessed she found the subject matter “very disturbing.”

“It has worked my nerves,” said she.

It was a good reminder. In my line of work, there are times when you need to put your feelings aside in order to get enough perspective and objectivity to tell a tough story. And I have been so deeply enmeshed in this unhappy subject for so long, with no break, that I have grown some emotional calluses.

[ View Content ]

"Mind of a Rampage Killer" airs on PBS's NOVA 9 p.m. ET Wednesday.

And Kate is right. This has been tough sledding. During a long, strange trip that began five weeks ago, I have met psychologists, a sociologist and a criminologist who have offered their often insightful take on why the rampages happen again and again.

But as smart and learned as the experts may be, there is nothing like hearing from people who have a strong personal and emotional stake in a story.

And there were two parents who I met during production of this film who will haunt me. One is the father of a rampage shooter. The other is a mother who worries that her son might one day become one.

A good reporter will have a knack for creating an instant intimacy with his or her subject. If you cannot strike a quick chord, you will never get a chance to see what lies beneath the surface.

Sometimes this can be hard to accomplish; the chemistry is just not right, and you have to muddle through as best you can. But every now and then, you meet someone where the connection is instant, genuine and meaningful beyond the requisites for a compelling story.

Such was the case for me when I met Jeff Williams. His son Andy is a rampage killer. Imagine for a moment what it must be like for him to read that last sentence. For Jeff, it is a life sentence in more ways than one. The sins of the son have affected Jeff profoundly and changed every aspect of his life.

Such was the case for me when I met Jeff Williams. His son Andy is a rampage killer. Imagine for a moment what it must be like for him to read that last sentence. For Jeff, it is a life sentence in more ways than one. The sins of the son have affected Jeff profoundly and changed every aspect of his life.

Andy Williams was convicted of fatally shooting two people and wounding 13 after opening fire on high school classmates in 2001, at age 15. He spoke to Miles O'Brien via phone from the Ironwood Prison in the California desert. 

It was hard to square Andy’s crimes – the shooting death of two fellow high school students and the wounding of 13 others – with the young boy in the home movies, the photo albums and on the wall at Jeff’s home.

But the framed and bound photos and the seemingly happy scenes in the movies end abruptly. There was one small, loose photo of Jeff, his wife Dona and Andy taken recently inside the Ironwood Prison in California, where Andy is serving a sentence of 50 years to life.

I was thinking they could have been pictures of my son. And then the moment came when I was reading an autobiography Andy wrote as a class assignment the in the fourth grade. He expressed a desire to go to the U.S. Naval Academy. That happens to be where my son is – now in his second (youngster) year.

Suddenly I saw myself in Jeff’s shoes. And they hurt.

I was reminded of how fortunate I am: my son has given me nothing but pride and joy. But Jeff must bear guilt for the sins of his son. Tears welled up in my eyes as I pondered at the cruel twists of fate that put us on the opposite side of a coin toss.

I told him I was sorry Andy was not in Annapolis. And I meant it.

My visit with Liza Long was equally emotional. Liza is the mother of a 13-year-old boy who struggles with mental illness. You may recall she wrote a blog headlined “I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother.”

Watch Video

 Liza Long is the author of the blog post "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother," which she wrote shortly after hearing of the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Liza worries about what might happen to (or because of) her son, who is prone to wild, violent, blind rages. She struggles with him and a system that does not provide easily affordable or available mental health care.

I did not know what to expect when I first met  her son, “Michael,” and I was immediately bowled over by his intelligence, engagement and his quirky, dark sense of humor. On a good day (which it was) he is fun to be around.

Liza is struggling mightily to get a handle on the beast that lies within “Michael.” (He describes it as a werewolf.) Her only wish is that she can get him on a path toward college. He wants to study history and be a writer. But right now, he is not attending a school that would allow him to even apply to college.

Watch Video

Long's son "Michael" suffers from mental illness. Long wrote of her son's high IQ and also his terrifying violent outbursts.

And again, I was struck by my good fortune. My daughter at Davidson College is a gifted writer who wants to major in psychology. There is nothing stopping her from realizing her dreams for the future.

Liza loves her son and is a great, attentive parent. She did nothing wrong, and yet she is living out her own life sentence of worry.

After Newtown, we find ourselves asking how and why it keeps happening. And we all want simple answers. And let’s face it; we are tempted to lay a healthy heaping of blame on the parents. But it is not that simple.

Good parents can raise rampage killers. That doesn’t mean they deserve to be sentenced.

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: A U.S. security firm charged today that there's an all-out effort to break into computer systems in the U.S. and elsewhere. The report laid out an extensive case against China and its military.

The newest allegations of cyber-attacks by the Chinese government came up at the White House today. Reporters asked spokesman Jay Carney about a study that blames China's military for a large-scale years-long hacking campaign.

JAY CARNEY, White House Press Secretary: We have repeatedly raised our concerns at the highest levels about cyber-theft with senior Chinese officials, including in the military, and we will continue to do so.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The report alleges this nondescript 12-story office building is the locus of the hacking. It's situated in Shanghai and is run by unit 61398, a bureau within the general staff of the People's Liberation Army.

A Virginia-based security firm, Mandiant Corporation, traced the hacking there and concluded it is one of the most prolific cyber-espionage groups in terms of the sheer quantity of information stolen. Mandiant said the Chinese stole reams of information from U.S. military contractors, energy companies, the aerospace and telecommunications industry and others.

In Beijing, a Chinese government spokesman called the report groundless, without addressing the specific findings.

HONG LEI, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman: China firmly opposes hacking, has implemented relevant laws and regulations and adopted strict enforcement measures to prevent hacking activities. China is also a victim of Internet hacking attacks.

We have stressed many times that hacking attacks are transnational and anonymous. Determining their origins is extremely difficult. We don't know how the evidence in this so-called report can be tenable.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Still, the Mandiant findings are some of the most detailed accusations yet against China over hacking.

More generally, a U.S. national intelligence estimate said this month that China is carrying out a major cyber-espionage campaign against American targets. And Apple said today it was hacked by the same group that attacked Facebook last week. Both companies said no data was compromised and both traced the attacks back to China.

The report noted that there have been more than 140 different victims since 2006, and that the Chinese unit maintained access to those networks for nearly a year on average. 

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: For more on this, we turn to Richard Bejtlich. He's the chief security officer for Mandiant, the firm that issued the report. And Christopher Johnson, a senior adviser who closely watches China at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

And we welcome you both to the program.

So, let me start with you, Richard Bejtlich. What did this study uncover that wasn't known earlier?

RICHARD BEJTLICH, Mandiant: The study found evidence that linked it to a Chinese military unit.

Prior to this report, anything you would see coming from a security company or even from the government would indicate Chinese hackers. And with that, you could think of patriotic hackers, people working in the underground. There was never a direct link. And we found through our research that we could not only tie this not only a military unit, but a location, their headquarters, their building located near Shanghai.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what did you find exactly is going on inside this building?

RICHARD BEJTLICH: If you were to walk inside this building, you would likely to see thousands of computers.

You would see teams of individuals working on maintaining access to and stealing information from Western companies. They do this as their job. This is a directed activity. This is not for recreational purposes. And it's been going on for, at least with this one group, APT1, for the last seven years.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And one of the terms you use in the report, one of the most prolific efforts or operations of its kind. How do you measure something like that?

RICHARD BEJTLICH: That's right.

We measure it in several ways. We track about two dozen of these different APT groups from around the world, not just China.

JUDY WOODRUFF: APT?

RICHARD BEJTLICH: Yes, standing for advanced persistent threat. It's a term that was coined by the Air Force in 2006.

And these groups, they have different characteristics. Sometimes, we measure them by the number of industries they go after. Sometimes we measure by the amount of data we take them -- see. In the case of APT1, which is the focus of today's report, they are in 20 different industries, 141 different companies stealing terabytes of data.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Terabyte being a lot of ...

RICHARD BEJTLICH: A lot of data, yes. That's why we consider them prolific.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And we want to say to our audience that we did attempt to talk to Chinese spokesmen, government spokesmen to ask them to provide a guest to appear on the program. And we were not able to get an answer from them. We will continue to do that.

But, as I turn to you, Christopher Johnson, and we should say, as we just heard in the report, the Chinese are saying all this is groundless, nothing to it. But how does what Mandiant found in this report square with everything else you have seen in your reporting?

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Center for Strategic and International Studies: Well, I think what's exciting about the report is what we just heard, which is that this idea that for the first time we're now seeing the critical role of the Chinese military in this process.

And also I think it will be increasingly difficult, given the study's very firm methodology, for the Chinese to continue to issue these denials that says the report -- such information is groundless and that there's no evidence. Quite clearly, there's substantial evidence of this activity.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what is it -- what's the hard evidence as you see it?

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: Well, the way I see it, what's unique about the report is, again, tracking this activity to a very narrow set of actors and just the number of opportunities in which these same actors were engaging in this kind of activity and the abundant evidence of what they were able to take through their cyber-activities.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what ties it to the military?

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: Well, quite clearly, it's this military designation that we have seen.

And all the PLA units, or the Chinese military units, have these designators. And so the fact that that's in the report is very compelling.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And it's interesting that there is this sort of name tag identity to what they're doing, isn't it?

RICHARD BEJTLICH: Yes.

They use -- the Chinese military uses these five-digit codes to refer to individual units. And they don't necessarily tie them directly to the, say, third department second bureau of the PLA. So we were able to unearth documents doing open source research -- all of this is unclassified -- that showed, for example, a letter from China Telecom to set up a circuit, in other words, to get Internet access into this new headquarters building when it was constructed in 2007.

And it said, we need to put a circuit in for 61398. And, by the way, if you don't know how important they are, they're the third department second bureau of the PLA. So they outed themselves in this document. So by finding those sorts of ties, we were able to center exactly what's going on there.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what does all this tell you about what they're looking for? What do they want in all of this searching?

RICHARD BEJTLICH: Well, we know exactly what they're looking for.

This particular unit, we have seen them take financial plans, product developments, user names, passwords, e-mail. They're trying to find out what these companies have, what they can use in their own sorts of products. They're trying to use them in negotiations. It's very interesting, the sorts of information that they take.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, principally, Christopher Johnson, principally, economic-, financial-driven, rather than security or military?

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: Well, that's what's so ...

JUDY WOODRUFF: In the classic sense.

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: Right. And that's what's so interesting about the report is that you have to Chinese military conducting this economic espionage.

I think there's also been a view that national security things, probing defense networks, this sort of thing, that is what you would expect an opposition enemy, military to be doing. But in this case, it's economic espionage, which is quite interesting.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And do we have a sense of how much damage has been done by this?

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: Well, I think the report highlights that significant damage has been done. As Richard pointed out, terabytes of data have been removed.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And adding up to what? What does that cost the companies, the organizations that have been hacked into?

RICHARD BEJTLICH: It's a difficult question to answer.

When the military encountered this same problem, they had to stand up a separate unit just for the purposes of saying this is the information that was stolen, what is the value, do we have to change a defense contract? Do we have to reengineer a plane? What are the things that we have to do?

And that's the sort of thinking that we need to get the private sector engaged in.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, that's what I want to finally ask both of you about. And that is, what can be done about this? Is it clear what can be done?

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: I don't think it's particularly clear, but certainly basic steps such as increasing computer hygiene among employees of companies, for example, being more mindful of these phishing attacks.

One thing that was really striking about the report was that in almost every instance, it started off as one of these spear-phishing attack e-mails. It looked legitimate and was sent to a senior corporate executive in a lot of cases.

In terms of what the Obama administration can do, I think that this gives us -- them the opportunity and significant leverage with the Chinese to increase the amount of transparency and debate on cyber and especially to increase the dialogue with the People's Liberation Army on the subject.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Is it the sort of thing that a company or an individual can, say, sign up for some security software and prevent?

RICHARD BEJTLICH: I wouldn't worry necessarily as an individual, but as a company I would download the report, I would take it to my I.T. or security staff and say what are we doing about the issues in this report?

And then at the higher level, at the strategic level, I would say, what is my government doing about this? What is the position that we're going to take with the Chinese? The government now has a tool that they can use in discussion with our allies, with the Chinese government that is not classified. It's unclassified. And they can discuss it in an open manner.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, just very quickly, are we talking about legislation or are we talking about something that can be done by the executive branch?

RICHARD BEJTLICH: Well, Mandiant supports the legislation that Chairman Rogers has put forth on the HPSCI for intel sharing.

And I think for anyone who has privacy concerns, take a look at the report. You will not see personally identifiable information in that report. This is the sort of thing that could share -- be shared amongst companies and help protect us all.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, well, gentlemen, it raises a lot of question. And we thank you both for being here.

Richard Bejtlich, Christopher Johnson, thank you.

RICHARD BEJTLICH: Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON: Thank you. 

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

HARI SREENIVASAN: Armed robbers made off with a huge haul of diamonds in a daring heist overnight in Belgium. No shots were fired during the raid and no one was hurt. But authorities are releasing few details.

I spoke earlier with Robert-Jan Bartunek of Thomson Reuters in Brussels via Google Hangout.

ROBERT-JAN BARTUNEK, Thomson Reuters: What we do know is that yesterday evening here, local time, around 7:45, eight armed robbers armed with machine guns drove on to the tarmac at Brussels Airport and stole $50 million worth of diamonds from an airplane that was about to start.

HARI SREENIVASAN: This almost seemed like a Hollywood script. How long did this heist take?

ROBERT-JAN BARTUNEK: This only took three minutes, so it must have been a very professional hit. There's no doubt about that. And prosecutors also said that they had to be very well prepared to do that.

They basically opened a fence. They cut through the fence. They drove onto the tarmac where the diamonds were about to be loaded on to the plane and they at gunpoint demanded those diamonds and they drove off again not to be seen until now.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Do the authorities have any leads?

ROBERT-JAN BARTUNEK: Not at the moment. No, prosecutors are not giving any details on that, no.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Help put this in perspective. How many millions of dollars worth of diamonds are going out of this airport?

ROBERT-JAN BARTUNEK: Through the city of Antwerp, which is the main diamond hub here in Belgium, we have about eight in every 10 uncut diamonds and five in every 10 cut and polished diamonds in the world go through that hub, so there's a market worth billions.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Robert-Jan Bartunek of Thomson Reuters in Brussels, thanks so much.

ROBERT-JAN BARTUNEK: Thanks for having me.

HARI SREENIVASAN: The civilian death toll in Afghanistan has dropped for the first time in six years. A new report today from the United Nations said more than 2,700 civilians died last year. That was down from more than 3,100 the previous year. Still, violence claimed the lives of more women and girls, up 20 percent from 2011. The new data came a day after President Hamid Karzai banned Afghan troops from calling in airstrikes in residential areas.

The former top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is going to retire, instead of becoming the overall NATO commander in Europe. President Obama announced today that Marine Gen. John Allen will end his military career. Allen's nomination for the NATO post was put on hold last fall, amid questions about e-mail exchanges with a woman in Florida. The general was cleared of all wrongdoing, but he said today he needs to focus on his wife's health problems.

The president stepped up his attack on Republicans today in the face of a looming deficit deadline. The so-called sequester, $85 billion dollars in automatic spending cuts, is set to take effect less than two weeks from now, on March 1st. The president charged Republicans' unwillingness to raise taxes is preventing a deal, and he said, hundreds of thousands of public employees could be out of work if the sequester takes place.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This is not an abstraction. People will lose their jobs. The unemployment rate might tick up again. That's why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders and economists, they have already said that these cuts known here in Washington as sequestration are a bad idea. They're not good for our economy, that they're not how we should run our government.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Republicans have said they already raised taxes on the wealthy at the start of the year, so the focus now must be on spending cuts. In a statement, House Speaker John Boehner said, the revenue debate is now closed.

A federal judge in New Orleans has approved a civil settlement for the company that owned the oil rig in the 2010 Gulf oil disaster. Transocean agreed to pay $1 billion dollars in civil penalties. It had already pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and will pay an additional $400 million dollars in criminal penalties. The Deepwater Horizon rig exploded off the Gulf Coast in April 2010. The blast killed 11 workers and triggered the nation's worst offshore oil spill.

Wall Street moved higher after taking Monday off. The Dow Jones industrial average gained nearly 54 points to close at 14,035. The Nasdaq rose 21 points to close at 3213.

Those are some of the day's major stories -- now back to Gwen.

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

GWEN IFILL: Now we have two looks at a case argued before the Supreme Court today that could have wider implications in the world of patents and technology.

In 1996, Monsanto came up with a formula to develop herbicide-resistant soybeans, able to survive being sprayed with the company's popular weed killer, Roundup. The resulting Roundup-ready seeds seen here in promotional videos were more costly, but they would dramatically increase crop production.

MAN: What we have observed this year is outstanding yield potential.

GWEN IFILL: But the seeds are patent-protected and Monsanto prohibits farmers from saving or reusing them. Instead, they must buy new seeds each year.

In 1999, Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman bought genetically modified soybeans intended for animal feed from a small grain elevator, but instead of using them as feed, he replanted them. Monsanto sued and the dispute has now made its way to the Supreme Court.

Bowman, speaking to reporters on the steps of the court today, said he still believes he did nothing wrong.

VERNON HUGH BOWMAN, Farmer: I didn't look at it as a loophole because I had always been able to go to the elevator and buy the seed, you follow me? So I just looked at it that when they dumped it in there that they had abandoned their patent. If they want to protect their patent, then it looks to me like it would be required -- they'd be required to have to separate it at the elevator and keep it separate.

GWEN IFILL: Bowman also argues that Monsanto, an agribusiness giant, is trying to bully small farmers. But the company says it spent 13 years developing Roundup-ready seeds and it must defend its patents. So far, Monsanto has won in lower courts and the Obama administration filed a Supreme Court brief supporting the company.

It argues that the case has implications for patent rights, extending far beyond soybeans, to include medical research, computer software, and a host of other self-replicating technologies.

The Monsanto case reached its final stop at the Supreme Court today, where justices listened to the pros and cons.

Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal, as always, was in the courtroom. She joins us now.

Marcia, you can look at this and think David v. Goliath, individual farmer vs. big agribusiness, but it's a lot more than that.

MARCIA COYLE, the National Law Journal: Well, it's a lot more complicated than that, Gwen.

Under patent law, if a patent holder authorizes the sale of a patented article or invention, after that first sale, the patent holder's rights in that invention or article or product are what we call exhausted. And the purchaser can do whatever he wants with it.

If I buy a Sony TV or a Sony computer, I can sell it to somebody else, I can put it out on my front yard. But what the law says -- also says is that what I can't do is I cannot make a copy of the patented invention. And during the arguments today, the justices were focused on just where these seeds that are self-replicating after they're planted, where they fit under that law.

GWEN IFILL: So the judges were focusing on what piece of this in the questioning?

MARCIA COYLE: OK.

Mr. Bowman's lawyer was arguing first that farming is using seeds, not making seed. So the farmers were not making copies of Monsanto's seed here. He said that the rule of the first sale of a patented invention should apply to this process, because these seeds are designed to grow and replicate themselves.

There was nothing exceptional about it. Monsanto argues that -- and he's also arguing that Monsanto wants an exception to the rule of the first sale of the seeds. And that is something he said that Congress should decide, not the Supreme Court. But he immediately ran into skeptical questioning.

Chief Justice Roberts, for example, right away said to him, well, what incentive in the world would anybody have to spend years and millions of dollars improving a seed if, after the first sale, anybody could take the seed and make copies of it? And also other justices questioned what incentive there was for a company to do this if that -- if the result that Mr. Bowman is arguing for were to prevail.

The United States was in the arguments as well and they were supporting Monsanto. And the attorney for the United States said, well, what would happen, if Monsanto loses, is that research dollars will go elsewhere.

GWEN IFILL: So in order for more to get this to the Supreme Court, obviously, Monsanto had to win -- to have been the last one standing, the last one winning. So this was -- were the justices sympathetic to what the lower court had to say in this and was it the same reasoning that brought this to this point?

MARCIA COYLE: Yes. The justices were sympathetic to Monsanto's argument ...

GWEN IFILL: Right.

MARCIA COYLE: ... and seemed to feel that the lower federal court here did have the right approach.

On the other hand, some justices did see some concerns with Monsanto's argument. Justice Scalia said, well, you know, it is a harsh result that research dollars will go elsewhere, but here's another harsh result. Farmers won't buy grain, seeds from grain elevators for second planting for fear that in those undifferentiated seeds there are some patented seeds, they will be sued for infringement, and as in the case of Mr. Bowman, damages are very hefty in situations like that.

Justice Kagan raised a concern, too. She said, well, seeds drift, they scatter. So it could be that some of Monsanto's patented seeds could go onto the land of an unwitting farmer and suddenly that unwitting farmer is a patent infringer.

GWEN IFILL: So even though they were talking about seeds, this is really about larger issues, including this -- what you described as the kind of replicate-ability of a patent.

MARCIA COYLE: That's right.

It was clear in the arguments that -- in the justices' comments that they knew they were dealing with a new technology here, and this case is going to have ramifications for other replicated technologies like software that's very easily replicated, and that's why you saw groups filing amicus briefs in the case, groups like the software industry and biotechnology industry, as well as the agricultural industry.

On the other side, for Mr. Bowman, the farmer, were consumer and food safety groups that are concerned about almost the monopoly power that Monsanto has here and how its pervasive influence in the market for soybeans is increasing prices for farmers.

GWEN IFILL: This is not the only court the Supreme Court is going to take up this term that have to do with patents and the same kind of issues.

MARCIA COYLE: No, it's not. You're right.

In fact, in April, they're going to hear a fascinating case that very simply asks whether human genes can be patented. And this grows out of a dispute over a company's patenting of a gene process that shows the breast cancer and ovarian cancer gene mutation.

GWEN IFILL: About so much more than just farming and seeds.

MARCIA COYLE: Absolutely.

GWEN IFILL: Marcia Coyle, thanks, as always.

Ray Suarez picks up on some of the broader implications now of the case.

RAY SUAREZ: And we turn to two people who followed the case closely.

Bert Foer is the president of the American Antitrust Institute, which filed a brief in favor of Mr. Bowman. And Todd Dickinson is executive director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. His group filed a brief on behalf of Monsanto.

And, gentlemen, I would like to hear from both of you to start from your various perspectives. What was at stake in today's argument for business and for the consumer?

Todd Dickinson?

TODD DICKINSON, American Intellectual Property Law Association: Well, broadly speaking, this case could have significant ramification, this case and the Myriad case that was eluded to in the run-up.

In some ways, intellectual property rights are a bit of a whipping boy these days, and the need for strong intellectual property rights, strong patent rights is embedded in our Constitution. There's a reason for that. That's because they lead to economic growth and development. They reward and incent innovation, and they nurture that innovation by protecting it.

RAY SUAREZ: Bert Foer?

BERT FOER, American Antitrust Institute: Well, Todd is right that intellectual property is a very important part of our economy.

On the other hand, there's a lot of questions that have been raised in recent years about whether it is working well and whether it is creating too many monopolies, whether we have a good grasp on the system and can balance the different values that are also in our system, or whether intellectual property should have something of an absolute nature to it, which is the direction that we have been moving in. It's kind of a scary direction.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, why would being able to protect your invention be anti-competitive? Aren't other agricultural companies free to develop a competitor to Monsanto's soybean seed?

BERT FOER: Well, you should be able to protect an invention. The question is, how far? What is the scope? And that's what the court is being asked to talk about.

What is the use in this case? What is making? What is the difference? And when we get to self-replicating technologies, whatever that ends up meaning -- it could mean a lot of things in the future -- but the question is where to draw the line. And there is a doctrine, which is what was being argued about today, called first sale, or exhaustion, which means at some point in time the rights of the owner, the patentee, come to an end, and we move on.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, I mentioned that you both are from organizations that filed amicus briefs.

Todd Dickinson, why there are so many amici in this case from fields that have nothing to do with agriculture?

TODD DICKINSON: Well, as you suggested before, because the implications for this go far beyond this particular case.

There are other self-replicating technologies out there which would apply directly to it. I think the broader implications to the biotechnology industry in particular are very significant in this and the Myriad case. Another federal judge recently, another case said we have the broadest and strongest protection for biotechnology and intellectual property in the world, and we have the strongest biotechnology industry in the world.

Europe, by contrast, has weaker protection and a weaker industry. I think that's a very compelling argument.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, before, you talked about exhaustion. Can a company control what happens to a self-replicating product, any one, a gene, an organism, a plant, aspects of software or a musical recording, once the customer walks out the door having purchased this thing?

BERT FOER: Well, that's the question. How far does that control go?

Because both competition policy, which is antitrust, and intellectual property are -- both have as an objective fostering innovation in the economy. The question is how much of this incentive do you need in the form of monopoly and how much in the form of firms competing with each other to build that better mousetrap?

RAY SUAREZ: So, when does that right run out? Does it ever?

TODD DICKINSON: Let me give you an analogy in the copyright area, which is related, that others might understand.

You have a right to buy a phonograph record. You have the right to play it yourself as many times as you want. You have the right to sell it or give it away to your friend and neighbor. What you don't have the right to do is make a million copies of it online and distribute them.

I think that's similar to what you said here. Here, the farmer had the right to use that product for whatever he wanted. As Justice Breyer said today, could I make tofu turkey out of it? Of course you can. He can use it as feed. There are many, many other uses he can make of that.

RAY SUAREZ: He just can't let it grow into a soybean.

TODD DICKINSON: He can't make a copy. No, he can't make the copy of it and then sell that copy for the purpose that was claimed in the patent.

RAY SUAREZ: Well?

BERT FOER: Well, that's what's at stake here.

RAY SUAREZ: Is a soybean seed like a photograph record, if anybody can still play a phonograph record? Maybe not the most modern example.

TODD DICKINSON: Dating ourselves, right.

BERT FOER: I don't know. Legally, it seems to me that, if I were writing the laws, I would put some limitations on the types of conditions that can be placed on an initial sale.

And I would say, after the initial sale, you're subject to any contracts, licensing contracts. And those can be reviewed by courts under such laws as the antitrust laws. And we can get some sort of a balance in the public interest, whereas if you say that it's only subject to patent infringement, you're putting all the cards with the patentee and very few with the consumers or with all the other parties in the economy who are going to be affected.

The result of an extreme interpretation -- who knows what we might get out of this in this decision -- but the results of something extreme could be the guarantee of a very major long-term monopoly in food production.

RAY SUAREZ: In the short time that we have left, this world has charged ahead. And I'm wondering if the law has kept up with it. Can the law keep up with biotech, big pharma, software in 2013?

TODD DICKINSON: Well, that's an excellent question.

And, for example, last year, the Congress for the first time in 60 years revised the U.S. patent law. And part of the rationale for why they did that was because of the need to keep up with changes in technology. However, our patent law has almost always done that. There's always the next big thing. There's always the cutting-edge technology, whether it's the telephone, or the automobile, or the personal computer.

The patent law in the United States has by and large kept up with that and continues to.

RAY SUAREZ: Bert Foer?

BERT FOER: And we are more and more than ever dependent on high technologies that are highly patented. And so we're seeing these clashes between antitrust and intellectual property which have in common, as I said, an interest in innovation, but two different ways to get there.

And more and more, we're seeing clashes. There are a couple of other cases in front of the court. There are a lot of issues right now involving things like standard essential patents, commitments to make nondiscriminatory licensing, something new on the scene called patent assertion entities. And we have got a lot of problems here that need to be worked out in order to answer your question of whether the law is keeping up.

RAY SUAREZ: Bert Foer, Todd Dickinson, thank you both.

BERT FOER: Thank you.

TODD DICKINSON: Thank you. 

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: And we turn to our series on the national conversation surrounding guns, violence, and mental health in the wake of the Connecticut shootings. Public officials and other critics have raised concerns about the role of media and culture, particularly violent video games.

Jeffrey Brown explores some of those questions in this report, all part of the weeklong PBS effort "After Newtown."

And a note: The story contains graphic violence.

MAN: And you can just cycle through your weapons and continue going around and killing people.

JEFFREY BROWN: Like tens of millions of young Americans, Ian Binnie plays video games, including the wildly popular "Grand Theft Auto." But on this day, he was mowing down passersby, shooting police officers, and taking close aim at a food vendor as part of a controlled experiment at Ohio State University, where Binnie is a sophomore.

After 15 minutes of intense action, he was asked to answer questions, choose from 34 adjectives, including mean, nervous, scared, strong, to describe his feelings, and even decide how much chili powder to pour into the drink of a would-be opponent, all designed to measure any effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior.

There have been reports that the Newtown killer, Adam Lanza, spent hours playing games such as "World of Warcraft," but nothing so far links that to the rampage that left 20 children dead. Still, as the nation searches for answers, violent media are again under scrutiny.

Psychology professor Brad Bushman, a leading scholar in the field for several decades and the man behind the Ohio State research, says the effects are clearly measurable, and more so with the direct "you pull the trigger" nature of newer 3-D games.

BRAD BUSHMAN, Ohio State University: You are linked to the violent character. If it's a first-person shooter game, you have the same visual perspective as the killer. You get points when you kill people. If you kill enough people, you get to advance to the next level of the game.

You are also rewarded through things that you might hear. If you kill somebody, maybe you hear, "Impressive, nice shot, you are tied for the lead." And you hear these -- praise, and we know that reinforcement increases the probability of behavior.

JEFFREY BROWN: How far is Bushman willing to go in terms of the predictive nature of his research?

BRAD BUSHMAN: The results clearly showed that playing a violent video game increases aggressive behavior, and also makes people numb to the pain and suffering of others.

There is a link between exposure to violent media and violent criminal behavior. We can't do experimental studies. It's just a correlation. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but they're related.

JEFFREY BROWN: No experimental studies, he means, with real weapons out in the world. And this, of course, is where things get tricky, defining correlations, factors, causes.

We asked to interview the trade group which represents these video game companies, the Entertainment Software Association, and were turned down. The ESA recommended we talk to Cheryl Olson, a public health expert who co-founded the Harvard Medical School's Center for Mental Health and Media.

CHERYL OLSON, Public Health Consultant: One of the problems in this field is that people confuse aggression and violence. Some research will call sort of a competitiveness-type aggression as equivalent to violence in the real world. There is absolutely no evidence that any video game or violent movie for that matter has ever caused a real-world violent act.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now a consultant, she recently met with Vice President Biden and his task force.

CHERYL OLSON: Playing violent games is a normative behavior for teenagers today, especially boys, but for a lot of girls. It's true...

JEFFREY BROWN: It's part of their life?

CHERYL OLSON: It's true that the Newtown, Conn., shooter apparently played violent video games. But the local kids on your soccer team, your 13-year-old boys who live down the street from you, they're all playing these violent games, too, and they are probably OK.

JEFFREY BROWN: Indeed, it's not hard to find young high schoolers, as we did in Northern Virginia, who play the games and seem to be well-adjusted and quite thoughtful.

STUDENT: If I'm playing "Call of Duty," I don't, really, like, notice how violent it is. I don't think about, hey, I'm actually shooting this guy. I don't get upset because like they are actually shooting me. I get upset because I'm not -- it's more of a competition thing, I feel like.

JEFFREY BROWN: Ian, what do you think? What's your experience?

STUDENT: Like, I definitely notice the action, like the violence and stuff, and, you know, it definitely like resonates within me. But I always try to kind of like separate that whole video game violence, you know, from, like, real violence.

STUDENT: At least what I have seen, video games tend to be a release. It's where the person takes the frustration or the anger that they felt in their own life and they channel it into it.

STUDENT: I don't really notice -- aside from, like, really violent video games, like "Gears of War" was one of them -- it's just really bloody, like extremely violent. Even my brother and I, when we played for the first time at my cousin's house, we're like, is everyone wearing ketchup packs on themselves? Because there is so much blood.

JEFFREY BROWN: I mean, that one, you really noticed.

STUDENT: Yes. Oh, yes. That one, it's pretty rough.

JEFFREY BROWN: And you noticed, and therefore -- but did you keep playing, or did you...

STUDENT: Yes. No, we played the whole series.

STEPHEN TOTILO, Kotaku.com: There, I chopped that guy's head off.

JEFFREY BROWN: Oh.

STEPHEN TOTILO: Yes, these games are -- there's strong stuff.

JEFFREY BROWN: Where did I go?

I tried my hand at "Call of Duty: Black Ops 2," joined by Stephen Totilo, editor of the gaming Web site Kotaku, which covers the $60 billion dollar industry and reviews new games.

STEPHEN TOTILO: I think one thing that people don't understand that well about video games is what it feels like to play them. I encourage anybody who criticizes violent video games to try one.

And I don't think, because, oh, it's going to convert you and you are going to love it and you are going to want to play it. But the experience of playing it is very different, I find, than that of watching it.

JEFFREY BROWN: Playing, says Totilo, is about the challenge and the competition. It's often a social activity, played with friends or online against any number of other gamers around the world. He also insists it's a perfectly valid entertainment form, even if it's not as well understood or respected as, say, TV and movies.

STEPHEN TOTILO: It's a creative form.

I mean, I -- one of the issues with violent video games and video games in general is that the creators have a very low profile. It's telling that you are talking to me, a reporter who covers video games for a living.

JEFFREY BROWN: Right. Right.

STEPHEN TOTILO: You're not talking to the person who made "Call of Duty." You are not talking to who made "Grand Theft Auto." They don't speak.

I have met the people who make these games, and they are fathers and mothers. They are people who work out at my gym.

JEFFREY BROWN: Jim Steyer would agree there's not enough talking, but he's come to a very different conclusion about violent video games.

JIM STEYER, Common Sense Media: No one is suggesting that that's the only reason they went out and committed those horrific acts, but was it a tipping point? Was it something that pushed them over the edge? Was it a factor in that? Perhaps. That's a really big deal.

JEFFREY BROWN: Steyer is founder and CEO of Common Sense Media, which focuses on media consumption by children. And his concern goes beyond the daily headlines.

JIM STEYER: When we speak about a culture of violence in our society, we're not just talking about the mass killers, the Newtowns. We're also talking about that we, as a society, and many of us as individuals accept violence as part of life because we have become numb to it, being so exposed to it in various forms of media.

JEFFREY BROWN: An earlier outcry against video games, including their portrayal of assaults on women, led the industry to introduce a ratings system in the 1990s, one that's more detailed and explicit than those for movies or records.

But Steyer say it's not enough. His group developed its own system to help parents, and he wants the industry to stop marketing violent games in TV ads during certain times of day. He also thinks some government regulations are called for.

JIM STEYER: I'm a big believer in free speech. Common Sense's motto is sanity, not censorship. But I'm over the age of 18, and we can handle that, and you can, too. But I don't want that game marketed to an 11-year-old or a 12-year-old, and that's what's happened. And so there are extraordinary changes that should happen, first of all voluntarily by the industry, and, second, that kind of marketing and sales practice can be regulated by the Federal Trade Commission.

JEFFREY BROWN: So, vis-a-vis the industry, it's a kind of a -- almost a public shaming or something that you would like to see?

JIM STEYER: I'm in favor of public shaming.

JEFFREY BROWN: But going further may be difficult. The industry has a lot of clout in Washington, and it also has an important legal precedent on its side. A California law banning the sale of violent games to minors was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2011 on First Amendment grounds.

Antonin Scalia's majority opinion said studies of a link between the games and violent behavior were inconclusive. And, as Marcia Coyle told the NewsHour audience that night:

MARCIA COYLE, National Law Journal: He said that there was no long history or tradition in this country of prescribing minors' access to violent content. And he gave, as an example, Grimms' Fairy Tales, which he said were grim indeed. And he said, for example, Cinderella's three evil step-sisters had their eyes plucked out by doves. Hansel and Gretel got rid of their captor by baking her in an oven.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds.

JEFFREY BROWN: When the president unveiled his gun violence prevention proposals in January, he called on Congress to appropriate $10 million for the Centers for Disease Control to study, among other things, possible links to violent video games and media. And some Republicans are also putting a spotlight on the issue.

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, R-Iowa: Where is the artistic value of shooting innocent victims?

JEFFREY BROWN: What happens next in Washington is unclear.

But back at Ohio State, the research continues. One new focus, whether playing with another person influences aggressive responses once the game and the video mayhem have ended.

GWEN IFILL: There were new reports today about Newtown shooter Adam Lanza. Law enforcement officials told The Hartford Courant they are investigating Lanza's interest in a deadly attack in Norway in 2011 and whether the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary may have been inspired by that massacre.

Anders Behring Breivik was convicted of using guns and explosives to murder 77 people in the summer of 2011. Reporters at The Courant also worked with FRONTLINE on tonight's program, "Raising Adam Lanza."

Here's an excerpt featuring the two reporters and an old friend of the family. It includes some new information about Lanza's attachment to video games.

NARRATOR: The Courant has learned that investigators have speculated privately that Adam may have carried out the shooting in a manner consistent with video gaming, changing his weapons magazine frequently even though it wasn't empty.

Federal agents have told reporters that Nancy and Adam visited shooting ranges together as recently as several months ago.

MAN: She was doing a lot of work on her house. We talked to a contractor who spoke about Nancy taking the boys to the range. She excitedly showed him a rifle that she had acquired in a case, a beautifully crafted piece they said she was very enthusiastic about it.

NARRATOR: Starting in 2010, she purchased guns that Adam would use at Sandy Hook Elementary School, including the Bushmaster assault rifle. But guns were nothing new for Nancy Lanza.

MARVIN LAFONTAINE, Friend: Nancy knew how to use guns. Her father trained her on 35 acres. And I have got a sand pit out there. And I have rifles, and we'd shoot together.

In fact, one of the activities at the Cub overnight weekends was shooting .22s at a rifle range. I think that was the first exposure kids had to a firearm. And they thought, it's fun, you know? Target shooting is fun.

MAN: Did Adam shoot?

MARVIN LAFONTAINE: Yes, they all did. And Adam aspired to be like his uncle.

WOMAN: Really?

MARVIN LAFONTAINE: Yes. He was in the military. And she was very proud of that and she allowed him to believe that, yes, you're going to be like your uncle. And depending on how he turned out, sometimes people can overcome that with, I don't know, medication, counseling, whatever.

They can. They can and do. And I think maybe she was hoping for that. And then one day, I think she realized probably not too long ago there's no way this kid can do this. He's going to -- it's not for him. And when she realized that, I think she started to discourage him.

JUDY WOODRUFF: FRONTLINE airs at 10:00 p.m. Eastern time tonight on most PBS stations.

Also tonight on PBS, "Guns in America" explores the country's enduring relationship with firearms, beginning with the first European settlers to present day. Check your local listings.

And on our website, we examine the gun depicted in art, from movies like "Dirty Harry" to paintings and photographs. Find a narrated slide show on Art Beat.

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

GWEN IFILL: We return now to South Africa, where double amputee Olympian Oscar Pistorius appeared in court today, and the family of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp gathered for her funeral.

We have this report narrated by Keme Nzerem of Independent Television News.

KEME NZEREM: His father, and as he listened to the charges against him that he shot his girlfriend dead in an act of premeditated murder, he sobbed.

Exactly what happened in his high-security gated home late on the night of St. Valentine last week? Did Oscar Pistorius kill his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp? Yes, his lawyer would concede. But he argued it was mistake. The explanation came by way of a prepared statement read to the court by his lawyer.

Pistorius claims the couple were deeply in love and went to sleep shortly after 10:00. He woke later to retrieve a fan from the balcony and heard what he thought was an intruder in the bathroom. The world's most famous disabled athlete walking around in the dead of night only on his stumps, it made him, he said, feel vulnerable. Allegedly, he had this gun by his bed.

In the dark, he picked it up and then this: "I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on, I have mobility on my stumps. I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to call the police."

Only then, claims Pistorius, did it dawn on him that Reeva was no longer next to him in bed and the noise that had spooked him from the bathroom was her. He says he then put on his prosthetic legs, bashed down the door with a cricket bat to find her breathing her last.

"Reeva was slumped over, but alive. She died in my arms. I am absolutely mortified by the events and the devastating loss of my beloved Reeva."

Reeva Steenkamp, cremated this afternoon in a ceremony open only to close family and friends. It was desperately sad.

MAN: But we are here today as a family? (INAUDIBLE) Reeva.

MAN: It's OK.

MAN: We have got to get (INAUDIBLE)

KEME NZEREM: How on Earth to put into words the loss of a daughter, a niece, or a sister?

And the prosecution team boiling the case down to this. The couple, they claim, had an argument. For some reason Pistorius put on his legs, walked to the bathroom and shot through the door. Whether he thought it was actually his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, or indeed a burglar.

GERRIE NEL, Prosecutor: If I arm myself, walk a distance and murder a person, that is premeditated. The door is closed. There is no doubt. I walk seven meters and I kill. The motive is, I want to kill. That's it.

KEME NZEREM: The next stage of his bail hearing is tomorrow, but Pistorius was returned to the cells tonight knowing he may never taste freedom again. 

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

MARGARET WARNER: For more on today's hearing and the reaction in South Africa, I'm joined by Gary Alfonso, Johannesburg bureau chief for Feature Story News. He's covering the trial.

And, Gary, welcome. You were in the courtroom today. What was it like?

GARY ALFONSO, Feature Story News: It was an absolutely incredible scene, court scene.

And the magistrate court in Pretoria was overrun by international and local journalists and hundreds of onlookers and interested people on the outside and obviously family members of Oscar Pistorius mostly. No family members of Reeva Steenkamp in court today because obviously her funeral was being held in Port Elizabeth, which is about 1,000 miles from Johannesburg and in a coastal region.

But, in court, very swamped, very hot court, only seating place for about 60 or 70 people, and there were about 170 people in that courtroom, so very, very packed, very humid, and obviously everybody very intent on listening to exactly what Oscar Pistorius was saying, and social media playing a very big role today.

And of course the judge warned or the magistrate warned that any abuse of any judicial systems will not be tolerated anymore because photographs had been taken during session the day before or earlier when Oscar Pistorius appeared the first time last week.

MARGARET WARNER: So what was most new or significant in the alternative versions that the prosecution and defense offered today of what happened that night?

GARY ALFONSO: Well, what was most significant was that, for the first time, reports that were only conjecture at the time and over the weekend in weekend newspapers and in the media was that Oscar Pistorius claimed that he had shot his girlfriend by accident.

Today, in his affidavit, it came out that he stated unequivocally that it was an accident, that it was a whole range of issues that accidentally led him to shoot through that bathroom door with his .9-millimeter pistol.

The second thing that came definitively was that the state was adamant in pursuing a charge of murder, premeditated murder, a schedule six charge in South Africa, which carries an automatic life sentence without the option of parole.

MARGARET WARNER: It's reported that he is not getting a jury trial, that, in fact, South Africa doesn't have jury trials. Why is that?

GARY ALFONSO: Well, South Africa doesn't have a jury trial because juries were abolished in 1969 by the apartheid government of Hendrik Verwoerd.

And they were done away with because primarily the apartheid system at the time didn't want to have opposing views or even independent views coming from out of the judiciary and out of the legal system. Now, you understand that during the apartheid era, many people were sentenced to death. And possibly the reason why the state wanted full control of all organisms of policing and the justice system was to do away with that system.

The jury system is one of the issues still being discussed in South African law. What has changed from the British or common law initiatives of earlier centuries and earlier decades is that today judges have to be assisted by two assessors and those assessors are legal experts that assist judges in concluding their court case.

MARGARET WARNER: What has been the reaction of the South African public to this case, beyond the immediate amazement about it and Oscar Pistorius and so on, but sort of touching on wider questions about South African society?

GARY ALFONSO: I think one of the most important things to come out of this case even in its early days is the issue of violence against women. It's the issue of guns in society.

One of the important issues being addressed in the country at the moment is violence against women and children. The ANC Women's League were seen at the court protesting against Oscar Pistorius receiving bail not on the grounds of the killing, but on the grounds that this is another extreme case of what they regard as violence against women, and that highlighting that is an important part of South African society moving forward.

That's one case. The other one is the gun issue. And a very large component or contingent of South African society is armed, and armed with small arms and some with heavier arms, as in the case of Oscar Pistorius, who had several rifles and even one semiautomatic rifle. So the issue of gun control and gun licenses being granted perhaps too easily and testing not being done on individuals who end up with rifles outside of the hunting disciplines, et cetera, I think that's one of the issues that have come out of this as a very emotive issue as to who -- in whose hands guns should be.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, Gary Alfonso, Feature Story News in Johannesburg, thank you. 

As part of a package of proposals aimed at preventing gun violence, President Obama is calling on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens the background check system on guns sales.

While the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires federally licensed gun dealers to check a buyer's name against the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System before selling a firearm, private sellers are exempt from this law.

Proponents of the president's plan point to statistics from national surveys that estimate that 40 percent of gun sales in the U.S. are private transactions. They have argued that traveling gun shows offer a loophole for anyone who wants to get a gun without submitting to a background check.

David Keene, president of the National Rifle Association, says there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole."

"The impression is that at gun shows people buy guns and there are no background checks needed. That's not true," Keene said at a press briefing in January. "Over 90 percent of the guns sold at gun shows are sold by licensed dealers. Everyone who buys a firearm [there] has to undergo a background check."

Keene said that only about 10 percent of sales at gun shows are private and thus don't require the seller to check first for a criminal history.

Colin Goddard, a survivor of the 2007 school shooting at Virginia Tech who now advocates for gun control measures with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, questions the logic of a private gun sale at a gun show. In the 2011 film "Living for 32," Goddard goes undercover at gun shows across the country. Scenes in the film show him buying guns, at times without producing identification to the seller.

"What was private about that?" he told PBS NewsHour's Kwame Holman. "I don't think I should be able to walk into a gun show like that and walk out with a gun without at least getting a check."

At a Congressional hearing last month and in subsequent interviews, Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, has suggested that universal background checks would be an inconvenience for some gun sales and ineffective in others.

"When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest, background checks will never be 'universal' because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Goddard said the benefits to public safety outweigh any inconvenience.

"I would ask them to weigh the inconvenience of a five-minute background check to the six days I spent in the hospital to the months of physical therapy that I had to endure -- and I'm still here," he said. "For the families who lost someone that day, an inconvenience is not even the right word."

Instead of changing the laws on background checks, the NRA advocates stronger prosecution of those denied firearms under the current background check system. NRA also has called for a national campaign to teach gun owners how to operate firearms safely.

Goddard said the NRA is on the wrong side of history.

"I think that the NRA administration is in a giant disconnect with their membership." Goddard says. "It seems to be one area where a lot of Republicans are stepping forward and realizing that despite their NRA rating they can support this. They look at the poll numbers and realize nine out of 10 Americans support this, eight out of 10 gun owners, seven out of 10 NRA members themselves," Goddard says.

It remains to be seen whether Congress will pass an expansion of background checks. In a national poll conducted in January, the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research found broad support for implementing a policy that would require a background check system for all gun sales to make sure a purchase is not legally prohibited from having a gun.

The survey of about 2,700 respondents included non-gun owners, non-gun owners living with gun owners, gun owners and NRA members. It found that overall, 89 percent of Americans favor the proposal.

PBS NewsHour has been following the discussion about gun violence and gun control policy as it unfolds across the nation and in Washington. Follow all of the stories on our special reports page, The Gun Debate.

Support Your Local PBS Station

Joined by emergency responders, President Obama speaks about the sequester. Photo by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images.

Nine days, and the only thing certain is more uncertainty.

With competing proposals to stave off $85 billion in automatic cuts to domestic and Pentagon spending -- set to take effect March 1 -- no closer to becoming reality and Congress out of town, there's more blaming than action.

President Obama on Wednesday will step up the pressure on Republicans in Congress by giving interviews to eight local television anchors in Boston; Charleston, S.C.; Baltimore; Oklahoma City; Wichita, Kan.; San Antonio; San Francisco; and Honolulu.

Sound familiar? Get used to it. The White House is mounting an all-out effort to, in the words of an administration official, "focus on the harmful local impacts that will be felt if Congressional Republicans refuse to compromise."

The official said Mr. Obama will emphasize the "Fix it First" infrastructure program he mentioned in last week's State of the Union address. But make no mistake, the interviews are political in nature. The official said:

The president will take the case directly to the American people in markets across the country about how their leaders in Congress must act to protect our nation from a self-inflicted wound that would hurt our recovery and the middle class. He will make clear that the only reason that these devastating cuts would hit is if Congressional Republicans choose to protect loopholes that benefit the wealthy and big corporations rather than compromise to reduce the deficit in balanced way and protect American families. Congressional Democrats have put forward a balanced proposal to avert these automatic budget cuts and allow both sides to work on a long-term plan to get us on a fiscally sustainable path, and the president urges Congressional Republicans to join the American people who overwhelmingly support a balanced approach.

As we noted Tuesday, Mr. Obama kept the focus squarely on Republicans, saying they were steadfast in a desire to help the rich instead of come up with a solution. He gave a similar line, saying it's Democrats who have a plan to avert disaster. (That plan is, in essence, a tax hike for people who earn $1 million or more, closing corporate tax loopholes, ending subsidies for oil and agriculture companies, and ending tax breaks for firms that ship jobs overseas.)

Flanked by first responders and others on Tuesday, whom Mr. Obama said would lose their jobs if his plan isn't embraced, he declared: "My door is open. ...I am willing to work with anybody to get this done."

The GOP's leader, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, fired back a missive with his finger pointed at the White House. He joined other Republicans who criticized Mr. Obama's campaign-style event.

"Today the president advanced an argument Republicans have been making for a year: His sequester is the wrong way to cut spending," Boehner said in a statement. He noted the House has "twice" passed measures to avoid the cuts and that he rejects Mr. Obama's calls for tax increases.

"Just last month, the president got his higher taxes on the wealthy, and he's already back for more," Boehner said. "The American people understand that the revenue debate is now closed. We should close loopholes and carve-outs in the tax code, but that revenue should be used to lower rates across the board. Tax reform is a once-in-a generation opportunity to boost job creation in America. It should not be squandered to enable more Washington spending. Spending is the problem, spending must be the focus."

Boehner emphasized his argument in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Wednesday.

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza argued Wednesday that Congress won't win a fight with Mr. Obama on this issue. Here's why:

Regular people have no idea what the sequester is right now and, even once it kicks in, aren't likely to pay all that close of attention to it unless they are directly affected by it.

Obama is popular with the American public

Congress is not.

Still, all the bluster puts the nation no closer to a fix.

Politico looked at how sequestration is affecting congressional offices, which must craft contingency plans for when cuts kick in. Politico's Scott Wong spotted lawmakers looking to protect their districts from the sequester.

The Washington Post outlined the impact on the D.C.-area's local governments.

As if this weren't tricky enough to negotiate with Congress, the White House is also attempting to soothe concerns from Republicans on immigration reform. White House press secretary Jay Carney insisted the legislative proposal leaked to USA Today was "not an intentional release." (You can read that full plan here.)

Carney also said the White House was working with the staffs of GOP senators working on a deal. But Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio's office insisted that wasn't the case.

Mr. Obama on Tuesday phoned Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham, S.C., John McCain, Ariz. and Rubio. He couldn't reach Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

The White House said Mr. Obama wanted to "discuss their shared commitment to bipartisan, commonsense immigration reform and to commend the senators for the bipartisan progress that continues to be made by the Gang of Eight on this important issue."

Mr. Obama met in person with the Democratic senators in the group last week.

(If a deal is indeed forged, by the way, could it be thanks to a new fitness kick?)

SCOTUS

The NewsHour took two looks as the Supreme Court argued a case examining whether an Indiana farmer could use weed-killer-resistant seeds developed by agri-giant Monsanto. Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal walked through the nitty gritty of the case, and we examined the broader implications with Bert Foer of the American Antitrust Institute and Todd Dickinson of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.

Watch here or below:

Plus, Gwen Ifill interviewed Justice Sonia Sotomayor at the court Wednesday about her new book "My Beloved LIfe." Tune in for that segment Wednesday night.

AFTER NEWTOWN

On Monday, PBS began a weeklong series exploring every facet of the societal debate over guns in the wake of the tragic shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn. The package features broadcast pieces on signature programs. On Tuesday's NewsHour, Jeffrey Brown looked at violent video games.

In the piece, Jeff played "Call of Duty" and explored whether there is a link between that fantasy world and some of the mass shooters.

Watch Jeff's report here or below:

The NewsHour excerpted some of Frontline's coverage of Newtown shooter Adam Lanza. Frontline also posted a slideshow of some never-before-seen images of him.

NewsHour correspondent Kwame Holman talked with Colin Goddard, a survivor of the Virginia Tech shootings who is advocating for background checks and who is working with the Brady Campaign.

Watch here or below.

On Wednesday, we will air a NOVA piece from Miles O'Brien exploring the brains of killers.

"After Newton"includes robust online offerings you can check out here, and find all the details about which pieces are airing and when here.

LINE ITEMS

Vice President Joe Biden did a Facebook video chat with Parents magazine, and responded to a question that self-protection can be found in a "double-barrel shotgun," not an assault rifle. He said that he told his wife she could fire two blasts, and "I promise you, whoever's coming in is not going to -- you don't need an [assault rifle]. It's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and, in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself."

Roll Call's David Drucker reports that the NRA is spending up to $375,000 on a newspaper ad campaign ahead of the 2014 Senate contests. The ads will run in "three states with Democratic incumbents up in 2014: Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. In West Virginia, Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller is retiring, but the race to replace him is competitive."

Carney told reporters complaining about access that Mr. Obama has granted 591 interviews since he took office, and that 104 of those were with major television networks. It's not clear where ESPN is included in that count.

The White House announced that Gen. John Allen, who led the NATO effort in Afghanistan, will retire instead of face confirmation hearings to become NATO supreme allied commander.

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus could be in trouble in Montana according to a new survey from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling, which found him with a 45 percent approval rating.

Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., took heat for suggesting that former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., is being used as a prop.

The ethics woes of Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., followed him to Afghanistan, The Hill reports.

Ken Vogel writes in Politico about the rebooting of the Koch Brothers.

Digital First Media's Ryan Beckwith gives us a chart and notes that the House hasn't increased its size since 1911, even though the nation's population has since tripled.

A Democratic Colorado state lawmaker drew intense ire for an insensitive comment about women threatened with rape.

Longtime Obama political adviser David Axelrod will draw a paycheck for punditry. He officially joined MSNBC as a senior analyst.

Former N.Y. Democratic Gov. Eliot Spitzer will co-host a fundraiser for Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey at the home of his sister in Washington, D.C., on March 13.

The Los Angeles Times' Matea Gold writes about former Obama aides parlaying their campaign success into startup businesses.

Tiger Woods explains his outing with the golfer-in-chief. "It was an invitation that certainly you don't turn down and especially being -- he's an avid golfer, and so am I, so we went out there," Woods told sports reporters Tuesday. He added that Mr. Obama "hit the ball well."

Drink up, folks! It's the 80th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition.

Wednesday's tidbit](http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/more-us-students-earning-high-school-diplomas/) from NewsHour partner Face the Facts USA looks at high school graduation rates.

NEWSHOUR ROUNDUP

We led the show with a report on the Chinese hacking dustup. Watch that here.

Next week, the Supreme Court will examine a constitutional challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The landmark case asks whether the act is still necessary and whether voters still risk disenfranchisement in certain parts of the country. The NewsHour will examine the questions this case raises, and we'd like your help as we go even deeper. Get details about our Oral History project here. You can record your memory now using the button below, or call (703) 594-6PBS to share your story.

TOP TWEETS

Hold on to your hats: four to six #SCOTUS opinions expected this morning

— Ariane de Vogue (@Arianedevogue) February 20, 2013

At least not together. RT @prestoncnn: 4 people who will never be in Sean's kitchen RT @seanspicer: HBday SenM CindyCrawford @thefix+Rihanna

— Susan Page (@SusanPage) February 20, 2013

That's DC, I take it? RT @beckypallack: McCain says it's good to be in AZ and "it's hard to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan"

— Elise Foley (@elisefoley) February 19, 2013

Mr. Bowman of Indiana says he can't imagine he'd ever be able to pay the $85,000 Monsanto is pursuing #scotustwitter.com/MeenaGanesan/s...

— Meena (@MeenaGanesan) February 19, 2013

Kerry's 1st trip:London, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Ankara,Cairo, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Doha. Italians including Syrian opposition;Kerry to meet them

— Hannah Allam (@HannahAllam) February 19, 2013

Ok, who started the Toy Story 4 rumor?

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) February 19, 2013

*Editors' note: According to the Mercury News, the Toy Story rumors originated in Colombia.

Katelyn Polantz and politics desk assistant Simone Pathe contributed to this report.

For more political coverage, visit our politics page.

Sign up here to receive the Morning Line in your inbox every morning.

Questions or comments? Email Christina Bellantoni at cbellantoni-at-newshour-dot-org.

Follow the politics team on Twitter: @cbellantoni, @burlij, @elizsummers, @kpolantz, @indiefilmfan, @tiffanymullon, @dePeystah and @meenaganesan.

Support Your Local PBS Station

Click to enlarge.

Workers install mirror panels designed by British architect Norman Foster above the Old Port in Marseille, France. This installation will be inaugurated March 2. Photo by Anne-Christine Poujoulat/AFP/Getty Images.

Secretary of State John Kerry at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Updated 12:30 p.m. ET:

Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized the need for the United States to get its finances in order, else it will look weak abroad, in a speech he delivered at the University of Virginia on Wednesday -- his first major policy address since becoming secretary at the end of January.

He was referring to the March 1 deadline for Congress to come up with a spending agreement, or deep automatic cuts will kick in, including in the Defense Department and other government agencies -- a situation known as sequestration.

It's hard for the United States to tell the leaders of other countries they must resolve their economic issues if it can't resolve its own, said Kerry, adding that the inability to reach a budget resolution hurts his image abroad.

"In these days of a looming budget sequester, we can't be strong in the world unless we are strong at home."

Kerry also alluded to another upcoming administration push: on the environment.

He said preserving the environment against climate change was a way to help save money and create new markets for American businesses and entrepreneurs. "Rising temperatures and sea levels will surely lead to rising costs," he said.

"President Obama is committed to moving forward on the environment. So must you be ready to join us," he told the crowd.

In addition, Kerry emphasized the need for continued U.S. foreign assistance, saying it would help the United States in the long run. When politicians say they want to spend less abroad, it's a guaranteed applause line, he continued, "but it does nothing to guarantee our security, a stronger country, sounder economy or more stable job market."

Investment deals with other countries also strengthen both sides, and in terms of economic ties, the United States is in good standing, Kerry said. "We are a country without any permanent enemies."

View more of our World coverage and follow us on Twitter:

Follow @NewsHourWorld

Support Your Local PBS Station

Our Social Security expert, Larry Kotlikoff, explains why it's a smart financial move to put off retirement as long as possible in order to maximize your Social Security benefits.

Photo by Flickr user 401(K) 2013.

Larry Kotlikoff's Social Security original 34 "secrets", his additional secrets, his Social Security "mistakes" and his Social Security gotchas have prompted so many of you to write in that we now feature "Ask Larry" every Monday. This column is something a little bit different. Kotlikoff's state-of-the-art retirement software is available here, for free, in its "basic" version. His other substantial and often helpful output can be accessed at his website.

Larry Kotlikoff: I just turned 62, but feel 42 and, according to my kids, I act like I'm 12. I have a great job, perhaps the best job in the world. I'm an economics professor and get to teach, consult, write, advise governments, and run my personal finance software company. Each of these "jobs" is more fun than the next.

For me, "retirement," would be rough. I'd have to work very hard to find things as entertaining as my current jobs to occupy my time.

I realize I'm extraordinarily lucky. Simply being employed is a big deal these days. Having a guaranteed job due to tenure is lavish luxury. Being healthy enough to work late in life is another huge gift. And, the icing of doing something you love? Well, it's on the cake.

Read More:

What's the Best Age to Take Spousal or Survivor Benefits?

How to Maximize Social Security If Disabled

Why You Should Wait Until 70

How long do I intend to "work"? Hopefully, right up to my last day on earth. And, as if I didn't have enough good reasons to work, Social Security, it turns out, adds a significant incentive for doing so. The longer you work, the larger your Social Security benefits. This is due to Social Security's "Recomputation of Benefits" provision. Here's how it works -- for all of us older cowpokes who remain in the saddle indefinitely.

Each year you work, you add to your earnings record, leading Social Security to automatically recalculate your benefits. If you are interested, here are the gory details.

In a nutshell, Social Security averages your highest 35 years of earnings to calculate your Average Indexed Monthly Earnings or AIME. Then it plugs your AIME into a formula that figures out your full retirement benefit, called your Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). What benefits you can get for yourself and your spouse (including your ex-spouse(s) and your children, if they are young enough or are disabled) is all pegged to your PIA.

From age 16 on, Social Security considers all your earnings, up to a ceiling that rises from year to year. It then indexes, based on historic wage growth, all earnings through the year you turn 60.

In other words, Social Security adjusts past earnings upward to account for the growth in the economy. But after age 60, you get credit for your earnings without any adjustment at all. So imagine that there's a sudden surge in inflation and wages after age 60 skyrocket. They're going to look spectacular compared to your wages of the past, even though they've been indexed. And here's the kicker. Social Security bases your benefits on your highest 35 years of earnings.

So now imagine that age 30 was the lowest of those 35 years and you made, say, $40,000, even after indexing. But now inflation takes off and you're suddenly making $200,000, even though $200,000 ain't what it used to be.

But for your Social Security benefits, this is a bonanza. You're suddenly being treated as if you were really earning a lot more, and thus deserving of much higher benefits. So, for every year that your post-60 earnings exceed the lowest of the previous 35 years, bingo! You'll raise your Social Security check (or checks, if your dependents are also collecting).

Is this a big deal? It certainly can be. Take my own situation. I didn't really start contributing much to Social Security until I was 29. I was in grad school before then and on a postdoctoral fellowship after grad school. If I were to stop working today and wait until 70 to collect benefits -- when they would start at their highest value -- my lifetime benefits would be $774,210. (Lifetime benefits are calculated as the present value of benefits through age 100 discounted at a 3 percent rate above inflation.) If I were to work until age 70, my lifetime benefits rise by $80,312 to $854,522. If I work till 80, they rise another $88,154 to $942,676.

Wow! Working to age 80 will raise my lifetime Social Security benefits by 22 percent! And this only has to do with the "Recomputation of Benefits," because in each scenario, I'm waiting to collect my retirement benefit until 70 and taking full advantage of the Delayed Retirement Credit (DRC) that increases your benefits if you start them after your initial full retirement age, which is 66 years old these days. (There is no additional DRC once you reach age 70.)

But that's not all! There's another kicker, namely spousal benefits. Let's suppose I were married to someone my age who had never worked. In this case, her lifetime spousal benefits would rise from $345,586 to $413,570 were I to work till 80. So in addition to picking up $168,466 for myself by working through age 80, I earn an extra $67,984 for my spouse.

In my case, just working through age 70 will kick out all the low-earnings ages from my Social Security record. But what I found remarkable, until I thought about it, was that working from 70 to 80 would generate an even larger increase in lifetime benefits.

The reason is that I'm above Social Security's earnings ceiling -- the income level at which a person no longer pays any further payroll tax. The ceiling was $106,800 in 2011, when I turned 60. Last year, it was $110,100, and this year it rises to $113,700. Extrapolating this roughly 3 percent annual growth rate, the earnings ceiling when I'm 79 will be close to $200,000!

Since all my earnings will be above the ceiling and all future earnings ceilings will exceed $106,800, each year I work will lead to a replacement of a lower earnings year in my AIME formula with a higher one.

Since the adjustment of the earnings ceiling depends on nominal wage growth, if inflation takes off or if real wages grow even more rapidly, the covered earnings ceiling will grow at an even faster pace.

And the fact that this nominal (face value) earnings is being compared with my earnings up through 60, albeit indexed by wage growth through age 60, means that I and everyone else in my boat that earns above the ceiling can benefit, potentially big time, from working very late in life.

I realize this is complex, but the essence of what's going on is that the AIME formula doesn't properly adjust for inflation and this failure to do so confers a Social Security benefit advantage to people like me who will continue to work. But even people earning below the ceiling are likely to benefit, especially if their current earnings are relatively high and grow relatively rapidly in the future.

The bottom line? If work is fun or at least not awful, keep at it, like the seniors in Paul's recent piece on the Vita Needle company; average age, 74! Or check out the recent Marketplace segment on "the retireless". Retirement can be awfully dull, and there is no guarantee that the grim reaper will make it on time. The bonus: for those who can keep working, Social Security may make it well worth your while.

This entry is cross-posted on the Rundown -- NewsHour's blog of news and insight. Follow @PaulSolman

We're talking to all of the filmmakers who have been nominated this year for an Oscar in the category of Best Documentary Feature. So far we've spoken to David France, director of "How to Survive a Plague", Malik Bendjelloul ("Searching for Sugarman") and Kirby Dick ("The Invisible War"). On Friday, we'll have an interview with Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi ("5 Broken Cameras").

Today, our conversation is with Dror Moreh, director of "The Gatekeepers."

"The Gatekeepers" is a film that consists mostly of interviews with six men, but they happen to be six former heads of Shin Bet, the Israeli security agency. These are men who have been largely or completely unknown to the public, running an organization that since the 1967 war has been deeply involved in counter-terrorism and intelligence gathering in the West Bank and Gaza.

The film is nominated for an Academy Award for best documentary. Its director, Dror Moreh, recently joined me on the phone from his home in Israel:

A transcript is after the jump.

JEFFREY BROWN: Welcome to you, and I first want to ask you, how in the world did you get these men to talk to you?

DROR MOREH: Well, look, Jeffrey, it's not that you coerce them to speak. If he doesn't want to do that, it's those people. These are the six heads of the Israeli secret service, the Shin Bet, who speak for the first time. They wanted to speak. Like everything else in life, it's about timing. I think they felt that the timing for them to speak, to open their mouths and speak, was perfect. I think that they felt that the course of the policy of Israel is devastating to the future of Israel. They wanted to share their point of view, their professional point of view, because they are professionals, for the first time, definitely for Israel, and the whole world to hear.

JEFFREY BROWN: These are unsentimental men, they are very hard edged because of what they do, but they open up quite a bit to talk about things like interrogations, targeted assassinations. I wonder, did that surprise you, how much they opened up? And how much are those kinds of things discussed publically in Israel?

DROR MOREH: It's not really discussed publically. In secret service, the most important in that is secret. When I managed to persuade them to come, all six of them -- by the way, all living heads of the Israeli secret service are in the movie. There is no one who is out, who didn't want to participate in the movie. I knew that these were hard men, these are people who have conducted targeted assassinations, operations that have tortured people in order to get intelligence to arrest terrorists, that have worked also on the Jewish part of terrorism. In Israel there are a lot of Jewish underground or Jewish terrorists, as well. If there is someone in the Israeli public who understands and knows the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in all its aspects, it's those six people. I think that they felt that their words would mean something else to the Israeli public and to the international public, because as you said, they are rough people, they are not the ones, as Ariel Sharon called them, the bleeding-heart left-wing people. They are the leaders of that organization. I think that the temrity and the essence of what they say has a resonance, which is completely different than anybody else.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, of course, one of the things that comes through is their relations with politicians, with all the prime ministers to whom they all reported, and what they say about the failure of politicians and politics there, and their own distrust of that process.

DROR MOREH: Yeah, the problem is -- look at the end of the day, and I think that this is a problem that America is facing also today -- is strategy versus tactics. Security forces know professionally to do their work very well. They know how to suppress terror, they know how to get terrorists as a needle in a haystack wherever he is, but at the end of the day, where do you want this conflict to end? How do you want to end this conflict? Do you have a plan? And this question is something that troubled them for a long, long time with all the political leaders that they have served under. And they see that the more that they are working, the violence is getting stronger and stronger and it doesn't lead Israelis, especially, toward a better political solution. On the contrary, it's only getting worse, and the political solution seems to get further and further away down the road. The outcomes of that are something that worries them a lot, worries me definitely, as well, a lot. They see that there is no really good future lying ahead of us.

JEFFREY BROWN: We're talking to all the directors of all the nominated films for the Oscars this year, so I'm asking everyone and I wanted to ask you about the key decisions for you as a filmmaker in making this film, the biggest challenge. You had a structure with the six voices, but what was the key decision in terms of how you put it together or how you presented this film?

DROR MOREH: It's not one decision. There was a lot, a lot of decisions-making during the process of making this film. But I think the first and foremost was to construct the film only from the voices of the heads of the Shin Bet. I could have brought a lot of other voices to that, but I wanted only the chief heads of the security service, only the ones that headed that organization to speak, and that the story would be told from their point of view, from their security point of view, because no one can dispute or argue with their conclusion at the end of that. When they tell the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, their story, from how they have seen that from Day One when they started to serve in the service and until they left the service. You also have their insights and you have their understanding and wisdom about where Israel is now. It's something that was, I think, essential to me from the beginning. Having just said that, I think that also the cinematic point of view was very, very important to me, to create a cinematic language that will be strong enough to sustain the importance of the words that they are saying. And I hope that I succeeded in both.

JEFFREY BROWN: We hear you occasionally in the interviews posing a question, but you are otherwise not seen. I wonder, was there a moment in this process where you said to yourself in one of these interviews, Ah-ha, this is really going to work, this is quite amazing what I'm getting here.

DROR MOREH: I can tell you frankly that it happened to me at least 20 times in each interview, and I did a lot of interviews with them. It's not only one interview. I have around 75 hours of material of interviews with them. Most of the material is really, really astonishing and amazing. The editing process was the most tormenting process to me because I had to leave on the editing floor my kidneys, my liver, my heart, my organs, all of them, and it was a very, very painful and hard process. It took also three-and-a-half years, that editing process. At the end of the day, I'm happy, very happy with the results.

JEFFREY BROWN: You're getting all kinds of awards and great praise internationally and here in the United States. What kind of impact if any or reaction are you getting in Israel?

DROR MOREH: The film opened four weeks ago in the cinema in Israel. It started in two small cinemas, it moved after a week to seven cinemas. After two weeks, to 15 cinemas, including the megablock cinemas, which never show documentaries in it. After a month, we have 50,000 people who went to see the film in the movie theaters, which is an amazing number for Israel. The film is still sold out in the major cities. The responses are overwhelming from all aspects -- media, journalists, column writers, politicians all over, also, people that do not like the film, as well. It's not an easy film for Israelis to watch, but there is a lot of endorsement for it. I'm very happy with the responses in Israel for the film. "The Gatekeeper" as a phrase has been used a lot now in every aspect of the Israeli public and political debates. So it's very promising for me and I'm very happy with what is happening with the film also here in Israel, not only in America and internationally.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, I am not surprised that it is getting so much attention and stirring so much discussion. "The Gatekeepers" is nominated for an Academy Award for best documentary. Director Dror Moreh, thank you so much for talking to us and congratulations.

DROR MOREH: Thank you for talking to me. It's been a pleasure.

JEFFREY BROWN: And thank you again for joining us on Art Beat. I'm Jeffrey Brown.

STERLING, Va. - Perched by a computer monitor wedged between shelves of cough drops and the pharmacy in a bustling Walmart, Mohamed Khader taps out answers to questions such as how often he eats vegetables, whether anyone in his family has diabetes and his age.

He tests his eyesight, weighs himself and checks his blood pressure as a middle-aged couple watches at the blue-and-white SoloHealth station advertising "free health screenings."

"You may not go to the doctor every year, but you come to Walmart often," says the fit-looking 43-year-old Khader who lives in nearby Ashburn, Va. "I get bored while my wife is shopping. This is a time killer. I'll come back in two months or so, and track my results."

A burgeoning consumer health industry is betting that millions of consumers will do just that.

As Americans gain coverage under the federal health law, putting increased demand on primary care doctors and spurring interest in cheaper, more convenient care, unmanned kiosks like these may be part of what their manufacturer bills as a "self-service healthcare revolution."

From SoloHealth's stations, slated to be in 2,500 Walmarts and Sam's Clubs next month, to video consultations with doctors, to smartphone apps that track blood pressure and heart rate, consumer health technology is attracting big-name backers such as retailer Walmart, health insurers Wellpoint and UnitedHealthcare and companies that make or distribute medical products, such as Johnson & Johnson and Cardinal Health.

Walmart's interest is especially significant, given the giant retailer's reach, the growth of its pharmacies and retail medical clinics and a top official's recent statements -- since walked back by the company -- outlining plans for a push into primary care.

Some doctors' groups and consumer advocates urge caution, raising concerns about how companies might use personal health data, the quality of their medical information and whether advertisers and other sponsors might shape their advice and referrals for commercial reasons.

"There is a trend in general by retailers and health insurers to provide 'fluff' to consumers in the guise of real medical information as an advertising delivery device," says Carmen Balber of the left-leaning advocacy group Consumer Watchdog.

Bringing Exam Rooms To Patients

Walmart spokeswoman Danit Marquardt says the placement of SoloHealth stations in many stores is part of the retailer's commitment to "testing new products and services and ways to keep customers healthy."

"We don't have a larger plan for primary care at this time," she added.

But SoloHealth's backers do have larger plans. The Duluth, Ga.-based company aims to expand its kiosk offerings to teach people how to quit smoking, test whether they are at risk for diabetes and even enroll them in health coverage.

Self-serve computer stations are also eyed as a way to help consumers figure out whether they need medications for conditions such as high cholesterol, under a proposal now before the FDA to make some prescription medications over-the-counter. "It is clear there are now many interactive mechanisms that can step the consumer through the process of self-diagnosis and medication selection," said Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at a public hearing last March. The proposal is still under review.

Rival firms are marketing similar technologies. Dublin-Ohio based HealthSpot has enclosed cubicles that allow patients to pay $59 to $79 for a video "visit" with a doctor. NowClinic online, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, provides 10-minute video chats with physicians for $45.

Technology "has become a new arm of the health care delivery system," says Jay Sanders, an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University and CEO of The Global Telemedicine Group, a consulting firm in McLean, Va. "You need to bring the exam room to where the patient is, not where the doctor is."

'Treading A Fine Line'

SoloHealth's founder and CEO Bart Foster saw larger possibilities for automated screening after he began providing Walmart with self-service vision tests as a way to get shoppers from the product aisles to Walmart's optical shops.

In 2010, the firm got a $1.2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to develop new approaches to screening for people in underserved communities. It has also received more than $43 million in investments from computer maker Dell Corp., health insurer WellPoint and Coinstar, maker of the Red Box DVD rental boxes, he says.

Today, SoloHealth's kiosks, which are not connected to a live physician, allow consumers not just to test their eyesight and learn if they are obese, but to get information on diet, vitamins and pain management. A "find a doctor" function can direct users to nearby doctors, although the one in Sterling listed only "optical doctors" -- and those appeared mainly to be Walmart-affiliated.

Foster says SoloHealth has received lists of doctors from sponsors, including Walmart, and also allows doctors to buy a listing. SoloHealth does not do any independent review of doctors' credentials. About 20 to 30 doctors are typically offered.

Among its programs is one that advises those suffering symptoms of heartburn whether it may indeed be heartburn and which over-the-counter product might be useful, says Stephen Kendig, the firm's chief commercial officer.

"We're treading a fine line," Foster says. "We don't want to practice medicine, just educate people."

But such programs raise a red flag for some consumer advocates who worry the "advice" might be an advertisement.

The SoloHealth station in Sterling, Va., for example, runs a video for Healthy Choice yogurt while the blood pressure device inflates. Ads for Nature Made fish oil supplements or Healthy Choice frozen meals appear when consumers respond yes to a written question asking if they want more information about a healthy lifestyle. Others appear for allergy drug Zyrtec and heartburn medication Prilosec.

The ads, which can be targeted to particular consumers based on their answers, are SoloHealth's revenue model. "Reach customers when they are aisles, not miles, away," the firm's message to advertisers on its website says.

Users who enter their email addresses -- and about 18 percent do -- will receive test results, along with information that might include "ask your doctor about this drug" or "pick up some Advil on aisle four," says Foster. Despite those efforts, every one of the five people who used the kiosk in the space of about an hour, including Khader, said they did not notice the advertising.

Privacy Risk?

Consumers Union Senior Attorney Mark Savage says it's a good thing to get people more engaged in their health, but he says the new technology carries potential risks.

"You have a situation where a patient is voluntarily disclosing information, which means there is no privacy protection, generally," Savage says. "They may not know if the information is being kept and might be used weeks or years after."

SoloHealth's Kendig says the firm is not considered a covered entity under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, meaning it is not required to meet the law's privacy standards. If it shares personal health information with insurers or medical providers, then it would need to meet those standards.

All information, except the email addresses, is aggregated and shared with SoloHealth sponsors without personal identifiers, Foster says. Those who leave their email address can track their test results over time and may be sent more information, including newsletters targeted to specific health conditions.

Consumer Khader did not mention concerns about how his information might be stored and used in the future. But he did have one suggestion. Turn the machines so the screen cannot be seen by other customers.

"I would like a little more privacy," he says.

Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan health policy research and communication organization not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. This story was produced in collaboration with USA Today. Photo above by Daniel Aguilar/Getty Images.

Support Your Local PBS Station

How do you make sense of a seemingly senseless act of violence? How do you help the country begin to process the trauma of 20 small children shot dead in their classroom?

In the wake of the mass killings at Sandy Hook Elementary, FRONTLINE and The Hartford Courant's jarring documentary "Raising Adam Lanza" tackles those questions in an investigative look into Adam Lanza's childhood and life before the Newtown shootings.

Today at 2 p.m. ET, FRONTLINE is hosting a live chat featuring the film's producer Frank Koughan, Hartford Courant reporters Alaine Griffin and Josh Kovner, and Liz Goodwin, national affairs reporter for Yahoo News.

You're invited to submit your questions now.

Support Your Local PBS Station

A protester marches down Constitution Avenue during the Jan. 26 March on Washington for Gun Control. Photo by Flickr user Elvert Barnes.

When voters in Illinois's 2nd congressional district head to the polls next week, they'll be choosing between candidates whose A-plus and F ratings from the NRA have thrust the gun debate into central focus. The 16-person race in Chicago, a city plagued by gun violence, is primarily a contest between between former Rep. Debbie Halvorson, a Democrat whose seat used to be considered more of a suburban swing district, and former state Rep. Robin Kelly, also a Democrat. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is spending as much as $2 million to help Kelly.

The urban-rural split dividing Halvorson and Kelly on gun control highlights the extent to which the current gun debate -- and the political frames used on each side -- transcends pure partisanship. The lasting impact the shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn., has had on the political debate over guns has brought heightened attention to the language both sides are using.

The traditional "gun control" side has zeroed in on the negative effects of guns, namely violence. Meanwhile, as Republican operative Ron Bonjean points out, the traditional "gun rights" side is talking less about guns and more about how they are misused, shifting the focus to mental health and tougher enforcement of current laws.

Gun Control to Gun Safety

While the shift in language on the left has garnered greater attention since the Dec. 14 shooting, it's an evolution 20 years in the making. The Atlantic's Molly Ball traces the concerted efforts behind this shift in messaging in her article titled, "How the Gun-Control Movement Got Smart." Perhaps most illustrative, she recounts how the National Council to Control Handguns rebranded itself as the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

As Ball notes, Democrats were growing weary of a gun control message that they felt contributed to their loss of congressional control in 1994 and of the presidency in 2000. Democrats were losing voters they should have been winning over, all because of the gun issue.

George Lakoff, cognitive linguist at the University of California, Berkeley and co-author of "The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic," has been working since 1996 to help the left reframe its position in a debate he sees dominated by conservative framing gone mainstream. As Lakoff explained, there are two competing moral systems -- one favoring individual responsibility and liberty, and another more collective, progressive vision -- each of which is controlled by a different neural network. But many people are hybrids; they're both liberal and conservative, depending on the issue.

The task for liberals, Lakoff explained, has been to find a language that appeals to that overlap -- the liberal hunter, if you will. The language of gun "control" automatically alienates the individual liberty moral system. Gun "safety," however, appeals to the same person's sense of personal responsibility.

Lakoff sees the control frame beginning to recede in favor of the safety frame. In announcing his 23 executive actions on the issue, for example, President Obama did not use the word "control" in his remarks. And in his most impassioned call to action on the gun issue, at the conclusion of his State of the Union address last week, he targeted violence, not guns.

The Brady campaign, too, has moderated its language, pushing Vice President Biden on a universal background check that it said "would have a clear positive impact on public safety, and is also clearly compatible with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns."

Congressional Democrats seem to be on board, moving away from the risks associated with the rhetoric of control and bans, naming their task force the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. As Task Force Chairman Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., told Politico, "Anytime you try and prohibit what kind of gun people has it generates some concern."

The Rhetoric of Rights

The other side of the debate uses the rhetoric of rights to lend legitimacy to its argument. It's a simple message, according to Bonjean, a former top GOP staffer on Capitol Hill. Testifying before Congress, for example, NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre invoked a "God-given, fundamental right."

Given that people -- not guns -- enjoy rights, a rights-based frame is a kind of code, notes Richard Feldman, president of Independent Firearms Association Inc. and author of "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist," which calls attention to the human agency needed for guns to be dangerous.

Like all interest groups, including the Brady Campaign, the NRA relies on scare tactics, such as LaPierre's recent Daily Caller op-ed that notes, "Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face -- not just maybe. It's not paranoia to buy a gun. It's survival."

But the NRA has not had to communicate with the public at large; they communicate with their members. Gun control advocacy groups, by contrast, are more invested in swaying public opinion, explains Democratic strategist Mo Elleithee.

Bonjean argues that the NRA is doing a good job of showing that more laws on the books will only curb the rights of Americans. Other gun rights organizations, such as the Second Amendment Foundation and Virginia's Citizens Defense League, employ a similar frame that taps into American rights culture and the power of the people to topple tyrannical governments.

Mapping the Middle

Gun rights defenders' fears of having guns taken away -- intensified since Newtown -- means NRA members will turn out at the polls in force in 2014, Wilson predicts. Supporters of gun control, by contrast, usually struggle to capitalize on the much more ephemeral motivation to take action following shooting tragedies.

Supporters of "common sense reform," Elleithee argues, need to look toward the middle -- political power bases in the suburbs -- and use the rhetoric of safety to mobilize unaffiliated suburban moms upset about the shooting of 20 children. "If there's one group Republicans are afraid of, it's suburban moms."

Loaded Language

The language that drives the gun debate is peppered with other terms that carry loaded meanings.

Gun show "loopholes," for example, are a frequent target of the gun control movement. "Loophole" evokes tax avoidance and other shady behavior. But to the gun rights side, these loopholes are simply private sales.

The term that seems to anger gun rights folks the most is "assault weapons." Gun rights defenders fume over the prioritization of aesthetics over functionality when government attempts to apply that label. As Feldman sees it, any weapon -- even the most rudimentary musket -- is capable of assault in the hands of a dangerous person.

Gun control advocates, however, counter that assault weapons are not something that any law abiding shooter or hunter would need. That word "need" is key, Wilson says. "The onus is on gun owners to demonstrate that they need this. But for gun rights people, need is irrelevant because 'it's my right.'" This discursive fight is typical of how both sides of the gun debate talk over one another, speaking two different languages.

If there's one phrase shared by the vocabularies of both sides, it's "common sense." Mr. Obama called for "common sense reform" during last week's State of the Union address. And the NRA touted LaPierre's call for armed guards in schools as a "common sense solution," the exact same phrase used by Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Support Your Local PBS Station

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: It was the starkest statement yet on the possible effect of automatic federal budget cuts, due to begin in nine days, on Mar. 1^st. Defense Sec. Leon Panetta notified his entire civilian work force that employees could be sent home without pay.

The warning was aimed at Defense Department workers at the Pentagon and around the world. Secretary Panetta sent them a written message, as he left for a NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels. In it, he said there are limited options for coping with the looming across-the-board cuts. And he said: "Should sequestration occur and continue for a substantial period, DOD will be forced to place the vast majority of its civilian work force on administrative furlough."

UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS JESSICA WRIGHT: On our civilians, it will be catastrophic.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Within hours, top Pentagon officials were out, saying employees could lose one day of work per week for 22 weeks.

JESSICA WRIGHT: Civilians will experience a 20 percent decrease in their pay between late April and September. As a result, many families will be forced to make difficult decisions on where their financial obligations lie.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The furloughs could start in late April and save roughly $5 billion dollars. Uniformed personnel at war would be exempt, but in a letter to Congress, Panetta wrote that the spending cuts will slow training and the procurement of weapons.

The result, he said, will be a hollow force. The nation's top military leader had said as much last week at a Senate hearing on the automatic cuts, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey.

GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman: This would be the steepest, biggest reduction in total obligating authority for the Defense Department in history at a time when I will personally attest to the fact that it's more dangerous than it has ever been.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In his own statement today, House Speaker John Boehner charged the president bears the blame for the stalemate -- quote -- "President Obama is ultimately responsible for our military readiness," Boehner wrote, "so it's fair to ask, what is he doing to stop his sequester that would hollow out our armed forces?"

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney fired back that Republicans are the ones who've refused to compromise.

JAY CARNEY, White House Press Secretary: And it's important to understand that if they hold that position and the sequester goes into effect, it will go into effect and those Americans will lose their jobs because Republicans made a choice for that to happen.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The president wants a combination of spending cuts and increased tax revenue to prevent the sequester. Republicans say they have already raised taxes, so the focus should be entirely on spending.

Steve Dennis is White House correspondent for the newspaper Roll Call.

STEVE DENNIS, Roll Call: Right now, the Republican leadership is saying absolutely nothing. They will allow absolutely no new revenue. And the White House is saying they're not going to sign anything that doesn't include new revenue. It's just -- you know, it's a game of chicken right now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And it won't be just ships, planes and troops affected. Domestic spending will absorb the other half of the $85 billion dollars in mandatory cuts. The Obama administration has warned that, among other things, 70,000 students would be removed from Head Start, air travel would be slowed as air traffic controllers are furloughed, and benefits for the long-term unemployed could be reduced.

But Roll Call's Dennis says the cuts wouldn't all happen at once.

STEVE DENNIS: A lot of what the White House has been talking about has been basically somewhat vague. They say that some people are going to lose access to child care benefits. Thousands of parents are going to lose their child care benefits, for example, or get kicked off of Head Start. Well, that is not going to happen on Mar. 1^st. It's not -- or even Mar. 15^th.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Some Republicans charge the Obama administration is exaggerating the potential effects. Both the House and Senate are out of session until next week. They will return just days before the March 1^st deadline.

For more on the sequestration and what it means for the U.S. military, I'm joined by Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter.

Welcome, Mr. Secretary.

DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY ASHTON CARTER, United States: Judy, how are you?

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, let's just pick up with that comment from some Republicans that this is exaggerated.

ASHTON CARTER: Well, for us in the Defense Department, unfortunately, it's not exaggerated.

n fact, we don't want to take any of these steps. We certainly are trying to do it in the way that does the minimum damage to national security. We don't have a lot of flexibility, and we don't have a lot of time in that regard. Sequester requires us to find $46 billion dollars in the last half of the year, and then we have an additional problem with the lack of an appropriations bill, which is a particular problem for us.

But you put those two things together, and in some of the accounts that fund training, for example, for Army units, those accounts are 30 percent short over the year, and now we only have half the year in which to make up those savings. What that means is that we're going to protect the wars in Afghanistan. We have got to fund them. We have to fund, need to fund military personnel. The president has exempted military personnel from sequester.

So the savings need to be found where we can still find savings, which will be training units that are going to be ready for other conflicts, not for Afghanistan, but that means we won't be ready for those other conflicts. That's just a mathematical fact of doing sequester. This is very damaging to national security.

Sec. Panetta and I have been saying it for 16 months. And we will do everything we can do minimize the damage, but it is what it is.

JUDY WOODRUFF: When do these decisions have to be made? You made this announcement today, but to people look at this and say, well, we have got nine days until March the 1st.

Do these decisions have to be made now?

ASHTON CARTER: The announcement today was about one particular item, which is very important, which is the need to furlough some of our civilian personnel in the department. We had to make that announcement today because we're required by law, a law that applies to the Defense Department, to inform Congress and employees on a certain schedule.

So, we had to tell them today that they are not immediately furloughed, but they are subject to furlough later in the year. And, remember, these people are -- most people think of our employees as people who work in the Washington Beltway or something like that. They're not. Most of them work outside of Washington. They repair our ships. They maintain our aircraft. That's who these people are; 44 percent of them are veterans.

And so it's a terrible thing to have to deprive them of some of their income.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And how do you choose who would be furloughed?

ASHTON CARTER: It's, unfortunately, going to have to apply to most of our employees, except where there is a mission-critical exception.

And the reason why it has to apply to most of our employees is that, remember, we have to get we 46 -- we have to save $46 billion dollars, and we have to do that in every way that is legally possible and that doesn't involve shorting the war or the troops that are immediately involved in combat.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me raise another Republican criticism. Congressman Duncan Hunter, Armed Services Committee, is saying some of the things -- the steps the Defense Department has taken recently, like delaying an aircraft carrier group going to the Persian Gulf, were done to add drama to all this.

ASHTON CARTER: No. Believe me, nobody wants to add drama to this.

We are -- want to continue to defend the country as best we can under these circumstances. So every step we take is -- is one that we're forced to. In the case of the aircraft carrier, there are actually several things going on there, not just the money matter, having to do with maintenance and so forth, and we were trying to make sure that we had a carrier next year and that we could continue to have a carrier there.

And for that reason, we weren't going to have two carriers this year. So, that was a more complicated decision than just purely a money decision. But everything we do, we're really trying to keep on protecting the country and delivering the defense under these circumstances. But, as I said, in some cases, that's not going to be possible.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, that's my question. Is U.S. national security at stake because of what might happen?

ASHTON CARTER: It is, in the sense, in the following sense. By the end of the year, as I said, two-third of our Army units, active-duty Army units and all of our reserve units will not be ready to fight other wars.

Many of our Air Force air units will not be ready to fight other wars. A third of our Navy, our ships in the Pacific will not be at sea. It's not because they're not there, the ships aren't there. It's because we can't afford to operate them because we don't have any money left in the accounts that fund them. And we have to cut account by account by account. That's what sequestration forces us to do.

JUDY WOODRUFF: If this gets resolved, Secretary Carter, between now and Mar. the 1st, or soon thereafter, do all these cuts just go away?

ASHTON CARTER: Oh, yes. No, we would never do any of these things.

JUDY WOODRUFF: OK. OK.

ASHTON CARTER: And of course it's everyone's hope that a deal that covers revenues and expenditures, as everybody knows is necessary, that that deal can be made, that Congress can come around to a deal like that that the president can sign and we don't have to take any of these steps at all.

And whenever that occurs -- obviously, it may not occur in the next 10 days -- whenever that occurs, we will stop doing any of these things that we have been forced to do by sequester.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, let me just raise another comment one hears from Republicans who say they are friends of the Pentagon on the Hill, but they say, look, there are programs at the Pentagon that haven't worked well, aren't efficient, and you and others should have used this as an opportunity to go ahead and trim or cut those ...

ASHTON CARTER: That's a very fair point. We ought to constantly be asking ourselves, what kind of defense do we need? How much should we spend? Are we using our defense dollars wisely?

And the answer is not in all cases are we. And, you know, that is something that I think we need to constantly keep pressure on. But this is not the way to achieve that objective. And I will give you an example. We, obviously, want to keep the costs of weapons systems down, drive them down.

What happens under sequester is you have to stretch out programs, reduce the number you're buying, and that increases the unit cost. So this is -- at the very time I completely agree with the people you're talking about, we need to be more efficient with the defense dollar. I'm all for that.

But this is not efficient use. This is economically inefficient and destructive use. So, it heads in just the opposite direction I think we want to do.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we have nine days to go. We will see what happens.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, thank you.

ASHTON CARTER: Thank you.