atwater where the situation was presented preclude that determination for all the reason the government argued in those cases. finally, justice scalia you mentioned a couple times the gant principle that applies in this case evidence you think might be found on the phone. there are two profound problems, as the court recognized in kyllo, you need to recognize the type of privacy people had at the founding. as i said in nye opening the fact that someone might incidentally have item on its person, even rare case, diary or address book are leagues away from the kind of information that people have now that are stored in the home and were sacrosanct at an arrest. the thread of history an arrest on that occasion is not occasion to do that kind of search. justice kagan, if you run the gant test through the world of crimes the government might be able to identify a crime here or there that would be difficult to making a argument about but lots

of minor crimes like speeding as we point out in our brief, dui, littering, all kinds of minor crimes the person can make a fairly convincing argument sometimes that evidence on the phone would be relevant to that crime of arrest. i think that brings me where i want to end, understanding what the rule the government profounds would do in terms of just ordinary police work. remember this case starts with a traffic stop for expired license plate. it is everyday police work that traffic stops are the beginning of criminal investigations and a leverage point into searches. if you adopt the rule at that says, even a gant rule that says, if you can making a argument that evidence on the phone would be relevant to the crime of arrest, take the suspended license, you may have an email from the dm vteling you better come in to renew. if that opens up every american's entire life to the police department, not just at the scene, but later at station house and downloaded into their computer forever, i think you fundamentally changed nature of

privacy americans fought for at the founding of the republic and we enjoyed ever since. >> thank you, counsel. the case is isn'ted. >> that is oral argument in case reilly vocal fornash. back with us, mike doyle of mcklatsch think. >> this was stunning decision. unanimous decision written by chief justice john roberts, emphatic and sweeping terms the court said smartphones are different. digital is different and police do not have the ability under the constitution to search without a warrant through an arrested person's smart phone. >> were most watchers of the court surprised by the 9-0 decision? >> decision itself was no surprise whatsoever. at oral argument listeners may have heard there was considerable skepticism by justice across the idealogical spectrum. the 9-0 decision itself was perhaps a bit of a surprise. there are some law and order oriented justice, alito, who did issue concurring opinion.

that may have been a bit after surprise but the emphatic nature of the opinion and the really, for declarative drama of it, among other things it proved all these justices own smartphones. >> well, broadly on the roberts court, in general how do they, how has the court come down on issue of unreasonable search and seizure? >> the court is interesting. this search and seizure is an issue where conservative justices like ant -- antonin scalia, almost invariably in conservative camp on a decision -- >> sure. >> justice scalia is quite protective of privacy rights of individuals. quite protective of individual's right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures and found himself in cahoots with the a more liberal justices. a search and seizure case will always be particularly interesting when it comes to this court and we'll be seeing going ahead, this case, wiley v

california will be cited over and over against as they intelligence community collection of telephone numbers and so on. this is opinion of real legs. >> mike doyle covers legal issues, covers the court for mcclatchy. our viewers can follow your reporting and tweets on twitter,@michael doyle 10. thanks for joining us and giving your observations. >> my pleasure. >> reminder all the oral arguments we covered on c-span are available on our website at c-span.org. >> that finishes up the oral argument in the case of reilly versus california. by the way if you missed any of it will reair tonight at 7:00 eastern here on c-span2. we will wrap up our series tomorrow with oral argument in the case of sebelius versus hobby lobby which concerns constitutionality of employers to provide contraceptive coverage. here's what's ahead on c-span2. coming up next all of today's

edition of "washington journal." after that a hearing looks at military retirement benefit system. later another congressional hearing, this one looking safety and regulation of e-cigarettes. texas republican governor rick perry is in washington, d.c. today. he is taking part in a discussion on the politics of immigration, from the heritage foundation here in washington. see his remarks live starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. here are some highlights for this weekend. friday on c-span in prime time, we'll visit important sites in the history of the civil rights movement. saturday night at 8:00, highlights from this year's new york ideas forum, including cancer biologist andrew hessel. on sunday, q&a with new york congressman charlie wrangle at 8:00 p.m. eastern. friday night at 8:00 on c-span2, in depth with religious scholar

reza aslan. retired neurosurgeon and columnist ben carson. sunday night at 11:00 p.m. eastern, lawrence gold stone on the competition between the wright brothers and glen curtis to be predominant name in manned flight. american history tv on c-span 3, a look at hollywood's portrayal of slavery. saturday night night at eight, the burning of washington. and sunday night at 8:00 p.m., former white house chiefs of staff discuss how presidents make decisions. find our television schedule one week in advance at c-span.org and let us know when you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3200. email us at comments at c-span.org. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> up next a portion of today's "washington journal" with viewers commenting on recent violence posed by isis. this is about 45 minutes. much.

>> host: the question, do you approve or disapprove of us air strikes against islamic militants in iraq? 54% of respondents saying they approve of the action. 31% say they disapprove. d 15%is saying they don't know. several stories in the paper not only taking a look at the beheading of james foley but also what's next as far as policy and, concerning isis in iraq is concerned and your thoughts welcomed on lines. 202-581. and 202-585-3882 for independents. as you'reep calling in we'll get perspective from white house reporter jeff mason who reports r reuters and that organization. mr. mason, good morning. >> guest: good morning to you. >> host: did the president's comments at least indicate some type of a shift in policy? no i think the president's

comments suggested that what he has started in terms of airstrikes in iraq, against isis or isil will continue. and most likely will increase. i think that was a signal both the american people and to the people in iraq and this organizationor that the united states doesn't tolerate this type of killing of a u.s. citizen, nor the other actions that they're taking against muslims and others in iraq. so i don't think, i don't think yet anyway it is, signals a shift in policy. i think it was more a signal continue and will probably get even bigger. >> host: what did you think about the tone of thedi remarks? >> guest: i think it was very somber and i think it was very harsh. you know, his language was very harsh against isis. he called them a cancer. he tried to sound very resolute,

saying the united states of america will continue to do what we must to do to protect our people and calling on allies in other countries to help in thatr fight. mason, stories in the paper also talking about information in july mission to recover hostages. for those who are catching up to the story could you fill us in what was said by the white house concerning this mission? >> guest: controversial actually, theys released details about it at all. what was said there was a mission, as you indicated earlier this summer. carried out by members of the u.s. armed forces were airlifted or dropped, i should say into syria in an effort to find foley and other u.s. citizens who were held captives and they failed, when they showed up at this location because the hostages had been moved.

so there was, there were some details released about that yesterday and the white house then went on later to defend that release saying that the reason those details were given to journalists because media organizations were planning on reporting about the raid and that forced its hand. >> host: when it comes to the current day situation there's still a second journalist being held. anything said by the white house about that journalist? >> guest: nothing to my knowledge, no. it is a, long-standing u.s. policy not to pay ransom for, for people, for american citizens who are held. that is not necessarily the policy of many european governments. but it is, the clear policy of the united states because the u.s. government feels that engaging in something like that will only endanger more americans by encouraging groups like isil to take more hostages. so at this point there is, there

are certainly no indication that theirs will be a shift in policy on that and in fact the quite the contrary, both obama and secretary of state johnar kerry yesterday indicated that these strikes will continue and those various strikes that the group that was responsible for killing foley said they, that theyct objected to and that was theor reason for the terrible, terrible murder. >> host: "wall street journal" reporting 14 strikes taking yesterday. "wall street journal" said officials in the u.s., when the state department asked the pentagon for 300 more military personnel toic baghdad to protet americans working there. has the white house indicated whether they will honor that request? . .ease. and i think it's something that the white house is trying to prepare americans for. they are cognizant of the word mission and mission creep and

not wanting to suggest that this mission or this battle by u.s. forces is going to continue to get bigger and bigger. and yet faced with what happened with this american citizen, it's -- at this point, it looks like they will continue to need more people, like the 300 additional forces. host: has the white house indicating responding to that pressure? >> i think the way they're trying to portray it is about identifying the needs that the iraqis have, and focusing as clear as possible on the protection of u.s. citizens, and baghdad has the u.s. embassy, the original reason for air strikes was not only to help

those religious minority on mount sinjar but also to protect the american consulate that was nearby. they will continue to use that as a guiding principle for the forces and for the attacks and air strikes that the u.s. military takes part in, but clearly it goes way beyond that. and it's -- it's trying, as the president referred to yesterday, to attack the cancer that is this group. host: jeff mason, thank you. >> my pleasure. host: to your calls on how far host: to your calls on how far are. >> host: your calls on how far the u.s. should go to defeat isis. this is from the president's comments yesterday in papers taking look at it today. will look at some of those. again, the number is (202) 585-3881, democrats, (202) 585-3880. independent, (202) 585-3882.

first up is carol from ohio honor democrats line. good morning. >> caller: i'm glad to be on. i watch c-span every morning. i think the president is handling this exactly to say i wanted to handle this. is doing everything he can. they haven't even tried to get him out in july we found out now. i think he's going to have to stop trying to get the republicans help them to do anything because they are worthless. anybody who works, those the republicans, the war in iraq the way to been talking about him -- >> host: you think the beheading changes things as far as our policy towards iraq india with isis? >> caller: you can't, you can't even think about, think but these people. they're crazy. they are more than crazy. >> host: independent's line,

bob, montana. hello. >> caller: good morning. hey, i'm wondering about, there's a formal force, and i'm worried about the mission creep edge. we been in libya and it seems like what we did was just with true completely and i left turmoil there. and it seems like we've done the right thing. i think, i'm really proud of the president for doing what he has done. i'm worried about getting in a long, drawnout interchange in the. every time a look at the tv there's two or 300 more men going over there. it seems like it's over and over. we have to protect those people over there. >> host: a phrase from the president, cheshire. we'lwe will be relentless usingt

for its front page. as you look at the to discuss off what you should go to defeat isis. here's thomas from new jersey, republican line. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm concerned greatly but what isis has done not only to religious minorities, christians, now the beheading of this journalist. i think that we need to completely wipe out ice is whether that means continuing airstrikes. i know we were in the war for many years and i'm very young, i'm only 20, but i think that it would be beneficial to us to take out ice is because they are tremendous threat to the entire world. >> secret except more of a step up? to what length? are you talking boots on the ground or which keep it at airstrikes? >> caller: i would possibly have boots on the ground but i will continue airstrikes but i also believe president obama needs to have stronger language and just be more willing to

confront the isis as a problem. because as you reported in a congressional hearing as early as 2013, iraq was asking for help. the obama administradministr ation refused. and if we have helped them sooner him maybe this wouldn't be such a big problem. >> host: john, maryland, democrats line. >> caller: good morning. it's amazing to me to sell mission for all these people are. i mean, we brought that whole mess over there with president bush. and nothing was done about it. nobody was held accountable for what was done over there. are you still there? >> host: go ahead. >> caller: nobody was held accountable for the slaughter of those people over there. i cannot condone saddam hussein, but when you think back how stable that area was before we did what we did to him. i mean, and now we have isis.

if i'm not mistaken isis was armed by president barack obama to go against the syrian government. i mean, we american people got to wake up and understand. we can of the army people to kill each other and don't be held accountable for what we do when people grow up. i mean, the double standard, the hypocrisy is so glaring on how we treat one nation against another nation, one people against another people. i mean, the people stands up and want to take revenge, oh, look what they doing, look out the killing. look who's doing all the army. martin luther king said it 40 years ago, and it's gotten worse. he said america is the greatest purveyor of violence on the face of the earth. we sell guns to everybody and anybody, and then when the guns are turned around to kill the very people who we think we want to back, that we want to blame the people who were doing the killing when it starts with our own federal government. >> host: senator marco rubio making comments about the

beheading yesterday. is part of his statement. iraqis to solve. if we do not do more to assist our partners and those moderate syrians, >> host: secretary of state john kerry responding to the incident on h. we. he says i so must be destroyed/will be crushed. we are asking now for the you should go to defeat isis. what do you think? >> callert: basically i think we have to do whatever is necessary. whether that be from airstrikes to boots, i think the main problem though from, and i agree with a previous caller about the things done in our country, is that it's a religious war. it's really, really hard to

exact a five the blame on isis. we have extremists whatever religion it may be. extremist will perpetuate themselves. so i mean -- >> host: are you there? i think you dropped off due to the connection. let's go to baltimore, maryland, republican line. >> caller: yes. good morning. i'm glad you're taking my call. i'm very sorry that the president you have now is a coward, and i think this man is not able to defend this country. the problem going on with isis, those groups should not exist at all right now. right now they are having babies, killing women, killing christians. and we are all, all we're doing

is -- wasting a lot of gas with a bunch of jets running around doing nothing. barack obama will not defend his country. he's a muslim. and i tell you this -- >> host: when it comes to isis exactly, what should the u.s. be doing, to what extent? >> callert: put ground troops on the ground, bomb isis, because you see, the fear of armed conflict on our side is unjust because it only took two days for years troops to overrun iraq. it was a nationbuilding that costs us lives. >> host: flushing new york, independent line, hi. >> caller: yes, good morning. we had to go back a decade ago what we were very near to g. we went over there to bring democracy.

after 10 years there's nothing. now isis is -- so for me, united states could contain isis but there is no reason to go and put our soldiers back into whatever we try to do. we cannot achieve that goal. it's all messed up. we have to contain him, otherwise sending troops are arming one group is not going to help. because now indirectly either we have to side with assad and fight the war in syria. side with assad and fight. if that is the case then why should we spend so many years, good time, to fight those radicals over there? it is a failure of u.s. and western policy. we should not get involved but we should contain these guys. they're not going to seem

justified america. so stop the hype and contain them. we can do that. >> host: a tweet from senator bob corker of tennessee says -- isis actions are a grotesque affront to operate our thoughts and prayers are with the family of james foley in this difficult time. another tweet, if nato can't fight in iraq, then the u.s. should quit immediately. facebook, whatever it takes, when it comes to activities and how far the u.s. should go. ryan jason phillips writes after that, whatever congress approves, is what he has. you can make ads and comments to facebook, like is on the page. follow us on twitter, e-mail us, journal at c-span.org. let's hear from lorenzo in louisiana. democrat line. >> comic i was going to comment about the guy who lost his head for the money over there. i mean, i don't think the u.s.

should be trying to protect a person that go there trying to make money, and you know you're in a war zone. you don't have the protection, and then why should we take and risk our well trained soldiers to go over there to try to get these guys out? when the money they make is their own. i had a friend of mine that was working for kbr in support of the u.s. soldiers over there. he got burned alive. no one has said nothing, i ain't heard a word. but i mean, for these people that know they're going over there on these contracts, unless they working for the government to try to help the people over there then that's different. but if you choose to go and try to make some money in these war countries, i mean, you can even get insurance to go in a war zone. so why should the u.s., why should we take and put our young men, our kids to go over there and try to save a person that knows he's over there strictly

for the money? >> host: reuters, in a column did america's policy on reins and contribute to james foley's killing? these comments amongst others saying -- american captives including my own and duck shun by the taliban five years ago. he also makes other comments about policy when it comes to kidnapping. you can be that come he wrote the column for road. here is all, georgia, independent line. >> caller: yes. i just wanted to talk about

wesley clark getting, speaking at a conference a few years ago. it's on youtube, where he talked about the united states wanting to do regime change in five middle eastern countries. and this was approximately in 2001, right after they decided to go into iraq. they decided that they were going to do all of these different nations. obama gets in office and they basically just told mubarak to step down. then they went in libya and tried to go in syria. so a lot of this stuff is playing well at the time and it's just one of the repercussions from when they mess up. basically they just went over there and screwed up. >> host: so what should be done now? >> callert: excuse me?

>> host: what should be done now? >> callert: i mean, i don't exactly know what you should do now but have to go in there and stir up a bunch of myth and it backfires or whatever, then who are you to blame? except yourself, you know? why do we stay out of these people's business? >> host: rené isham oklahoma honor and in the line. good morning. >> caller: hello. i'm calling because i know a lot of people that serve in the military. different branches. and during the al-qaeda crisis and osama bin laden, a lot of people died. some of them i know. i don't get how isis was allowed to come in to existence and yet we go home and fight for 10 years to get rid of al-qaeda and osama bin laden? that doesn't make any sense to me. we go after people who are known to be a problem here in this

country because they are known to be problems. why wasn't isis stopped before they got to this level? i don't get it. >> host: so as far as the current day what should be done now come in your opinion? >> caller: that's easy. what should of done with al-qaeda to start with. blow them off the damn map. >> host: enid, oklahoma, is where rené is from. david frum ohio. >> caller: i love your program. i've been watching it for a while. i believe that isis is a menace. i believe that we should take them out with our air force. we should bomb them into oblivion. we should take their bases out in syria, take them out of iraq, take them out. we did this in world war ii. we terrorized. we bombed them germans and the

japanese people, and we won that war and we're going to have to win this war. if we don't take care of them now with our air force, and just bomb them and let the kurds and on them and take care of these people, we're going to have to do it ourselves sometimes. i hate to put boots on the ground, but one way or another isis has got to go. that's how i feel about it. >> host: the bank of america announcing a deal, or nearing a deal with the u.s. government over mortgage securities. headline from the "washington post" this point, bank of america nears $17 billion deal with the u.s. the story by daniel douglas sang the settlement will be the largest penalty ever paid by single company --

if you go to the money and if you go to the money and if you go to the money and investing section of "the wall street journal" this morning, talks about pay for certain people on wall street. this highlights goldman sachs saying that goldman sachs -- >> host: here's todd, rockville, maryland. how far should use go to defeat

isys? go ahead. >> caller: thanks for having me on your show. a couple things. we need to make sure -- [inaudible] it's not about u.s. security. we need to involve the arab community as solutions. secondly, less boots on the ground, more eyes in the air. we have technology called drones. we need to step up our use of drones. thirdly, let's make sure that unlike our first entry into iraq, that there is cost recovery if the u.s. goes in and we go in a low. thank you. >> host: dominica up next from south carolina, independent line your dominica, hello. >> caller: yes, there. i think that in this situation we should be able to have the user ground troops because we had to sacrifice so many lives throughout this war, and we

can't, like, be able to control every situation. so like the last caller said, i think we should use our drones and our technology that we have in order to try to handle the situation. because i mean, how many lives and casualties because of this one bad group, you know? >> host: where several hundred people there, a request from the state department for 300 more. the already troops there. what you think should be done with them? >> caller: i mean, we should, we should go, i think that we should either train other iraqi soldiers who want to see these militant groups he took out due to the fact because, i mean, the u.s., there's more countries out there other than this. and there are other people that can help that are closer, like do we have to be the only country that comes to the rescue when it's time for more?

>> host: if you're calling, go ahead and continue to call. this week from mike. he says remember, the president was ready to attack isis in syria last september but when he asked congress they said no. the president made several comments on isis yesterday and here's a portion of his comments from yesterday. >> the united states of america will continue to do what we must do to protect our people. we will be vigilant and we will be relentless. when people harm americans anywhere, we do what's necessary to see that justice is done, and we act against isil, standing alongside others. the people of iraq who, with our support, are taking the fight to isil must continue to come together to expel these terrorist from the kennedys, the people of syria whose story jim foley told did not deserve to

live under the shadow of a tyrant or terrorists. they have our support in their pursuit of a future rooted indignity. from governments and peoples across the middle east, there has to be a common effort to extract his cancer so that it does not spread. there has to be a clear rejection of these kind of unbalanced at ideologists. one thing we can all agree on is that a group like iso- -- isil has no place in a 21st century. >> host: we will hear next from tony, democrat line. >> caller: how are you doing, pedro? as much as i'd hate to think that we're going back to iraq with boots on the ground, we are. i'm an old soldier and i know more drones -- were groans when it advocates ashamed about the journalist that got killed. i mean, we lost almost 5000 troops the last time, and we're going back again.

i think this time that when we go back and we're going to be over there for ever because as soon as we leave another group is going to spring up for us to keep going back and forth to iraq. so i think as sad as it is, as bad as it sounds, that we're going to troops in the region when we go back, and we are going back, regardless of what they suggested or the president says right now, we are going back with boots and we're going to be just like we are in germany, just like we are in korea. we're going to be in that region for ever. >> host: tony, do you think we have a responsibility to go back? >> caller: well, i think we have a responsibility because we started the mess. we have a responsibility because as bad as like the caller said earlier, as bad as saddam hussein was, we did not have these kind of problems in that region until we went in and took them out, until we really

destabilized libya enough for the people to kill moammar gadhafi. so we really destabilized this region. and that means that we have to stabilize it. the only way we can stabilize it is put boots on the ground and keep them there. just make it a normal military rotation, just like germany and korea, and that's very sad. >> host: that stone from fort worth, texas. a picture this morning on the front page of "the wall street journal" of eric holder on the streets of purpose in missouri -- ferguson, missouri. headline, in ferguson, holder tackles raise. they write holders presence in in december showed in his ability and what is to take the debate over race, a place the president feels unable to go there he met with brown's

parents, elected leaders and students at a local community college. african-american leaders interrupted contrasted intrepidity the contrasting approaches as a consequence of the limitations of the president's role as commander in chief. at times when his weight in public or a racially sensitive debate, obama's remarks have been politicized at the effect of hardening the country's racial divide. here's a video from eric holder visiting again in ferguson missouri. as you look at that we continue our calls for the next 18 minutes or so taking a look at statements by the president yesterday. specifically did with the terror group isis or isil, and we're asking you your thoughts how far the united states should go to defeat isis. (202) 585-3881 republicans, (202) 585-3880 democrats, and independents (202) 585-3882. here is william, fort lauderdale, florida, republican line. >> caller: good morning.

i think we should definitely stay on the offense against these terrorist groups. this group seems pretty well-funded and they're pretty intent on causing worldwide destruction, with the type of weapons in the world today. it's a matter of time probably before they get a hold of one. what bothers me is, we had a stronghold in iraq and we -- six years of this, the problem is we didn't have leadership to build on what we have done, the ground we had gained. i think we should have invaded u.s. motor base somewhere in the middle east and just part of our u.s. policy, because like i said, when they beheaded the journalist, i mean, that gives you an idea. i mean, these people aren't stopping unlike us, they are extremely dangerous. they are beheading little

children and killing people because of their religion and things like that. like i said, we should send like maybe get an international force together, maybe britain, france, germany and egypt may be, and jordan, and get their commando forces, you know, everybody puts a couple thousand commandos in there, the cream of the crop military, the guys that are really trained in circumstances like this. a group of 10,000 over there and just, and like i said, and i think former commanders, generals, they all warned that when we pulled out of iraq this is going to happen. we have to remember, too, that hillary clinton and bill clinton both voted for this war.

>> host: william, we lived there. i wanted to shoot the front page of a british newspaper the guardian and its take on the beheading that took place. the headline, then that for a british murder with hostages they in hands, showing the person who was disguised who committed the beheading and showing a picture of it on its front page. this is the british newspaper the guardian. we will go back to calls. this is david, florida. good morning, independent's line. >> caller: yes. i was born and raised in washington, d.c., so i read the post everyday. this all started back with the iran crisis. but they did want to do anything about that. we got saddam hussein and the bush to the idea we should take the weight back and then senior turned round, junior turned around and says over there and messed up that. you know, these guys have got to stop trying to be politically correct. you've got to turn right into the right thing. what the right thing is,

congress instead, they don't know what to do. they're just coming to d.c. to make money and leave. they don't want to do the jobs, stay out of my hometown. >> host: so what is the right thing that? >> caller: kill them all and let god sort them out. >> host: john up next from lakeland, florida, independent's line. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i agree with one of your callers who said this is not just the message from the it's a world problem. when you look at history 1939 with the net sees -- nazis but it took four or five years to step out the diseases with with 50 million people died. the world needs to amass 1 million trips of all civilized countries and go in there and take care of business. it's like vietnam, you know? sir, can i fire? you know, i'll be back with you, soldier. you couldn't bomb an outhouse without the presence of justice

lyndon johnson to prove the. that's what's happening in iraq and afghanistan with our poor troops. their hands are tied have the time. thank you very much. >> host: off of twitter the vice president, joe biden, weighing in on the beheading as well via tweet saying, our hearts go out to the foley family. we all mourn in jim's laws. robert from arizona, good morning, republican line. >> caller: good morning. yeah, i think putting band-aids on the situation in iraq is going to get it. we will have to go back big time and straighten it out. and also we need education for the youngsters, for the future, for our youngsters in the future. so we won't be living with the situation in the future. thank you. >> host: keith up next from michigan, democrats line. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning, go ahead comic my comment is on isis. i feel it's time for the people

of iraq to stand up and fight for the country. this has been going on for years. we've been over there. we can't keep continuing to go into regions and fight and lose our soldiers. like i said, this is not a short-term thing. this is been a long-term thing. these people should stand up, fight for the country, and stop depending on america. every time we go over there and do that, they have attempted to think that we should come in and save them. that's not how it should be. >> host: from bob in oklahoma city. you are next, go ahead. >> caller: thank you. yeah, i believe the president should get on tv right now and declare war against isis and in an islamic fundamentalist that wishes to take over an already established country. he should institute the draft. the young men out of the streets and in the fighting and believing in something, and stop doing business with the people

that are funding these people. this is the true face of islam. thank you. >> host: there's a story in the daily signal, a picture of the texas governor, rick perry. a story about how he is appearing in washington today, not only talking about events of recent but also to talk about immigration at the heritage foundation here in washington, d.c. that event takes place at 11:00 a.m. no indication whether he will talk about the recent charges against them. you can watch it live today at 11:00 on c-span. it's governor rick perry of texas talking about the new politics of immigration. john, good morning from louisiana, democrats line. >> caller: yes or. i'm just wondering how many more billions of dollars american people will have to pay for all these wars and stuff? >> host: keep going, john. keep going. >> caller: i'm trying to figure out, you know, we steady

spending money, money, money. why do they go for their and do what they got to do as far as the war and stuff and take these peoples out? >> host: that means to you what as far as be what got to do? does that mean boots on the ground? increased airstrikes? what does that mean? >> caller: i think they need to do more airstrikes and stuff, maybe boots on the ground. >> host: so some troop levels on the ground? >> caller: some yes, sir, some, but they need to use them drones and stuff more. >> host: that's john from louisiana. the "washington post" discussing a recent decision by a judge to release papers when it comes to the justice department's fast centers program. a name you probably heard of. jn jackson set an october 1s october 1st deadline.

pfs h >> host: here's james from michigan, democrats line. >> caller: yeah, i just want to talk about we think that we go over to iraq. you know, saddam, people are saying we should let them look at a don't think that's the right thing. saddam was a tyrant. he was doing things that should

have been going on. we went over there to help those people and create peace over there. and once we cleared a path for them to have peace, that's a process. and the process is breaking down again. whether we realize it or not, we still going to be involved in helping other countries, other states, i mean other places at least fight for peace. united states, you know, when we have much, much is given, when much is given much is needed. you have to do more. you have to help or. i don't see that but even though i know it comes at a cost, peace does. but we are playing a definite role in this world and we should understand that, and we should stand for the. we are doing the right thing. when you're doing something right it shouldn't be standing there something wrong. people think because when you're done right, it's the wrong thing and that's not what it is. >> host: and longtime observer

of the middle east and frequent guest on this program, and the piece in the "l.a. times" this month on the president or of these advising the president to be up front in iraq. here are some of her thoughts this morning. >> host: read more of the "l.a. times" website by the

author robin wright. here is jim, minnesota, republican line. gym for minnesota, hello? >> caller: a low. >> host: you are on. go ahead, please. >> caller: i think we are asking the wrong question. i think we should be asking the question, how did we allow isis to become so powerful as they are in the last couple of years? is not the fact that we got to do something now. it's we should have done something a long time ago. >> host: from twitter, weighing in with his thoughts saint isis is a threat to all, but particularly iran. defeating will strengthen iran, hezbollah, radicalism in the middle east. from minnesota also here is david. overhead, please. >> caller: hello? >> host: david for minnesota. you were on, go ahead. >> caller: i discuss something to see. the killing, they are killing kids and families over there in

iraq. and i think it's pretty sad. i think it's pretty sad they are over there killing people in iraq, and obama needs to do something about this. >> host: keep going, david. you're hearing yourself talk. go ahead. >> caller: it's just not right. obama needs to put his foot down and go over and take care of isis so they don't come over to the u.s. and start blowing our stuff up over here. it's pretty sad. they are killing kids. they are killing christian people. >> host: we lived there. maryjane from ohio. republican line. >> caller: i'm glad to get through. i really agree with a lot of the college but i think we need to get congress back and vote this as a message we got to get our troops back to the grid to great a coalition with all the three countries that are willing to stop this.

we voted obama in. he told us what he was going to do. he said he is going to pull our troops out. he didn't say was going to leave people there. he did exactly what we voted for. now, we don't like it so now we have to make another decision. we have to get our guys back in there and let them show their purple fingers once again. this is a mess. but we do so now we have to correct if. >> host: direction means what in your mind? >> caller: we have to get a coalition together. we have to get our congressman baca because our president is not going to do this. he told us what is going to do, and he did it. now we need somebody to change that and decided him to put our troops back on the ground and form a better coalition for all of the countries around the world. this has been going on since 1830s. they have been exacting wages

for people and my. >> host: so you would support boots on the ground and going that route? >> caller: i think we have to. we don't have any choice. it's not going to happen with a few -- went to find the people and we need to be able to discern that are the problem if we were on the ground. you can't see the problem completely from 30,000 feet in the air. you've got to get down and that's what we have to do. we made a bad choice. now we have to corrected. >> host: that is maryjane from ohio. that would be a last call on this topic. >> this week on "washington journal" we will be focusing on president lyndon johnson's vision for a great society. and its impact today. tune in at 7 a.m. eastern time and join the conversation by calling us are sending us an e-mail, you can also send us a tweet at c-span to reach a better handle and join the conversation at facebook.com/cspan.

>> earlier today to eric holder announced a eric holder announced a $70 million settlement with bank of america over that institutions will in the 2008 financial crisis. he discussed the justice department will an investigation looking at the murder of american journalist james foley by the group isis. is a look. >> yesterday as you know i visited further in her to be debriefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the august night shooting death of michael brown. the investigation i launched more than a week ago. during the course of my kids i met with law enforcement as well as community leaders. we had i think constructive discussions about the importance of maintaining these, averting future acts of violence or vandalism, and ensuring public safety as well as the need for outraged and engagement to rebuilding fractured trust in the committee and law enforcement community that serves. going for it i will continue to get regular updates and closely monitor the situation as it

unfolds. although our investigation will take time, although i cannot discuss the specifics of this case in greater detail since it remains open and active, people of ferguson can have confidence in the federal agents, investors and prosecutors who are leading this process. our investigation will be fair. it will be thorough and it will be independent. on a personal note i've seen a lot in my time as attorney job few things have affected as greatly as my visit to ferguson. i had the chance to meet the family of michael brown. i spoke to them not just as attorney job but as a father with a teenage son myself. they like something in ferguson want answers. in my conversations with dozens of people in ferguson yesterday, it was clear that this shooting incident has brought to the surface underlying tensions that have existed for many years. there is a history to the

tensions and that history simmers and more commuters than just ferguson. law enforcement has a role to play in reducing tensions as well. as a brother a very tired long for an officer i know firsthand that our men and women in uniform perform their duties in the face of tremendous threat and significant personal risk, with their lives on the line everyday and often have to make split second decisions. a national outcry we've seen speaks to a sense of mistrust and mutual suspicion that can take hold in relationship between law enforcement and certain communities. i wanted the people of ferguson to know that i personally understood that ms. truss. i wanted to know that while so much else may be uncertain, this attorney general and the department of justice stands with the people of ferguson. i hope the relative calm we witnessed over the night last night can be endured. to a person yesterday we take great pride in the town. and despite the missed trust,

they reject the violence that we've seen over the past couple of weeks. in that sense while i went to ferguson to provide reassurance, in fact they gave me hope. my commitment to them is that long after this tragic story no longer exceeds this level of attention of the justice department continue to stand with ferguson. we will continue the conversation this incident has brought about the need for trust building between law enforcement officers and the communities that they serve, about the appropriate use of force and the need to ensure fair and equal treatment everyone comes into contact with the police. >> a portion of the attorney joshua marshall earlier today. you can see the entire briefing later on our schedule r watch income on line at c-span.org. >> here's a look at a primetime schedule on c-span networks.

starting at eight eastern on c-span the heartland institute holds a discussion on climate change issues. on c-span2 its booktv with authors speaking at book fairs and festivals. and on our companion network c-span3 it's american history tv with programs on the civil war's atlantic campaign and the subsequent march to the sea. >> we return now to "washington journal" for discussion on a recent report looking at poverty in the u.s. this is close to one hour. >> host: joining us from the brookings institution, elizabeth kneebone, program fell for the metropolitan project. good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> host: you took a look at poverty in the united states, a long-term report as far as nationwide. what kind of drove the support, why did you looking to? >> guest: for the past couple of years at brookings we've been studying the shifting geography of poverty in the u.s. so tracking trends over time,

particularly for the recession but also thinner 100 largest metro areas where we've seen a pivotal shift and where poverty is located. for the first time in the 2000s we passed the tipping point where there are now more poor living in suburbs and in cities in these regions. so the latest report was a deeper look at that. within these regions what's happening at the neighborhood level, and in that report the numbers show not only is poverty becoming more regional, becoming more suburbanize, is becoming more concentrated. there are more poor people living in high poverty are distressed neighbors than at the beginning of the decade, and more of those neighborhoods are emerging in suburban communities who historically have not been home to such high levels of poverty. >> host: why suburban regions? why is it happening there transferred a number of reasons have worked together to drive the this increase from poverty in recent years. you have shifts within these regions in terms of our population is to suburbs are

growing faster than cities in the 2000 becoming more diverse as they added people. you have shifts in the housing market where a formal housing is located within to help shape this trend. it may be housing stock in suburbs aged into affordability. maybe it wasn't affordable once upon a time but has become more attainable for low-income residents. we had the impact of the foreclosure crisis which about three quarters of the subprime loans happened in suburbs in the 2000s. and since the collapse of the housing market, about three quarters of foreclosures have also happened in those communities are then you have the economic impact as well. losing jobs, shifting toward suburbs over time, some the most suburbanize industries like services, retail, construction to lower paying occupations and also ones that were hit hard in

the most recent recession. >> host: so is poverty different in the suburban level rather than in the urban core rural areas? is iis a different kind or gente way of living how do people adjust and adapt? >> guest: it can be a diverse range of expenses because suburbs themselves come we didn't think of them as one can place but they are a diverse mix of committees so it can impact what people are expecting poverty within those communities. some places suburban poverty is often more hidden. it can be difficult for local theaters, community leaders to understand the level of need that these places are sprinting today because they are not seeing, a lot of these communities they haven't built up the the same sorts of infrastructure and services, supports, safety net services that cities have built up over decades. now with this rapid growth they can create a lot of additional charges for low-income people who may not have access to emergency services or safety net supports that they need or things like public

transportation and ways to get to jobs and services elsewhere in the region. >> host: as far region. >> host: as for the areas affected come are there certain areas of the country that were more affected than others? >> guest: what's been so striking is all most every major metro area saw the suburban population growth. and wide spread train. a lot of different kinds of suburbs. we have older places have struggled with poverty for longer have higher concentrations of poverty as well, but also poverty is reaching further out into regions, more affluent committees we tend to think of as immune to these trees. each with an widespread and widely shared challenge and growing interest and there's. >> host: the impact of the growth of poverty in suburban areas our topic for our guest. talk about details of the report and look at others but if you want to ask a question, maybe you can relate experiences that you anecdotally or directly have been involved with. here's your chance to do so.

(202) 585-3881 republican. (202) 585-3880 democrats. (202) 585-3882. you can send us a tweet's and also send us e-mails. some of the highlights that we talked about from 2000-2012 is distressed neighborhoods growing. the nation's 100 largest metro areas, 70% of all distressed locations and poor population and high poverty areas grew by 21% to talk about the last element. what about elsewhere, what are we seeing? >> guest: that's the thing, the growth of poverty has touched all kinds of places, urban areas, suburban community, rural commuters. suburbs became home to the fastest growth in the 2000s and also the largest overall. we look at concentrations of poverty. something that's typically been seen as an urban phenomenon and it's true the majority of distressed neighborhoods have been in cities and continue to

be in cities. we are seeing this emergence of concentrated poverty beyond urban cores in new places that have less experience with those challenges especially in suburban communities. a number of suburban for living in distressed communities which poverty rates of 40% or higher, that population grew by 139% in the span of a decade, so very rapid increase. when we look to the 20% threshold of poverty which is where we start to see the challenges of concentrated poverty in merged, then we saw a doubling of the suburban population. >> host: for our guests, questions welcome. my apologies, the lines are different for east and central time zones. as a result of your research there was a recent column take a look at ferguson, missouri and

issues with serve up a policy. talk about that, what did you find? >> guest: that's right. looking at ferguson, in many ways it's very typical, very emblematic of the types of trends we've seen nationally. if anything it's, veterans are more pronounced with an ferguson and we've seen on the national average. between 2000-2008 pashtun answer, between 202012, over the span of a deck of the poor population in ferguson doubled. at the same time that concentration of poverty that i was talking but also became more pronounced in the region. in 2010 neighborhood within ferguson, none of those met that 20% threshold that we talk about. by the end of the decade almost every neighborhood was at that 27% level or above. very rapid economic ship within a very short amount of time. >> host: d.c. correlation between those situations economically and what you see a source on the streets of ferguson?

are the underlying issues when it comes to economics? >> guest: i think there are challenges we see that we've also, my colleague and i've been studying these trends come have seen in communities across the country, the committee has changed a great deal, demographic and economic the short amount of time. those changes have been reflected in the leadership structure of the committee. the elected officials, the police force don't reflect the rapid demographic shift. i think that's something a lot of communities around the country are experiencing an cannot always, but it can create tensions in terms of dealing with the challenges that are emerging. >> host: to your calls, taking a look at the impact of the growth of poverty in suburban areas. arthur, democrats lie, you are a first. you are on with elizabeth kneebone of the brookings institution. >> caller: good morning. the poverty situation,

especially with the senior citizens, i think that the senior citizens are charged way too much for rent and stuff like that. as far as the ferguson situation, i think what's going on, it's a given subject but what's going on in iraq -- >> host: let's get to your initial comments of social security issues and things like that. elizabeth kneebone. >> guest: i think the issue of the aging population is a very important piece of this puzzle as a look at the shift in poverty. it's not as we've seen a rise, there are growing share of the elderly poor live in suburban communities that now these places are struggle with issues about how to help people ag agen place whether don't miss this have infrastructure like public? >> guest: , like the safety

net services and support for an aging and low income population. there are challenges around how to provide more affordable housing options. those wraparound support the committee possible for people to age so that' that the growing challenge in a lot of places. >> host: bernie from new york. go ahead please. >> caller: could you just tell me how the brookings institute is financed and what is its mission? thank you. >> caller: >> guest: we received our funding particularly for this work in studying poverty from foundations. so the ford foundation have been supporters of our work on low income families and committees in the growth of poverty. >> host: some of the areas where suburban areas have seen growth in poverty include colorado springs, colorado, winston-salem, north carolina, against the-richmond county, georgia. were you surprised by these

results? >> guest: what we noticed was the growth and confident of poverty. there's a great deal of overlap in places we've seen a large increase in suburban poverty overall. so places that are by the recession in particular because of this trend accelerated following the downturn. so there's a lot of overlap with the general regional economic trends. >> host: maryland, thanks rolling on. go ahead. >> caller: i just want to say that, i'm excited by this type of demographic shift. but one of the things i'm not sure the analyst, or perhaps your take into consideration come is that there are pressures in urban centers where low income and working class people are being forcibly dismissed, dislocated or forcibly relocated out into the periphery of our urban centers or into the suburbs. and the interest is to really

bring suburban folks back because of disposable income. so i assume, one, you might see this democratic -- demographic shift because of that but secondly i think that poverty has been concentrate for a long time, so certainly it might be a new phenomenon to have poverty concentrate in suburbs but, so important thing is to look at what are the underpinnings of concentrated poverty? why is it sort of persistent, right? no matter where it moves. where it moves is interesting. and then the thing about ferguson is, and i'm a former police officer as well, now i'm an academic in anthropology, but the thing about ferguson is that we're going to experience a sort of increased exponentially increase of incidents like what is happening in ferguson. because you have these police forces in these suburban like bedroom communities that are

being supported by dislocated population at their not culturally prepared nor sensitive to do with the on top of the fact that there is the long-term racism that's been sort of unmitigated and just continuous. >> host: before you leave, and we'll talk about your point, what's the situation in maryland? is there anything to what our guess is talking about you can see their? >> caller: yet. so the metropolitan -- maryland, and i used to live in landover, maryland, at the metropolitan d.c. area has gone to the same sort of shift. to which you have is a lot of working-class, low-income people being forced to be removed. ..ere is in fact -- well, there's no evidence of an increase in crime. but the perception is that hese areas are now being inundated with people with

criminal behaviors. that's not me tembings d out in evidence but it is there and the stereotypes we have. guest: a lot of good points there that i'll speak to in the order they were raised. one, the housing market shifts that may be contributing to these trends, particularly in certain markets like the washington, d.c. area, the san rancisco bay area, new york, boston, where we've even housing price pressures increasing and the shortage of affordable housing. that definitely factors as low income and moderate income residents are looking for affordable places to live and they have to look further out into theac region. a piece of the puzzle, the magnitude of these trend, the large, sort of pace of growth we've seen and shifts that we've seen is more to the story than just that. there. are a lot of larger factors kind

of woven together to explain increases in poverty. and i think that is absolutely right. the d.c. area is also very typical of the trend we've seen nationally in terms of the growth of poverty in the suburbs. in terms of the persistence of concentrated poverty, i think, in the 1990s, cues me, in the 1990s, we actually did make progress against concentrated poverty. we sawnc number of distressed neighborhoods decline. the number of poor living in such neighborhoods fell. there was really progress. that happened in an era with a tight labor market, an economy that was booming and reached downha the economic ladder and policies were in place to deacons straight poverty, counteracting decades of policies that helped to concentrate poverty, for instance in publican housing tht was very concentrated in high poverty neighborhoods. so thein introduction of housing

choice vouchers and other policies to deacons trait poverty and those things together with a tight economy really helped to make progress against those trends. as soon as we 10ered the 2,000s, we entered the recession and quickly lost progress. when you look over the length of the decade, after two recessions, two uneven recoveries that did not reach down the economic ladder we've race ad lot of progress we made in the 1990s. >> host: new york up next. craig, hello. >> caller: how are you doing? the thing i don't understand is tooc relocate people i don't understand what good that does? i've seen many, many relocations over the years. i used to have a place in florida. i have lived up here for many, many years, it just seems that you're moving the problem to somewhere else. it is not helping the people. i mean, it seems to me that if you're a in place, take a place

like the bronx and you just totally tear it down, and you make nice apartments for these people. youme give people opportunity, n that culture to go have their own businesses, to have predominantly, predominantly, the situation now, where they want predominantly black for the police force, if you did that, and you gave themselves the sense of pride, you made schools and you geared those schools to the problems that these children are having, and, giving them a better education, focusing in on what they really need, wouldn't thatre abettor suggestion and a better ruse of the money where money where people would move up and they would do better? instead of taking one place over here, where you're putting it into another area, but you're notr solving the problem for these people.

>> host: craig,. thanks. >> guest: first off, i think it is important when we talk about these trend it often easy to talk about people moving in or moving out, the fact that this isct about movement. again that is a piece of the puzzle. we have seen those dynamics at play butt there is also a largr story here about a downward economic mobility. that there are a number of people, becausea of the impact f two recessions, of structural changes in the economy, that sees, that has seen the rapid growth oy f lower-paying jobs, jobs that even if you're working full-time wouldn't get a family above the poverty line, those dynamics arey at play which a t of people have become poorer in place. the rise of poverty is not about low income people relocating to these communities but long-term residents becoming poorer over time. which raises challenges how you meet the level of need places are seeing typically not dealt

with these challenges. to the caller's point the need to have more integrated and better targets services in terms of making sure low income neighborhoods and populations have access to quality education, to good jobs, to safe housing all of those are very important ceases in neighborhoods and communities where we've seen more innovative and effective responses to these trend, it really has been about linking together those types of strategies to improve opportunities for low income people to become more economically stable t and self-sufficient over time. >> host: eastern and central time zones number to call the impact ofub suburban poverty. if you live in the mountain and pacific times, 202-558-3881. elizabeth kneebone, off twitter, if children are born into poverty today, very little chance of them getting out. is that the case? >> well, we have seen recent research by harvard and others

shown we're not as economically mobile and socially mobile of a society as i think we tend to perceive ourselves. >> host: which means what? >> guest: which means that the ability, if you're born into poor family to get into the top parto of the income distributin that your chances are not as good as parts of other western countries of thehe developed world. so there is an issue. it actually comes back a lot of times where you were born and where you were raised. the place really does matter in determining how mobile you are over time, socially and economically. that is also why there's a real concern about the growth of concentrated poverty because research has shown the more segregated regions are by income and race, the less mobile residents are, not even of just poor neighborhoods. anyone in that region shows a lower levels, of mobility over time. these really, they are not just challengesr facing low income people in communities affected by them but the broader regions

which they a live and are locat. >> host: east chicago, indiana, that is where rosa is. hi. >> caller: hi. i wanted to ask her about how she felt maybe technological changes impact the economy, more international -- >> host: rosa, go ahead, keep going. >> caller: ask her how the marketrk changed now and how it affects our economy here? a greatt: that is question andha really important piece of this discussion are the structural changes that we've seen with globalization, with the rise of technology, that we have seen sort of a decline in number ofin middle wage jobs we have, especially the decline of manufacturing and shift toward more service sector, lower-paying occupation, even in the recovery as we look now, we're adding jobs, clear we need

to think beyond the number of jobs and actually what kinds of jobs we're creating because again we've seen rapid growth of jobs with low wages even someone working full time is not necessarily to get them above the poverty line. the economic recovery we won't necessarily see improvement in these trend if we aren't creating economic opportunities that can reach down the ladder and allow people to pass out of poverty. >> host: we showed areas of the country dealing with suburban policy are there areas that have improved their situation where people are becoming, at least numbers of poverty are decreasing? >> guest: so the impact of the recessionly erase ad lot of the progress. someer regions were able in the early 2000s make progress against poverty, by and large almost every mate juror metro area is one of growing poverty. because the recovery we've seen since the great recession has been so uneven and hasn't really reached down to the lower income residents in this country.

with have yet to see real progress against poverty with the recession. stuck at postrecession highs. as recovery continues we'll eventually see some improvements but it is very slow process for regions thus far. >> host: bud, go ahead. make sure your tv is turned down, ifn' you haven't. >> caller: my question for you, elizabeth, have you ever lived in poverty? until you lived in poverty you reallypo don't know what poverty is. poverty is is increasing in this country every year of the dow know how many k children, every morning, come to school without a breakfast? every morning there is thousands of children coming to school breakfast. now that is poverty. some reason they're not getting a breakfast, either the families can't afford the food or, other reasons. i don't know. but, you know, to me you have to

live in poverty to know what poverty is and that is all i have to say. >> host: before you go, has poverty been in your family or your experience? >> caller: no. i've been really lucky. i am on a limited income but i watch very carefully what i spend and,t it seems like every year, every year the cost of living and everything goes up. every year, and it takes more and more of my income to live. and i, eventually, i will probably be down there in the poverty level.wn and i am in poverty level. i only make $22,000 a year. that is what i live off of. can you do that, elizabeth? >> guest: you're making a really good point about the impacts that growing poverty has had, particularly on school-aged children and school populations. that is again something we've seen not just in cities but

increasingly inee suburban communities where the growth of students onur free and reduced price lunch has been rapidly increasing in recent years. we find schools often grappling and struggling with that new reality, particularly because there is often limited safety nets and services in those communities. so the school is often having to step up.en they're on the front lines of trying toy' provide the wraparod support like feeding children breakfast and lunch. providing things like food pantries, clothing banks and medical and dental services. so they can address the basic and primary need of these children before they can even get to their educational goals for these children and their families. and,he again, that is really difficult context for these schoolsre because budgets havent keptes pace. they're often using very limited resources to try to stretch and create these wraparound opportunities to address the growing poverty in the community. >> host: you bring up a good point. what defines poverty in the u.s.? >> guest: the povertyth line,

federal poverty line in u.s. in 2012 was $23,500 for a family of four. it adjusts based on your family size but it does not adjust based on cost of living across different regions so it is the same measure nationally. >> host: people in suburban levels are living at that level of income? >> guest: that's right. that'sac right. when we look across urban and suburban communities, significant share is living below half of the poverty line. 40% of poor and cities and suburbs are living below half level. >> host: at some point maybe they bought a house that was too big or lost their job, a bunch of contributing factors? cheap money at time during the housing crisis, how does that factor into people's situations? >> guest: particularly in recent years, people flipped into the poverty maybe for the first time, the stories you hear often about that one major setback,

that sort of what set the dominoes tumbling. whether it was a health setback where they had massive medical bills that were not able to go back to work at the level which they had been working before. they lost their house. their house is underwater after the foreclosure crisis. so, often either they may have been making it even before just a few years ago but that one crisis was all it took to send them below the poverty line. >> host: you'ree guest elizabeth kneebone of brookings institution. jeff from california, hi. >> caller: how are you doing this morning? >> host: good, go ahead. >> caller: what is happening to america is effects of neocon conservatism, when you have deregulation and no tariffs and embraces open markets what it does, it causes, well, i mean, alexander hamilton was thoroughly against such ideas andth this country thrived for, you know 200 years and after world war ii, to ronald reagan,

we had the strongest middle class in the history of the planet. and the top 1% paid 90% of the tax burden in this country. then we got other problems like nafta. nafta ultimately gave way for every company and corporation and contractors to hire cheaper labor from across the border and put americans out of work. i myself, journeyman carpetter. i built houses all over california. i built probably a thousand houses almost just in the santa cruz area, hollister and central coast area in california. i used to make anywhere from 50 to 60 grand a year. i've been out of work for almost 10 yearst now. the same guy, doing my job right now is barely making minimum wage. he no hbla english, but they're exploited by rich americans, the top 1%. harris ranch company out here in california. it isyn union's gone and their total employment there is all

illegal aliens. >> host: thanks, caller. >> guest: there are definitely mechanisms and levels that the federal government can pull to address these issues and becoming increasingly important as we look at shifts happening structurally in the economy, impact ofe the recession, the growth of low-wage work. there are, the types of policies that the federal government is actually in a good place and role to play. so in things like tax policy. things like earned income tax credit, makeme a big difference helping to boost take-home pay of low income workers and has measurable effect alleviating poverty. there are proposes on the hill right now to increase the eitc, particularly for workers without children who really get a very small benefit at this point and not playing the same sort of antipoverty effect that it could orul plays for families with children, so that sort of

federal tax policy is an area where the federal government can step in and help ameliorate some of these trend. of course we've seen growth of minimum wageow discussions and campaigns across cities and states that are trying to grapple with these issues within their communities. thge federal government could play a role in that debate as well, actually helping across the nation to raise that level. and increase the take-home pay of lower wage workers. >> host: elizabeth kneebone, part of your piece in missouri, part of research release ad map in areas in what are we look at that map? what kind of information? what is that telling us? >> guest: shows growth of not only poverty in st. louis county but concentrations of poverty in higher poverty neighborhoods. again, within ferguson, missouri, these are census track level data. we know within 2,000, within

ferguson's border the census tracks had poverty rates between four and 16%. a decade later, every neighborhood in ferguson had double-digit poverty rates. the lowest poverty rate was 13%. the rest of the communities and rest of neighborhoods within that community ranged from roughly 22% to 33% poverty rates. within ferguson and other parts of st. louis county they're grappling with the trends. >> host: map shows one thing but another perspective on ferguson situation, jeffrey smith. former state senator. professor smith. goodt: morning. >> caller: thanks for having me. >> host: we know the map and locations, talk about ferguson and surrounding areas, for people who especially don't live about specific areas of that area that might be interesting to note as far as ferguson andr other areas surrounding it, their economic picture and situation? >> caller: okay. so ferguson is sort of north

central st. louis county. north county as a whole experienced sweeping demographic change over the course of the last 20 years. many of the listeners probably seen statistics showing ferguson's change. 20 years ago it was 3/4 white. now it is nearly 70% black. that change is not atypical throughout north st. louis county. there has been a foreclosure epidemic in north county. a lot of the suburbs just to the south and to the east of the particularly to the east of ferguson have really, really struggled over the last couple decades. so it is an area that, ferguson proper, doesn't look like most of what people have seen. if you've only been watching the protest, that doesn't give an accurate picture of ferguson. most of ferguson is single family, working class, kind of

homes, suburban style ranch houses, three bed, two bath, regular looking houses. there is very affluent part of ferguson which is, leafy, kind of turn of the century mansions. but the part of course that we've been looking at is one of the rougher parts of ferguson. so i would stay ferguson itself is sort of a microcosm of suburban st. louis because it's got a little bit of everything in it. >> host: as far as its economics picture, what events e led up to its current economic picture? >> guest: well, we've had the decimation, you've had the decimation of the auto manufacturing sector. a lot ofno l people know this. st. louis was the second leading auto manufacturing center in the country to detroit and, you know, has lost a ton of jobs in that sector. a lot of those jobs were just north of ferguson in a town called hazelwood and, so that's

really hurt the ferguson area a lot. st. louis lost a lot of other corporate headquarters over last couple decades. that obviously hasn't helped. ferguson isnd also right next dr to the airport. the airport is another institution that is really struggled. twa got, went into bankruptcy andno ended up getting bought by american. it used to have its hub in st. louis but that is, you know, but then with the absorption into american, it is, you know, it is not as, you know, it is not as central. st. louis is not a central player in the airline business. southwest fortunately has grown but the airport in, just in general hasn't done what people hoped it wouldt do. they built an extra runway. this is kind of an interesting story. and as part of the noise mitigation they emptied out a town called kin lock.

ad just to the airport. many of residents ended have we poor and ended up moving into ferguson. there have public policies affected population movements into ferguson that produced some of the economic conditions and frustration that we witnessed last couple week. >> host: our guest here was mobility,out thoue people able to move to other places for a better opportunity. what is the situation in ferguson as far as mobility is concerned and the ability to do so? >> caller: well in terms of moving, a lot of the movement in and out of ferguson i'm not sure you would call it voluntary. as i said, foreclosures have been pervasive in that part of north county and adjacent towns in north county. a lot of people have been moving involuntarily. there has been some new economic development in the area. express scripts, which is a

pharmacy benefits management firm, has created thousands of jobsar at a headquarters adjacet to ferguson. so there have been some economic opportunities. you know, people shouldn't paint the picture that this is a you know, destitute area but for the most part as i said, just struggling, working class. folks and a lot of stability in the middle class and affluent parts of ferguson, and a lot of instability in the poorest parts that we've seen and heard about. >> host: as far as jobs are concerned what are the jobs opportunities like? j what kind of salaries are making? >> caller: at express scripts salaries are very good. that is their world headquarters right there. so there is a lot of jobs for people, particularly people with science background, that are, you know, good, solid, family supporting jobs. unfortunately i don't think most of those people taking those jobs are moving to ferguson.

it is an area where the white population is of much older, because of the demographic change there, there aren't many young white families moving into ferguson. most ofil the, and that helps explain the power differentials as well. if you're under 18 years old, you can't vote and youth population in ferguson is mostly black. mrs. if you're 18 to 30 you're much less likely to vote than people who are over 55. and so when people look at these demography numbers, ferguson, 67% black, why are there no black people on the city council, one reason why, voting turnout trend across the country, definitely suggested older people, much more likely people to turn out. since the white population of ferguson so much older than the black population, that helps explain some of what, some of this power disparity. >> host: if trends continue as you see them, professor smith,

what is the future of ferguson? >> caller: i hate to say this, and it has been interesting to watch overbe the last couple das as this i love ferguson movement kind of hit the more affluent, generally whiter parts of town, people putting up yard signs, sort of suggesting that they're not going anywhere, but my gut is that this will, this episode will only accelerate the trend of white flight out of ferguson to suburbs, mostly west of ferguson like bridgeton and the adjacent county, st. charles county. so. my, yeah, my gut is that te 2020 census will probably see another significant increase in the blackfi population relativeo the white population in ferguson. but youe know, that is just, based on, you know, on both past trend and then, you know, unfortunate reality, that a lot of white people in st. louis are

watching this, saying oh, my gosh, i don't want to be anywhere near this. >> host: professor jeffrey smith at new school. former missouri state senator. wrote a couple of pieces on ferguson and what is going onus there. professor smith, thank you for your time. >> caller: thank you for having meuc on. >> host: elizabeth kneebone, any comments that struck you? >> guest: what he talked about the continued white flight, that is something we're seeing in older regions as well, originally we saw in urban areas but now entering is a bushes and further out. land use patterns and zoning make a difference to help shape these trends. as new housing keeps building further out and opening opportunities for higher income residents to move out, you may end up this sort of recreek -- re-creation, concentrated pockets of people of color, of poverty, recreating some of the challenges that we've seen in cities and entering suburbs.

there are policy, zoning, land use mechanisms you could put in place to encourage more mixed income,we stable communities soe don't see tipping an increased entrenched poverty. >> host: talk about impact of suburban policy, taking a look at ferguson. we appreciate your calls as well. we appreciate you holding on, especially gary, connersville, indiana. thanks for holding on, good morning. >> caller: want to point something out here that's real important. i think it gets overlooked quite a g bit. and it is a fact that a lot of people are not born with the same intellectual skill set like when i was in school. there was guys barely cracking

books bringing bringing home straight as and other guys with a c plus ifer this lucky. they used to give aptitude tests in school. that is something time has tendency to overlook or don't care about either one and so, there is a, a place for everybody in our economy and in our job market, for every level and that needs to be more respected and taken into consideration and, last thing i want to say, i appreciate c-span and all of you there. thanks for taking my call. >> host: educational attainment. >> guest: i think the increased interest and commitment to early childhood education as part of this discussion is so important because the ability to make sure get to school ready to learn, we know that that has really strong returns to their outcomes in their long run and n improve educational attainment and career outcomes and earnings over the long run. so i think, i think it can only

be, it can't be emphasized enough the importance of investing in, in early childhood, from, you know, from birth. a lot of the really interesting, sort of collective impact models around education to improve, decrease gaps in attainment across race, ethnicity, income, educational attainment and career pathways starts from cradle to career perspective. you can't start early enough to make sure kids get skills and supports they need to eequipment them to be successful. >> host: nicky, lake havasu city, arizona. on with elizabeth kneebone of brookings institution. go ahead. >> caller: thank you so much. i had a couple ideas for a while. some of these groups that go marching, talking about ghetto areas, t probably, to start wit, you have all the guys out there

marching. why don't the community, the naacp, some of those groups formulate a march into these neighborhoods with paint cans and paintbrushes and people that can do small repairs and clean up the yards and give these people a little lift instead of this constant, grind in a way about racism. i bet you find just as many white people there with paintbrushes as you would black people. this race thing is killing our country. >> guest: i think, one of the challenges with rapid growth of poverty in suburbs and emergence of concentrated poverty in communities like ferguson and other suburbs, again gets back to thes lack of capacity in infrastructure. following the war on poverty in

urban communities, there was a real effort, a real grassroots effort to create community organizations, community leadership, community networks. so there was a voice and participation of community residents in the political process, in improving their neighborhoods and outcomes. we really haven't, there is not that same sort of infrastructure or history in the suburbs. excuse me. and i think when we see this sort of situation in ferguson and other communities dealing with these sorts of tensions it really underscores the importance of creating those sort of grassroots movements, those, connections within the community that you're strengthening and building community networks and giving a voice and pathway to leadership for community residents so we can start changing that lag in the political leadership structure that we're seeing in some of these communities. >> host: if we're seeing thesef trend, what does it mean for the federal government when it comes to antipoverty programs? >> for one, there is clearly with the level of need we're

seeing today, there is such and ongoing need for the safety net which is often in discussions being cut or further curtailed. things like food stamps, the snap program, earned income tax credit, programs we know really make a difference. it is important to strengthen and support those programs. as we see more broadly about antipoverty policy being able to do so through the lens of place is so important because just, just a federal blanket, sort of policy doesn't really capture the experience of different places. so many of these communities coming from a different starting point to begin with in terms of level ofwi capacity or resources or ability to connect their residents and communities to economic opportunity and pathways out of poverty. successful policy that will recognize those different starting points and be able to taylor effectively to the needs of those places. >> host: representative paul ryan has new book dealing with

issues among poverty he would like to see when some of these programs are concerned. he said today we're spending 800 billion on 92 federal antipoverty programs yet highest poverty rate in the generation. the solution can't be found within general bureaucracy and individual with the community that supports them. we're not empower people, we're overseeing them. that has got to change. >> guest: that observation how fragmented the federal system is very true. as we work in communities across the country, a big barrier to more effectively address the issues the fact we have inflexible and fragmented federal system in many ways was designed for urban poverty and doesn't necessarily map easily on to is suburban context. thatnk observation is absolutely correct. in paul ryan's recommendations how he actually goes about suggesting we address these issues he doesn't really say anything about place.

>> host: consolidating some of the programs, making them state grants for states to oversee? >> guest: bringing 11 programs together like housing vouchers and snap and food stamps program, block granting them essentially. >> host: what is wrong with that approach? >> guest: couple things raise concern for me in that approach. blocky granting says, they won't cut any fund going to the programs but something like food stamps and snap program is so effective because it can respond to changes in the economy. we saw food stamp receipts increase following the recession because there was growing need. it tend to again taper off as the economy gets stronger. so that responsiveness is what is so important how that program is effective. when you block grant a program like that you really remove its ability to respond so quickly and so adequately to these issues. there are also concerns too that as he is talking about allowing more flexibility at the state level, again he doesn't bring in this lens of place.

thinks, for instance in this, we're block granting the program to make sure there is flexibility. he suggests that each person r family who needs access to the safety net would have a caseworker who would be able to help them navigate these programs and come up with a plan. for one, and there would be tied to things liketh work requiremes and other measures. so the reason why it would be important to inject place into that discussion is your job prospects in fresno are very different than your job prospects in san francisco. for instance, not, even within the same state, different communities have different labor markets. the types of jobs available vary. and whether or not those jobs actually offer a path out of poverty. where are those jobs located? can you get to them? can you afford to live near one of those jobs, or commute to one of those jobs. all color person's ability to meet those sort of requirements and work their way out of poverty. the other place, talking about

this caseworker, that assumes that sort of presence of a safetyas net across different kinds of communities which we know is, is not evenly distributed. the suburban safety net is much thinner, patchier, types of providers present in the first place are patchier, much smaller, lower capacity. the idea you could even present that hands-on approach, whether or not we agree that is the right approach to take, just even theha ability to implement something likeit that is very questionable if you don't think about the lens of place. and if we're going to have a budget neutral proposal, the cost of creating that sort of capacity would be, necessitate cutting in to the very programs that we're talking about trying to provide. >> host: patty up next from buffalo, new york, for elizabeth kneebone. hello. >> caller: hello. i make two or three brief statements. poor people of lower level education make up largest portion of this country's

population. quality education for lower people of education help them if the jobs would pay them $16 or more per hour. i will take my call off the air so you may answer my question. thank you. >> guest: so, i think that is very, so education is clearly a very important piece of this puzzle. there are regions where we know there are good-paying jobs that don't require four-year degree but they're having trouble filling those positions. that suggests there is mismatch between the skilled training in the lower-income workforce and job openings. that suggests a policy fix. there is opportunity for training, for human capital development, so that residents of these communities can actually connect to the good-paying jobs that are already in them but it does require a quality education in types of skills and

certifications necessary ands that pipeline will then lead to the job. so making connections across these sectors, the non-profit and education community and employment and employer based in the community. in other places as we're trying to attract those better paying jobs and build up that job space, again, if there is a quality education system in place and opportunity to create more trained and skilled workers, that makes those sorts of communities attractive to the employers looking for a place to open their new plant or new industry within that region. so the, education, human capital and skills training piece can't be underestimated, the importance of actually creating jobs that pay and ability for this part of the workforce to connect to those jobs. >> host: from florida, thiso is kathleen. hi. >> caller: good northerning. morning. i don't understand why the problem of equating poverty with destruction is ever addressed.

when housing unit are built for these people they are not slums and in a very short time just destroyed. the schools, all of the solutions that would help these people are available. many of the people who live in poverty don't want to take advantage of them. they just can't be bothered. many of the children who go to school without breakfast, it is not because they're poor. it is because there is nobody there to take care of them. and i think those are things we should look at. i grewat up in a neighborhood tt was adjacent to what is now the south bronx and people who lived in those tenements did not make slums out of them. they worked to move out of them. everyone i knew, their fathers had a second job.

sometimes a second full-time. my father had a second part-time job because they wanted to work their way up to a better way of living. >> guest: so, actually when we look at the poor population today, the majority of poor people are working, or in the family that's working. so we're really talking about working poor. itth does come back to this iss, what kinds of jobs are actually available? can they be the kind of employment opportunities that allow for a stable environment? we werefo talking before earlier about the instability in the low income community in ferguson. i think you see that more broadly, when you don't have a stable housing situation or are forced to move often because of economic circumstances, can make all of these things much harder, connecting to a job, holding education and have to move from schools because of economic circumstances and inability to find stable housing situation. it is not one thing. there is usually a compounded,

you know, multilayered set of challenges, that are facing these families and residents. and you layer on to that in thesets communities, if you have absentee landlords the issue of not enforcing housing code or keeping up properties, it complicates that ability to invest and make sure that we are creating healthy, stable, housing environments. >> host: what has to happen to reverse these trend that you're seeing? >> guest: the facts that we're seeing, regional shift, growth obviously poverty is still a concern in many major cities and concentrated poverty as well, increasingly suburbs addressing same a challenges, shows need fr more regional solution, a more regional perspective addressing thes me issues. our labor markets operate at regional level. that is why we have the metropolitan statistical areas we do. becomes understanding how we make decisions around affordable housing and how we invest in the transit infrastructure.

job attraction and retention strategies, workforce development. often decisions get made in policy p silos but it is so important to integrate them because of impact they have on one another and ability to determine the sort of access that low income people and places have to regional economic opportunities. so when you have concentrated pockets of poverty, if we ignore this emerging trend within suburbs, you do run the risk of creating same kind of entrenched challenges that exist in cities. instead we should think about ways to create connections and pathways from those communities to better education opportunities, to better job opportunities in the region. so we're creating more areas of opportunity, more mixed income type of communities that are stable and offer economic opportunity. >> host: suburban poverty is one of the things that elizabeth kneebone studies for the brookings institution. thank you for your time.

>> guest: thank you. >> looking at some of the prime time programing coming up on c-span networks, here on c-span2 is booktv. the focus is book fairs and festivals including a visit to the annapolis festival in maryland. on c-span3 it is american history tv. tonight's theme is the civil war. it focusing on the atlantic campaign and the march to the sea. and on c-span tonight, a special look at the issue of climate change. we'll present both sides of the argument and here's brief preview. >> even the ipcc does not subscribe to the belief that extreme weather events are tied to global warming, whether it is human-caused or not. they say there is no evidence of an increase in extreme weather events related to the warming that has occurred, and yet bill mcgibb bonn and al gore, whole bunch of them perpetuate the idea every extreme weather event is because of us. this is why we will never be

able to predict the future of the climate other than about three days out as john coleman who is coming up soon will probably tell you he knows. it is because of clouds. water, the most important greenhouse gas, is the only one that occurs in both liquid and gas see just phases in the in the atmosphere. the liquid face of water and gaseous face of water, we call water vapor behave in completely different ways in regard to solar energy. clouds reflect the sun back, hold the heat in, depending where they are and how thick they are and what computer model can predict the pattern of clouds in the world? it is impossible. that is why we will never be able to predict the future of climate and clouds are the wildcard and many people believe that as the earth warms and more water evaporates off the sea, it will be cloudier and wetter and that will reflect more sunlight

back, in other words there will be a negative feedback against the effect of co2 and that is just as plausible a hypothesis as the fry in hell hypothesis we keep getting from the alarmists. >> quick preview of tonight's special look at the issue of climate change. join us at 8:00 eastern on our companion network c-span to see the entire program. here are highlights for this weekend. friday on c span in prime time, we'll visit important sites in the history of the civil rights movement. saturday night at 8:00, highlights from this year's new york ideas forum including cancer biologist andrew hesel. on sunday, q&a with new york congressman charlie wrangle at 8:00 p.m. eastern. friday night at 8:00 on c-span2, in depth with religious scholar reza aslan. saturday on "after words" at 10:00, retired neurologist ben

carson. and sunday, lawrence gold stone, the competition of the wright brothers and glen curtis to be predominant name in planned flight. american history tv on friday@8:00 p.m. eastern. hollywood's portrayal of slavery. the 200th anniversary of the burning of washington. former white house chiefs of staff discuss how presidents make decisions. find the television schedule one week in advance at c-span.org. call us. email us with comments@c-span.org. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" series on president lyndon johnson's great society continues with a look at the air quality act win was signed in 1967. this is 45 minutes.

>> host: all week we've been looking at president lyndon johnson's efforts of the great society, talking aboutg differt elements of it. talking today about society and particularly about air quality. two guests to join us. robin juni. george washington university environmental law professor there. jeff holmstead, former epa administrator for air and radiation, 2001 to 2005. good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> host: letat me read what president johnson talked about the environment and issues we are discussing. by destroying air that gives us life? i think we do. done it with science industry and progress. above all we've done it with our own carelessness indifference and repeated negligence, contaminated air began in this country as big city problem but few years the great pal of pollution hangs everywhere and spreading today. we're pouring at least 130 million tons of poison into the air each year.

2/3 of a ton for every man, woman and child that lives in america. robin juni, what do you think statement? has it bared itself out? >> guest: i think lyndon johnson was visionary in some ways. he was the first president to articulate an a environmental program that just didn't focus on traditional conservation, the kind of conservation that teddy roosevelt might haveed endorsed. he focused on re tore race, innovation. how are we actually going to improve these resources, rather than preserve resources that that have, that are still pristine. >> host: mr. holmstead, what about his statement? to you has that bared itself out, that statement? >> guest: in many case it is has. he was product of his times. late '60s i think when the public at large began especially concerned about air pollution. it had long been a problem in

southern california but it was increasing problem in other parts of the country and i think hee responded to that kind of public pressure. so, i think clearly the clean air act that had kind of its initial beginnings in the johnson administration, it has been a very important part of, of protecting public health and th he environment. host heavy has the clean air act we initially saw under president johnson the same clean air act today? >> guest: no, the '67 act, referred to as the air quality act, introduce ad few concepts that continue to be in place. the idea that there would be specific areas of the country where there would be the need to have a coordinated program. that really comes from '67. '67 was also the first time that the federal government was authorized to set tail pipe standards for automobiles. theyrd never actually did that because the '67 act was

superseded in 1970 but at least those two ideas i think have continued to be part of the modern clean air act. >> host: robin juni, the goal of the '67 act ongoing in general reduce amount of stuff in the air we find? is that too simplistic? >> guest: the '67 act focused on what is in the air now. that is one of the important things ittu actually did. let's measure and see what the problem is so we can think about how to reduce it. the other thing the '67 act did i think we still see in our programs and policies today, is establish the state federal partnership. where the states have a role in enforcement that is overseen by the federal government. that relationship and that programmatic approach began in the '67 act. >> host: what kind of stuff are we looking at, forgive the term, what kind of stuff at the time we were looking in the air to reduce?

>> guest: the '67 act like much legislation. the impetus for it was some smog events, some instances both in london and new york where people died as a result of poor quality air. ozone is a major component of urban smog and so that bass was something the epa began to focus on pretty early on, not specifically in the '67 act but in the 1970 clean air act which really provides the structure andy continues to provide the structure for much of our clean air act regulation today, did focus on some of those, what are called criteria pollutants, major pollutants. >> host: such as? >> guest: ozone, nitrogen oxides. particulates. carbon monoxide.

hydrocarbons originally were in the act but subsequently it was found hydrocarbons were adequately regulated by ozone. and lead was added to the list of criteria pollutants. >> host: if this became effort by the federal and state to do this, what did the federal do, what did the federal impose, what did the state impose? >> guest: let me first just correct something that robin said. back in '67 there was no epa. >> guest: that's true. >> guest: environmental protection agency was created by president nixon. it was health -- >> guest: education and welfare. >> guest: hew. not only what the health effects might be, what was being admitted, concentration in the air, the '67 act more than anything created research programs and for the first time had people going out and establishing these monitors.

the effort to really go after these so-called criteria pollutants robin mentioned, i hate to keep making this point really comes from the '70 act. back in '67, they knew there were smog events people could see, people would cough but exactly what contributed to the smog was relatively, we were just beginning to understand that back in '67. >> host: the '70 act gave the effort teeth so to speak? >> guest: yes. it increased kind of regulatory programs the federal government could impose. in '67 the only regulations that federal government, hew would issue were for new cars and trucks. there was an ability for hew to step in if the states were not doing well enough, but before that w ever happened, people realized it probably needed to be amended and the 70 'act came

intoing. >> host: we're looking at efforts undertaken by lbj for the great society. we're looking at clean air act. if you have questions here is how you call in. 202-585-3880 for democrats, and 202-585-3882 for independents. we'll continue looking into the modern day act. let's get calls. first up, calvin from north carolina, independent line, you're on with our guests. good morning. go ahead. >> caller: good morning, pedro. thank you you and rest of c-span crew do for the really great job you do to keep us informed. two questions. one as g the gentleman articulated, lbj started this initiative. democratic president with, i'm not sure whether republican or democrat-dominated house and senate. epa came into reality under nixon, a republican. again, not sure of the congressional makeup. but my first question is, when did the great political divide happen where folks who believe

in environmental initiatives are against big business and against private business and too expensive, and the other folks are for the consumer? so when did the great divide happen? my second question is, how does your research and your information contribute to the global warming debate? again, same scenario. folks say it is a myth, you know, that we've always had dirty air. we'll always have dirty air. the other side says if we don't plan now there may not be a future for our grandchildren, et cetera, et cetera. >> host: we'll get your comments. miss juni, you're up first. >> guest: thanks so much for that question. i think that the difficulties in congress and what some would call gridlock in congress has happened over the last few years certainly, it's a relevant thing to say that it would be nice if congress were able to act to

restructure some of these programs, to make improvements on consensus basis. that doesn't seem very realistic these days. and the, the question with respect to global warming, that is something that epa has begun to grapple with quite recently. there were a couple of supreme court cases quite recently that addressed epa's authority to do that and this term, just a few months ago, in the case called urig v. epa, discussed what sources could be regulated to control greenhouse gases. >> host: mr. holstead? >> guest: look back at the six sy --' 67 and' 70 act were passed unanimously. it was amazing how much progress we made in cleaning up our area.

i have some experience under the clean air act and reductions and all these pollutants robin mentioned have been dramatic, lead, reduced by 99%. all the other pollutants. what that meant, getting that next increment is getting more expensive and probably less important and there is debate, especially about the last part but, as it has gotten much more costly for industry and consumers, you have tendeddu to have this, this divide. and even back in 1990, that divide was apparent but president george h.w. bush really stride to create a consensus that led to the 1990 amendments. but weo really haven't seen any significant legislation since then. host host altoona, pennsylvania, democrats line. here is vince. >> caller: goodn morning. my question is in 2005 the

cheney was put in the energy bille which set up stage for fracking boom that we're having nowadays. how does the exemption to the clean air and clean water act affect the air quality today? >> guest: so what the caller is talking about is, hydraulic fracturing which is called fracking, and, the 2005 issue was that epa was found to have less control over that than some had hoped to have as regulatory mechanisms. there are still rules. some of them are states driven which folks have concerns about because different states have different levels of stringency in controls over things like hydraulic fracturing. so that localizes debates which people would, some folks would say isld a good thing because it

provide more local control, more local citizen input. but it also allows for more politics and local politics to enter into some of that decision making. i'm sure that is frustrating to many as well. >> host: cheryl from new hampshire, independent line. hi. >> caller: hi, good morning. i would like to know, explain how it can be helping the, clean air act when they're seeding guy with oxide from the chem all the time crisscrossing the sky, making, checker boards in the sky? they're spraying stuff in the sky. what is this doing to the air. i would like to know. >> host: you mean residue from airlines and thinks like that? >> caller: this is not coming fromis airlines. there is different between chem trails and contrails. it is up there. you know. and they're seeding the sky with aluminum oxide and i want to know, when are they going to

stop?. >> guest: boy i have to say i don't know anything about that issue in the world which i live that has never been considered a significant problem. so i, i can't help the caller on that one. >> host: let me ask both of you the act first came out, particularly how did industries take it? it would affect industries at the time and going forward? >> guest: i think as i said before, in the early days there was much more of a national consensus on these issues. industry was certainly willing to step up and do the things that were necessary, that they thought were reasonable. what has happened as i said over time, you know, we made these enormous improvements and, and all these pollutants but it has become more and more expensive, you tend to get mower and more industry concern about the cost of some of these programs. i think again you look back to the early days. there was consensus that we needed to do something. the '67 act and '70 act both

passed unanimously. as the reductions, the programs have become more and more expensive, industry really started to push back to much greater extent. >> host: some industry hit harder than others by the act, say the coal industry? get guest oh, sure. that varies from administration to administration. the clean air does give significant discretion to epa. . . would agree that they've been especially aggressive in targeting cold fired power plants and coal mining. so that really wasn't the case under the clinton and bush administration but there's been a very aggressive effort for the last 5-1/2 years. host: as far as industries. what about their ability to push back? do they have cover? guest: i think another interesting fact too think about in the regulatory scheme is the technology