cusack. and youtake your calls can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ good morning, everyone. house lawmakers return to washington after having last week all. the house and the senate in session this week. in the papers this morning, "the washington times" leads with the story that the obama administration learns about problems with the veterans health-care facilities in 2000 eight. at&t pays $48.5 billion for directv. later today, former new york executive editor jill abramson will give the commencement address at wake forest university. coverage of her remarks at c-span.org for more details.

we begin there are with the latest protests over commencement speakers and whether you think they should reflect students' values. democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. an independents and all others, (202) 585-3882. college graduates, we want to hear from you, (202) 585-5883. join the conversation on facebook.com/c-span, send us a .weet @cspanwj, or e-mail us we will get to your thoughts in a minute but let me begin with iece."inside higher ed" p substitutes speak out. in a season in which numerous commencement speakers with drew.

free speech and the crucial place of disagreement and free exchange and higher education. one of them did so in a way that appeared to hurt the feeling of graduates. sees its share of controversies, but this year pur intenses debate. some of those who drew enmity were generally well regarded, not overtly partisan figures. robert birgeneau withdrew as a speaker at pennsylvania's haverford college. at smith college, christine lagarde, head of the imf, backed out after a cadre of students criticized imf policies that contribute to global inequality.

these controversies led some commentators to ask whether the today'ssatisfying students has risen to an impossibly high level. others criticized the protests as clinical correctness run amok. what do you think? democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. if you just graduated from college or are about to graduate, (202) 585-5883. hould these commencements because reflect the value of the student? back to the "inside higher ed" piece. it would have been easy for those who spoke to avoid or play down controversy. that is some of the -- that is because some of the drama involved the perspective that

they should be about the graduates and not the arguably contentious views of the speakers. that is not the path that the speakers at haverford and smith chose. honorary degree recipient was scheduled to speak on sunday at haverford. in his first "bite of the apple," he told a story that made fun of honorary degree holders everywhere. in the days leading up to the commencement come a he was encouraged to say something about the controversy. otherwise it might look as if he were "ducking." bowen did not hold back.

a little bit about the commencement address yesterday at haverford college. the speaker, william bowlen, criticized the students who had staged a protest. it makes "the wall street -- if you expect to agree with commencement figures on everything, who do you expect to speak? jamaal is a college graduate in indianapolis. what do you think? caller: i recently graduated

from notre dame. my experience was very enlightening for a person who comes from the inner-city. my first experience in notre dame was a protest we have for people who were not even part of the notre dame family as far as students or faculty. complaining when the president was coming to speak. i thought that was very hypocritical. we always endure the priests with their sexual background as a moral characters on our campus. it struck me as amazing of how they were able to protest about the visits from our commander-in-chief. as graduates, it is our day. if the majority of people do not agree with the views, political of ther aspects

commencement speaker, i think being for the students is more important. it is our day. we do not want it to be marked by somebody who is coming in whose political views are diametrically opposed to the mainstream and specifically the people who are graduating. a lot of people in positions to be commencement speakers are propped up by corporate money. as a result, they tend to be able to get a pass. whenever the mainstream and students are able to speak, the true feelings of the people come out. host: what about the argument that students are being close minded? that they do not want to hear a point of view that they may disagree with. caller: that is insulting. as a college graduate, not only is my mind not closed, i am able to articulate my position. i do not need to be dictated to by somebody who has reached a

conclusion that what their views is, their mission or crusade or whatever is not consistent with what i consider one of the better days of my academic career, celebrating my graduation. like i said, as an african american man, i would not what clarence thomas at my graduation. host: thaddeus in georgia, democratic caller. are you with us? caller: good morning. at morehousekend college school of medicine they invited the governor of georgia, nathan deal. a very right wing person. this is a medical school. take moneyfused to

from the government to expand the medicaid. 700,000 people could have insurance if he -- would expand it. the irony of this thing is that when he was running for office down here, he made all kinds of about comments, talking ghetto grandmothers and ghetto grandmothers could not get id to go vote. blacks a predominantly college. he was asked to speak. they paid him $32,000.

the dr. martin luther king auditorium. speaking ata person a medical school. to expandused ,edicaid so 700,000 people more people could have access to health care. paradox.eal on top of it, the faculty paid him $32,000 to basically come down there and say look, you are black people, i am not going to do what you want me to do. give me $32,000, thank you very

much. it really had -- this weekend had the african-american community in atlanta in an uproar. being that cnn, this is the home of cnn -- did you hear anything about it? that is really news. and: i am going to move on get some other voices. on your point of money attached to the commencement speakers, npr has this story on npr.org. of reasonsots schools turn to controversial big names are graduation. they bring publicity to campus and can inspire donations from new alumni and their families. "you want to raise money but you

also want to inspire the graduate." headline making speakers comes the risk of backlash and leaders being put in an uncomfortable position of having to reverse course. michelle in los angeles, democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was at the haverford graduation, my daughter just graduated. the objection i had to the speaker was not about what he had to say. it is a quaker school. one of their beliefs is about nonviolence. they were going to award him an honorary degree. and so the students felt that it that he was coming to speak to the school but that they were going to honor him. and they felt that because he was not aligned with their principles, they should not honor him with an honorary

degree. that was part of it as well. host: with your son or your daughter? caller: my daughter. host: was your daughter when that protested? caller: she did not protest. she was in agreement. she was in agreement with not having him ak was they did invite him to come and they didn' want him to speak but he declined. even the substitute speaker his boat to the kids -- even the substitute teacher who spoke to he brought up that it would have been wonderful if they could have had the discussion. because the speaker declined then nothing could happen. both,lly was criticizing the kids of the speakers who chose not to come. host: that was in the "higher

education" article. saying that the substitute speaker, william bowen, to both sides. what do you make of that? right. that was should havethe kids recognized the speaker to decline. he was at berkeley, a liberal institution. i also feel -- i attended a friends meeting before commencement. we sat in silence and people were compelled to stand up and speak. that is the way quakers do their religious ceremony. sense of such strong peace and nonviolence. i sided with students as well. host: you probably agree with this piece written on huffington

post.com by one of the college --at smith at rutgers university, excuse me, against condoleezza rice. "the protestsat are not about the individual speakers themselves. they are not just about commencement speeches. this is our generation of young people sending a clear and strong message that racism, bigotry, civil rights violations receive no honor from us. michelle, what do you make of that? caller: i have a few bones to pick with condoleezza rice. overall, i admire her. say, "thises on to is not an issue of left or right. this is oppressed the basic views are not differing that land on the political spectrum. such things are not partisan issues." john andm -- john in

pennsylvania, independent caller. of the you make protests? should speakers reflect student values? are a greatink they move on the parts of the students and the faculty at those universities. half of the u.s. things condoleezza rice is a war criminal. 3/4 of the world sinks the same thing. christine lagarde heads up on austerity program that leads other countries in debt forever. i think it is long past time student started to speak out in more numbers about this. the folks at the schools -- the. the schools bring -- the folks bring in.chools

rice, she is a war criminal. christine lagarde is questionable, deal, i cannot believe morehead brought him. host: we are going to go to paul. caller: you have to have people who have other opinions. you are never going to learn anything if all you listen to are the opinions of your inside. the first amendment does not apply to private parties but it guarantees the right to say not things that other people agree with but things that they disagree with. if i am listening to the news and i hear a speech by president going to turn on fox news to find out. sayspeaker boehner something and i went to find out where he has made a mistake, i'm going to turn on msnbc. you would not turn on fox news 's mistakes @cspanw boehner

and you would not turn to msnbc for obama's mistake. you have to listen to people with differing opinions, even if you do not agree. because you might learn something from that. host: all right. larry in texas, democratic caller. era,r: back in the vietnam they were singing give peace a chance. it was not different between that and the iraq war. the weapons of mass destruction. condoleezza rice was one of the leaders. i don't blame the students for not wanting her there. herother, i would not let -- texas,hat was larry in democratic caller. getting your thoughts on whether these commencement speakers should reflect the view of students.

you have seen a wave of protests this year. some say it has reached a crescendo. it has happened in the past but more so this year. a little bit about previous protests, here is "the washington post," butler robertsty deans john too controversial to speak in 2010. ann coulter was uninvited from a speech at fordham university in 2012. students have complained or protested about tom tancred romney cheney, and that speaking on campus. hillary clinton's invitation to speak at the college of saint catherine in 2008. kathleen sebelius was the subject of protest at georgetown university in 2012. michelle obama's plan speech at a kansas high school sparked criticism. a little bit of history about these protests.

democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents and all others, (202) 585-3882. also, if you are a recent college graduate, (202) 585-5883 . we want to hear your story. join the conversation on twitter, @cspanwj. or on facebook.com/c-span. you can e-mail us as well --journal@c-span.org. we will get to more of your thoughts coming up. we have about 25 minutes left to continue talking about this. then we are going to have a roundtable discussion about what is on the agenda for congress this week. house lawmakers return after spending last week in their district. the house and senate in session this week. this is from "the wall street journal, co. a recent article

about the list of canceled graduation speakers and how it is getting longer. it says that according to the foundation for individual rights education, between 1987 and 2008 there were 48 protests of planned speeches, not all for graduation, that led to 21 incidents of an invited guests not speaking. two thousand nine, there have been 95 protests resulting in 39 cancellations. greg lukyanov, the president of the foundation for individual rights in education, he was on the "washington journal" talking about this issue. [video clip] upst: it started bubbling around 2009 that we had an increase in situations in which students and faculty would get together. not just commencement but it gets a lot harder around .ommencement season we had a joke that it was

dissing the patient season. it got less and less funny -- it season.nvitation it got less and less funny. i am a lawyer, i am fine with people protesting and wearing black armbands. i do not like it when the goal is to get some and not to speak on your campus. host: on "washington journal" we spoke with mr. lukianoff, president of individual rights about commencement speakers being uninvited after students protest. do you think speakers should reflect students' morals and values? mike, republican caller. it is ai believe symptom of the liberal faculty members that we have at these schools. i do not necessarily think it is the opinion of the students. they are led by these faculty

members at these universities. in our just what we have education system. i guess we have to live with it. host: do you -- caller: it is totally being led by the faculty. host: you think this is more of an issue of conservative speakers being protested by liberal schools? caller: correct. "the washington post" has this from president of the american council of trustees and alumni. our campuses have become islands of intolerance where a small group of close minded students and faculty can cut off discussion. it is not a right-left political problem. it is a failure of leadership. economy has become one-sided, coercive, and hostile to a multiplicity of perspectives."

that is from "the washington post," quoting the president of the american council of trustees and alumni. steve, new york, independent caller. caller: to a previous point, in the mid-1960's at the beginning -- i am not sure if it was just before the u.s. entered the vietnam war. was the commencement .peaker a bunch of the graduates got up and walked out. maybe some of your wizards at the station could pull that photograph up on the screen. i would like to know what happened to those students who got up and walked out. i think that would be a form of protest for today's commencement speakers. should justsagree

get up and walk out right in front of the speaker, the controversial speaker. to show that they have got guts and mean what they say. they're against the speaker. that is my comment. remind you that jill abramson, the former executive editor of "the new york times," is giving a commencement address today at wake forest university. that will not air live but we 1:00air it on c-span2 at p.m. eastern time, 10:00 a.m. on the west coast. july percent' -- jill abramson's remarks at wake forest university. at 1:00 today. what she had to say after being let go by "the new york times." whetheryour thoughts on commencement speakers should reflect students' values. ashley and ohio, a recent

college graduate. where did you graduate from? caller: ohio state university. host: what are your thoughts? caller: as a college graduate, these faculty are able to pay for these public speakers to come in. large amounts like the third $2000. -- large amounts like the $32,000. they are getting it from student tuition. that is their day, it is 4, 6, or eight years in the university. they do not want a speaker there, i don't think they should have to sit and listen to somebody they do not respect or agree with. host: do you remember who spoke at yours? caller: no clue. host: did you go? caller: i went to commencement. all i can remember was how glad i was it was over.

people spend so much money on the speakers that come in my mind, are criminals. ask any college student, they are up for debate but not that day. host: dave in michigan, republican caller. caller: good morning. i have been listening and hearing these comments about condoleezza rice being a war criminal. of how ignorant many people are. that lady has got more class than critics could ever dream of having. today's commencement speakers that are banned are primarily conservative speakers going to these liberal colleges. the liberal colleges are filled with professors that are usually on anticapitalistic and anti-conservative. they get that way because they the capitalistic

environment. they have to go back to teaching because they cannot solve real-life problems with what they learned in college themselves. so they go back and show somebody else what they learned in college. they grow resentment towards capitalism because they are failures in it. host: we got your thoughts. condoleezza rice put out a statement after what happened at rutgers university saying "commencement should be a time of celebration for graduates and families. has becomenvitation a distraction for the university community at this special time. i am honored to have served my country. defended america's belief in free speech and the exchange of ideas. these ideas are part of democracy. provost and chief academic officer of stanford university, i understand the

purpose of a commencement ceremony and i am unwilling to the track from it. good luck to the graduates and congratulations to the families and friends who will gather to honor them." ron, new york, independent. caller: hi. it seems that this argument about freedom of speech is not the correct argument. this is not a matter of fact the next. -- this is not a matter of academics. this is a matter of students having the most important day of their college career ended being ruined. do don't the students get to the inviting? i was part of a demonstration, bore, 1982. i was in syracuse and alexander haig was going to be the speaker at graduation. this was about two weeks after he made jokes about four american church women who were raped and murdered in el

salvador by death squad personnel who were trained by the u.s. government at fort benning in georgia. this was outrageous. we had a demonstration. he was not disinvited. we had dozens of people, we had like three posters asking if people wanted to talk about a demonstration. we had to change the venue because 140 people showed up just for that with almost no notice. there were two, groups of four women under their raincoats they were dressed as nuns. blood s stage plattered on their habits. that appeared in pretty much every newspaper, it appeared in the rochester newspaper and motherthe "nun

called her. host: what did that accomplish? caller: it let them know that we would not stand for what they were doing, people were killed and alexander haig was the secretary of state. host: on the process of picking the speaker, this is from npr.org. picking a speaker is no easy task. the speaker at university of massachusetts this year is bill nye the science guy. "we have a committee of folks on our campus. from there he goes to the umass board of trustees and they vote." that is a little bit about the about how thess commencement speakers are pick. let's go to gary, excuse me, vince in california.

republican caller. caller: good morning, greta. i am an avid "washington journal " viewer. the show has always surprised me and how much it changes my view on how i think of things. going back to the very first caller who said he would not want clarence thomas at his commencements beach. even if he does not agree with this person's view or whatever he did wrong in his mind, he could learn something. it might change his view, clarence thomas did some great things. look where he came around and look what he did. it is amazing how people can close their minds and not understand there is something they might be able to learn from an opposing point of view. talkingious caller about having students choose their person to represent them. that makes a valid point, too.

openinge whole point of your mind and listening to everybody speak and you might learn something new. host: by the way, if you are interested in a myriad of voices as vince was talking about, c-span's coverage of beginsement addresses friday in primetime. a mix of lawmakers, corporate executives, and obama administration officials. patrick atl, deval the university of massachusetts, the list goes on. that is when our coverage begins -- friday, may 23 in primetime. our coverage of commencement addresses. that is our topic this morning. should speakers reflect students' values. headlines at the top. one of them is the front page of "the washington times" on the v.a. health system.

it says in this piece written by --the obama administration was warned in 2008 that there were problems with the v.a.'s health care facilities. the sunday talk shows yesterday, denis mcdonough was on cbs' "face the nation." the white house's response to the v.a. scandal. [video clip] >> the president is matter than hell. and i have the scars to prove it given the briefings i have given. we are lookinge, at accountability and we want to continue to provide utterance the services they have earned. $40 billion in assistance for the g.i. bill. 14% increase in spending on veterans health administration. 60% increase in the number of veterans getting care for the

veterans health administration. these are kinds of investment the president believes we have to make and that is why he has fought for them on the hill. host: white house chief of staff denis mcdonough on "face the nation." talking about the v.a. health care situation and defending the white house's response. former obama administration official, treasury secretary tim geithner is out with a new book called "stress test: reflections on financial crisis." he will be sitting down with politico for their live conversation. we will have coverage of that. he will be talking with politico's white house correspondent mike allen and economic correspondent ben white. we will have coverage of that, go to c-span.org for details on when that will air. a little's conversation with tim gardner.

back to your -- a little' -- politico's conversation with tim eithner. back to commencement speakers. in baltimore. caller: the first caller made the point that except he did not go all the way to the end. that is a day for commemoration, the same as a wedding or a funeral. it is not a day for controversy or debate. they should be limited to bodyers the student wants. the process should the one that could be coming from the entire student body. selected directly from them. want to have controversial speakers, you can bring them all year round at any time and have them talk about any issue. you can have students protesting, that is when they

should be brought in. not at a time when you are having a ceremony when everyone has to be there. if they do not want to hear a speak, they can refuse to go. or they can do whatever they want to object. not during commencement. host: richard on twitter. eric in middletown, new york, independent caller. caller: whether or not they should reflect values is a hard thing to do when you're talking about large groups, maybe 10,000 in some instances. they should reflect something that is of topical value to a group of people who are a certain age and about to enter the adult workforce. the other consideration of the power structure of the administration and the school leadership.

they are going to have agendas that might conflict with speakers. as a student i was blocked from speaking at my own college graduation ceremony. i was because i indicated going to be truthful about some of the failings that had taken place inside the school. later, iy, 16 years read in the news that that school is being sued by its accrediting agency. directingneral college in new york city. i made it clear i was going to complain. the employers attending the commencement were people who contributed financially to these people attending the school. cut corners on curriculum and as the vice president of class, i said i am going to mention it. i was obstructed by security officers from attending my own graduation. too much politics.

for students, all voices should be welcome and individuals can walk, hang signs, speak up. host: on twitter. carlos in chicago, independent speaker. caller: give me a moment so i can mute the tv. host: we will come back to you. greg in north carolina, independent. caller: thank you for c-span. this is a good day for me. i got in on the first call. i don't want to sound too harsh on this. it is an hour or maybe two hours at the most. ly these people have something they can offer that we can all learn from.

have tot necessarily campaign for them or spread the word. out of courtesy we ought to listen to them. host: you think this is an issue of free speech? caller: i don't think this is a constitutional matter. they do we think we are? what is a college? it is not the end of the world. 10 years from now -- who is going to speak at such and such 10 years ago? people will be dead and gone, i am sorry. they need to get over it. on "meet theriebus wass," the rnc chairman asked to respond to karl rove's comments on hillary clinton's health. [video clip] >> health and age is fair game.

when people can to john mccain and said maybe he is psychologically not fit because he was visitor of war. that -- there was innuendo and suggestion of his brain does not work right. in this case, her brain might not work right and she is hiding something. a i do not think there is graceful way to bring up age, health, and fitness for a to beate that wants president of the united states. the more and horton issue as leader of this party is what is the record of hillary clinton -- important issue as leader of this party is what is the record of hillary clinton. bokoecord on benghazi come u, haram, syria, russia. karl rove does not do things by accident. he injected attack into

republican grassroots. would you like to sidestep away from this or double down? >> it is not a matter of sidestepping or doubling down. it is an issue that is going to come up if hillary clinton runs for president. the issue of her health and her age is going to come up. host: the chairman of the rnc on "meet the press" talking about karl rove's remarks about hillary clinton's health. "meetas the subject of the press" yesterday. the front page of "usa today," at&t pays $48.5 billion for directv. ofk to our question for all you. should commencements baker's reflect the value of the students? carlos in chicago, independent caller. caller: good morning, greta. thank you for coming back to me. i wanted to call you and enjoy the show.

caller said he does not think this is a conversation about freedom of speech. i do not agree with him. this is exactly what it is. is reason i have a son who currently in college. i had another son who is currently in the army. i do not agree with condoleezza nor clarence thomas coming to speak to my son's graduation. if you chose and got -- if you chose and walked out, that is freedom of speech. if you do not agree with someone, you have your god-given right. we live in the land of the free. livean say what you want, how you like -- do not infringe your thinking on anyone else.

if other people influence you, that is another thing. one last thing. as -- it was suggested to me about listening to the statement about the dumbing down of the american people. i believe that came out in 1986. look at what we are talking about now, should the speakers that get paid money. andhey get paid money tuition is going down and you can be giving it to the children you are training to take care of us in the future. right.ll this is from "the new york times," a follow-up on our conversation last week about student loans. faster atbt grows university with the highest-paid leaders. the average executive

compensation at public research universities increased 14% from 2009 22012 to an average of $544,000. nine chief executives are more than $1 million in total compensation in 2012-2014, up from four the previous year and 2012-20 11. chief executives were hardly upne, athletic coaches made 70% of public university employees' earnings -- earning million. $1 it is not just the presidents, it is the coaches and medical doctors. james in indiana, independent caller.

you're the last on this. caller: good morning, c-span. i have a point that i can wrap up in a minute. in our educational system, people come in and speak. not to myhis is liking because i will tell you why. there are too many communists infiltrating our schools, our high schools, and mostly in our colleges. they are teaching some versus communism. host: we will leave it there. coming up, a look at what is ahead for congress and the president. later, how companies are collecting big data on you and what they are doing with the information. we will be right back. ♪

policy hadunication not been reformed since 1934. so there was really a compelling need in 19 95 to begin the process of massive telecommunication reform. at that time, you basically have boxes. you had a box for broadcasters. a box for telephone companies. a box for long-distance. cable, satellite. our view was we had to come thend try to eliminate lines of demarcation and promote competition. believing that with competition there would be innovation and investment. more consumer choice, more innovation. fortunately, i think the result

has proven us correct. that is exactly what has happened. >> when the 1996 act was written, we were focused on telephone service. whether it was local or long-distance. to some extent, we focused on cable tv service and we wanted to take the steps to make the market competitive. the primary focus was really just what we called pots -- plain old telephone service. today, the landscape is different. the fcc has managed as well as it can without direction from congress about the transition from telephone service to the time when everything is delivered over the internet. in my mind, the fcc has done a good job. >> evaluating the 1996 telecommunications act with two house members who helped write it. tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. book, "sundays

at eight." a collection of interviews. a henry jackson democrat. i was a believer in the great society and also in the tough approach to the soviet union. i had a home in the democratic party at the time. you had pat moynahan and henry jackson, the senator from washington state. on, that element of the democratic party shrunk to nothing. and as it did, i was without a home. i remained generally without a political home. you could obviously fairly call me a neoconservative. >> charles krauthammer in "s undays at eight," now available at your favorite bookseller. "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with two

veteran reporters in washington. bob cusack, managing editor of "the hill." white househenn, reporter with the associated press. the week ahead in washington. what is on the president's agenda? guest: he has been doing these somatic weeks. weeks.e thematic a couple weeks ago what's climate change, last week was infrastructure. this week is foreign investment in the u.s.. he is bringing foreign leaders to the white house tuesday. later he is going to cooperstown to the baseball hall of fame to discuss tourism. that seems to be the theme of the week this week. at the white house they call it thing, hed phone tries to do things on his own when congress is not with him. an interaction

with congress? this does not sound like something he is asking congress to do. guest: this is highlighting things he thinks he can do or has been able to do. he has a program called select usa, he has coordinated a lot of federal agencies to help cities and states attract businesses to the u.s. he has a couple of examples -- lufthansa set up a plant in puerto rico. they just cut a deal with a belgian airspace company for oklahoma. momentse the showcase he has got. it kind of underscores how limited his power and ability is to deal with the economy without congress. , houseob cusack lawmakers are back this week. the senate was in last week. to start with the house. guest: the defense authorization bill is coming to the house for hundreds of amendments have been

filed. the rules committee will decide on voting. with defense you have nsa alsues, military sexu assault. there has been talk of giving people who have served in the military green cards. this is something that is very controversial and it is basically half of what the dream act is. some democrats and republicans want this attached to the defense bill. on the senate side you will see the tax extenders bill. we talked about that last week. in agot bogged down dispute over amendments and they could not come to an agreement. finance committee leaders are trying to get some type of agreement. is similar toill the medicare physician payment formula. they cannot get a big tax reform bill through congress so these tax breaks that are popular in both parties, every year they are extended. senator wyden, the new chairman

of the finance committee, said we're going to do this one more time and then we are going to attack the tax code. one other thing that could come up in the senate is sylvia mathews burwell, kathleen sebelius' replacement at hhs. she could get a vote. her confirmation has gone as smoothly as it can go and she will probably get a big bipartisan vote. not unanimous because it is such a contentious department. the other thing is tomorrow, tea party tests. big primaries in kentucky, georgia, idaho, and organ. -- and oregon. incumbent republicans are being challenged from the right, including mitch mcconnell. you have mike simpson, an ally of speaker boehner. the club for growth has supported the challenger to simpson. some legislation is moving, not huge pieces of bills. the election season is up and running. host: beyond what is going to be talked about on the floor, there

are the debates happening off the floor. one of them is immigration. the lead story for the hill.com, boehner's big reform decision. what is he going to do? guest: that is a really good story. everything is watching boehner. there was a controversy last week where white house senior adviser valerie jarrett said she had a commitment from boehner to move immigration this year. boehner has mocked his republican colleagues back home a week ago. he had to walk that back when he got back to washington. the question is what is boehner going to do? is he going to be the speaker next year? is this a legacy? ,he boehner -- boehner throughout his career, has been a dealmaker. he wants to move immigration reform but it is so hard to move the house republicans.

they are saying why would we do this, why bring up something that divides us? boehner does feel that when the senate moves on something and it house,-- it sits in the he feels like the ball is in his court. conservative radio, there has been a lot of talk about what boehner could do. and what would eric cantor do, the possible successor to boehner. eric cantor has indicated he is not ready to move forward unless it has support of house republicans. boehner has said we are not going to conference with the senate bill and we are not going to move any bill without a majority of a majority. anything with immigration is not going to have a majority of a majority. it is very intriguing. the deadline is the august recess. if it does not happen by then, watch democrats and the white house sharply criticized republicans. they have held off until august. host: jim kuhnhenn --

guest: one of the comments valerie jarrett said is we have until august to make a determination as to whether it the house will move. there have been discussions between the speaker's office and the white house. they believe the speaker wants to go but they understand what his political limitations are. in the meantime, there is a parallel track going on with the department of homeland security. jeh johnson, the secretary, is anding at how he can soft the bite on deportations. the president has gotten criticism from the immigrant advocacy community over the number of deportations. they are trying to figure out how far to go. whether to make this a wholesale executive action that is vastly diminishes the number of deportations. it is not where they want to go because they think that would destroy any deal they could get with republicans.

thefixes might be more on margins. even if congress does not act, even if boehner does not act by august, i think what you will see from the administration is some tweaks but nothing that is a wholesale change in immigration law. host: i want to show viewers what the president had to say. last tuesday he was at a law enforcement briefing on immigration. here is what he said about the issue and the prospects of it moving in congress. [video clip] >> public opinion is on our side on this. unfortunately, we have got a handful of house republicans blocking goingre ahead and leading legislation get to the floor. to their credit, speaker boehner and some of the other leaders there do believe immigration reform is the right thing but they have got to have a political allows them to get it through their caucus and get it

done. i have said to them if they have ideas, i'm happy to talk to them. on making hellbent sure every letter of what is in the senate bill is exactly what lands on my desk for signature. but, there are some corporate suppose we have got to get done. stronger border security. wehave got to make sure that are dealing with companies that are not doing the right thing by workers. we have got to make sure that we have got an improved legal immigration system, a lot of folks are getting pushed into the legal system because the waits are so long through the legal process. and we have got to make sure there is a way for people to earn some pathway to citizenship. , the jim kuhnhenn president last tuesday. was that a nudge? guest: there were some interesting clues in where the

wiggle room exists. the senate bill has a path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants that are here illegally. there is some interest in the house and certainly some of the republican opponents of immigration reform have talked about a legal status for immigrants who are here illegally. path tossarily a citizenship. not something that puts them ahead of others who have been gaining in line to citizenship. when the president says he is not hellbent on getting everything in the senate bill, that is an important bill. he did not mention a path to citizenship in those remarks. leaving an area that could allow the house to come up with a compromise. host: bob cusack do those comments help or hurt? guest: i was thinking about that when the president was praising speaker boehner. tolder privately has

democrats not to publicly praise him, especially on immigration. this is a tough task for speaker boehner. putier this year, boehner out some principles with the house republican conference. put out some principles with the house the republican comments, and it looks like all signals were a go and in the house republicans had a meeting and they said they did -- they are not ready to move on this. it is a real tough spot for john boehner and the president. the debt ceiling fight of 2011, there are still scars from that. said thener has since president has stepped up and has house republicans build some trust. a speech where he says he would follow the law? i do not know if it is a must. an interesting proposal -- if

you do not trust the president, let's pass the bill now. if there is a deal, and i am deal,ul, if there is a that could be a compromise. news story that dominated last week, that is what is going on at the health care authority. the story continues over the weekend. think will happen with the white house this week with the pressure building? administration, , they dohave seen this not chop the heads off of people in positions of authority until much later in the process. you saw the white house doing the send inre.gov debacle, one of its most trusted fixers

to go into the hhs and bail kathleen sebelius out of the problem, in this case, he has ,ent his deputy chief of staff who has long ties with the hill, because he's to be legislative director for the white house, they sent him to help with this review of what the problems are, .here is a bit of a difference that was centralized and in one place. v.a. nva hospitals are diffused. anyone of them can be a problem. once you start seeing two or three or four, it starts looking systemic. that is a problem the white house needs to get a hold of right now. >> this morning, the administration was warned back in 2008 during the transition that there were problems with

the v.a. system, that there were inaccurate waiting times and scheduled failures that threatened to deny health care. what do you make of this story am impacted has this week for the administration? guest: the white house likes to say, bob gates, the former secretary-general, who won the president at the very beginning that he should realize some place, someone in the federal government is screwing up and eventually, some of those end up on his desk. warningsmight have you're the white house would tell you they have tried to tackle one of the persistent problems, these long with of disability claims and an incredible backlog there. they said they are able to shorten that. the assertion perhaps comes into question once you start seeing that at the very hospitals they

were gaining the system and numbers on other types of treatment. in any event, the white house says they have -- we have tried to deal with some of the onelems, but here is the where you have 40 people die while waiting for treatment in arizona. is a big problem for the white house. it probably right now is overshadowing benghazi as an issue. staffday, the chief of has gone on tv and said, the and went is mad as hell have not seen the president mad as hell yet but certainly his chief of staff is saying they're taking it seriously. on the hill, there efforts -- a legislative efforts, i believe, to give sin jackie more to fire people, which --s not have at this point

that is to give him more authority. the house considers that bill that would give him that much more power. in his testimony last week, he did fairly well. he said he was mad as hell. of blame.lot a trio of republican senators had him step aside. many of these how ongoing investigations will be lawsuits but overall, he has been able to keep his job and said he has served at the pleasure of the president. his first impulse is not to fire people. he has not called for his resignation. while.s will go on for a thingsthe most damning is you have these not only cooking the books, but the cover-up.

>> you have a former senator of nebraska. why does it matter? >> if you are in trouble, whether republican or democrat, if the other party is calling you to step aside, -- members of your own team, we have seen that over the years, where different politicians have gone into trouble, but when your own team turns on you, that is when you are in trouble. maybe this could be the beginning of it here and we are in election season. democrats do not want to be is in ag him when he moment of fire. maybe this could be the first of several democrats, we will see. veteranob kerrey is a navy seal who lost his leg in action. he brings more weight to the argument. vietnam were,n

was awarded the medal for heroism and combat. he was a patient of the v.a. for eight or nine years. let's go onto our first phone call, bob from virginia, democratic caller. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. what really bothers me is those saying hillary has brain damage. i would like to know what bob thinks about that. she is a terrible secretary of state, responsible for benghazi, everything. ares horrible what they doing to hillary clinton. it is outrageous. please respond to that. host: your thoughts on this debate. guest: big controversy and it

will go on for a while because it is likely she will run for president. she will be 69 if she were elected, which will be roughly the age john mccain would have been, but younger than ronald reagan. republicans obviously did not like the way rove did it and how you run it, and when for president, there is so much pressure for you to release your records, and she has has -- she has had health issues before, tech and karl rove's life. is health or rain at the state department, she will have to make the case or benghazi. every candidate has strengths and weaknesses. she will have to make a compelling case. benghazi maybe could have been

handled differently. >> the committee created in the house to investigate what happened on september 11, 2012, did they call the former secretary of state before that? that is a huge question. a huge risk, but a lot of republicans feel they have to call her. congress,ied before in the senate, and i think they probably will. it will be quite a theater if they call on her to testify. investigation, -- the initial investigation, she was not questioned on it era public and will need to say, these are the three questions we do not know about benghazi and they started to come up with their message on that. another question is whether democrats will participate in this special committee. they have been divided on it. there have been talks of what cutting it completely.

they want to have seven democrats on it. john boehner said that would not happen. you will get five. senate republicans have told us they want a house-senate special committee. democrats are not going for that . what will house democrats do? it is up to nancy pelosi. when push comes to shove, i think they will put in five democrats, as many as they can get on the committee. when hillary clinton is in the room, democrats will want to -- at a subpoena or after the testimony. >> the idea they could delegitimize the committee by not appointing members has probably lost some power. at the white house, they spoke about this idea of naming one. they were seating that decision to pull oc, realizing she had a

political issue, a political problem with her members area this idea of naming one, just so they can keep track of what was going on, so they could have took,add depositions they was something that -- that had caught the attention at the white house. if they realized the delegitimizing is not the path to take, they might as well just point -- time, the select committee is about to watch and get underway this week, you have got the government reform thisttee continuing with investigation, working to get secretary john kerry with them area he has had traveling conflicts. what is going on between the leadership there and who is really doing the invest ignition? -- investigation? want: john boehner did not

this. he got a lot of report -- support and cosponsors and john boehner initially were resisted. he wants to defer to the committee chairman, most notably the chairman of the oversight committee. then, the pressure -- there was an e-mail from a white house , notor that came out because of an investigation, but because of a lawsuit brought by a conservative group through the freedom of information act. that is when john boehner said, ok, we need more power and we have got to step it up. not crazy about this idea, but he is saying they could continue doing their investigations. of committee chairmen who have on thisated benghazi special committee. john kerry will testify. it is just a matter of when. he was not there when benghazi happen, but as far as the

documents republicans claim the state department has not been as forthcoming as it should be. >> this is a headline from fox news's website. republicans want new clinton area wheren benghazi talking with to zach, manager of edit -- of the hill. taking your questions and comments about the week ahead in washington here. we will go to a republican caller out of texas. good morning. >> yes. i just wanted to ask the assessment on unemployment. note the labor secretary recently raised the issue again. is the issue finally dead? certainly, the white house is butl pushing for it, congress has not acted. the numbers are not there. better access

into what the politics are, but this has not moved, i think some of the steam goes away from the issue as some unemployment numbers have come down. the that scene, hiring increases. that is a fluctuating number. you go month a month and then suddenly, you are back to a low hiring by the private sector. i do not know -- >> i agree. the momentum for the bill, earlier this year, he looked like it was going to happen and it stalled in the senate, and then through a lot of negotiation, they got it through the senate. this is another bill -- a lot of bills, the house passed and there sitting in the senate. this is an immigration bill that is stuck in the republican led. conservatives do not feel pressure to act on this. as you mentioned, dropping the unemployment rate hurts the effort to move this bill and

really, we have not seen the push from the white house -- it has been intense at times. of thisink the chances bill are very slim. >> these next in massachusetts, independent caller. hi. caller: a couple of awesome nations. of your -- observations. one of your guests said john boehner and the president do not have a good relationship. it probably do not, but i think john boehner would i to have one. the great debt crisis, where they could have had a grand bargain and were only a handshake away. the president did everything he could. kept raising the the bar. first, they wanted a dollar and revenue.r every cut of men wentdent from two to three dollars beer john boehner said, you have got everything you want 30's shake

his hand and we will destroy the party. john boehner row probably go down in history. i think the problem is not so much the relationship. it is not even policies. a matter what the president seems to want to do, there will be the tea party fashion that just says, we are against it. there is no doubt, john boehner has to watch the tea party guys in his conference and as the caller mentioned, they were very close to a grand bargain, extremely close. it would have been very controversial and tough to move to the house. israises the issue, what john boehner's legacy as speaker? that could have been one, the grand bargain. it did not happen. could it be immigration? it could be. other than that, curbing spending here and there, but that crosses his mind.

tomorrow is primary day in several states and this is a test for tea party candidates. mean if tomorrow comes and some tea party candidates have one and some of lost? >> so far, we have a fight on the right. there is a fight on the left as well. hillary clinton, some people want to have a primary with her. there is some concern with her on the left. the biggest party is on the right. establishment versus tea party. we saw this play out in different primaries over the last couple of elections. elected oneel they electable people. they won the primary and lost in the general election, including the challenger to harry reid a few years ago. this is another test. is a tea party challenge to mitch mcconnell. it was like he will win and win big. if he does when they, that is a

big deal. a contested primary in georgia, where some republicans do not want congressman paul broun to win. they think he could struggle in general. we have this fight and the establishment right now is fighting back and winning. , it congressman mike simpson loses his seat, because of a tea party challenge , that is a win for the tea party. is a big day. we will see it throughout the next several months. house, they will strategy for the rest of the year depending on what happens in the primaries. guest: what the white house easier if the republican party as a whole having moved to a more conservative stance. that affects how they view and create their strategy for dealing with congress. there is really not that much

more other than immigration as a slim possibility that is out there for these sides to negotiate over. think, and my colleague chuck wrote this over the weekend, the idea that even as -- even if the tea party suffers the loss is, you have seen the party in general move to the right. at the same time, you have seen the chamber of commerce come in as kind of a representative of the establishment of the republican party way in. you mentioned in the georgia race, they put money for jack kingston in that race. affect are trying to these races as well. but again, fundamentally, there has been -- the needle has moved a little bit to the right because of the tea party, whether they win the races or not. on twitter, --

is it not hurting the republicans? guest: it is not. the map supports the public -- the republicans this year. history shows the six-year seven year itch, when you have the president's party second terminate term, not a good situation. this is been frustrating for congressional democrats here on individual only issues they do well. is one that is not a top issue as far as one or two jobs in the economy always trumps it there it white house democrats have made the argument it would help -- host: even with the hispanic population, it polls below jobs and the economy.

two things we looked at, one, how do they deal with the affordable care act, did they mention obamacare, and also immigration. we found a lot of democrats were not talking about obamacare. not just maybe health care in general, but not the law, which is not popular. immigration, unless there were certain district -- host: republican caller, go ahead. caller: i have a couple of comments. i am a republican and i feel very discouraged about the two representatives there representing the media. i watch c-span thoroughly and pretty much across other media outlets. i watch the hearings in congress and on the floor and i do my research.

to see these two representatives here continuously misinform the public -- host: what did you hear -- misrepresentjust the information that is out there -- host: give me an example. caller: one example is the fact when --st this morning, was on talking about hillary clinton about her health records and her age and so forth, age does not have too much of anything to do with anything about the records -- her medical records, just as much as the republicans on the republican side of any person running, whether it be rand paul -- look at his record and his history of what he has done as a

politician -- host: what did you hear -- caller: he has not given any information to the public -- chris christie. i will move on. we will go to steve, republican caller. are a lot of good topics here. immigration, all the scanners -- all the scandals. are ai am an 80 year vet, 19 p. about thishing hillary clinton and the bush's, why is everything focused on -- that could save the country. benghazi is a big thing with hillary. her congressman's, i do not see any.

-- her accomplishments, i do not see any. months ofremaining this legislative session, is it about 2014 or 2016? guest: both. democrats are saying the investigation about benghazi is all 2016, and about weakening hillary clinton. republicans are hungry to get back in the white house. other democratic challengers other than hillary clinton? yes. a substantial challenger? i do not think so. some people think elizabeth warren will run. she says she will not. i do not think she will. agenda, 2000 14, the big question is, can republicans win back the senate? bills where it moves through the senate. you cannot blame senate

republicans. when the house. house republicans are in a position where they expect to pick up seats. democrats think they will pick up seats, but the chances of democrats winning back the house , unless something dramatic happens in the next several months, that will just not happen. think they do not have that much interest. he does not have a dog invested in the 2016 fight. he has been careful not to give a nod to either hillary clinton or joe biden. to 2014, the one thing they are relying on the president to do is raise money. a lot of candidates really do not want him campaigning with them. the way hethey like makes a pitch for donors, because he is still very effective at doing that. every week has been sprinkled with fundraising events. he is doing one here and another one in chicago. the one kind of example that

does not prove my point, last week, when he went to little rock. senator pryor invited him to come. senator pryor has been trying to distance himself from obama policies. disaster you have a like the tornado over the state of arkansas, having the president there is more a symbol that you have the clout to bring the most powerful person in the country into your state. that was an effective way for prior to use the president without having to embrace his policies. you senate the top you could see the senate voting this head of hhs taking over for kathleen sebelius. there is a shakeup at the white house, moving positions around. julian castro. host: what is the president doing here?

guest: he is bringing in shaun donovan, the current secretary of housing, into the white house. as what he wants. castro, whojulian is popular and well-liked at the white house, one of two brothers who have made a name for themselves in politics. his brother is a member of congress. so, if donovan goes to the budget office, he will be are placing sylvia, who will not have a vote this week on the services, anduman then castro would come in as isretary of housing, if he confirmed by the senate. it is an interesting move because castro is really kind of a known figure, a rising star within the democratic party. his base is at -- as mayor of

antictonio in the his community. this is an attempt to raise his village -- his visibility. to give a hispanic more prominence. certainly, the life set -- the white house has come under criticism. tom perez is the one who stands out in the labor department. this is an attempt to raise his village -- his visibility. to give a hispanic more prominence. i have got two comments i want to make. [indiscernible] why do you want to add a billion dollars to something already being wasted [indiscernible]

a billion dollars [indiscernible] at more money onto it. another thing i want to say is i watched c-span quite a bit and i watch [indiscernible] republicans do not mind wasting money like that. when it comes like food stamps or social security -- [indiscernible] when is the military ever going to go broke? never hear about that. we know how much waste is going on. we got your point. two different points. the spending one. the defense operations bill is on the floor at the house. yes.:

we have got the sequestration deal that was struck. both parties did not like it but they were handcuffed. we have the sequestration through the deal struck by patty murray and paul ryan. there is a big deal about defense spending and food calling -- that was a big issue and the farm bill finally pass. not asde some cuts but many as the house bill wanted. if you look at medicare, reforms have to be made. these programs are headed for bankruptcy. the caller was talking about cleaning up the v.a. system rather than dumping money on the situation.

guest: i think ultimately congress has to decide what they and do for appropriations whether this is the kind of problem that requires financing or change in leadership. i do not know the white house is making that big of a push for infusing -- infusion of money before they make a determination of what the problem is in the first place. in scranton, pennsylvania, a republican caller. caller: my question today, the irs scandal. and is this runs deep undercover big-time. the nbc and cbs network has not given any coverage. the latest news, why is this not giving coverage? i appreciate your time.

as far as i think benghazi now is capturing a lot of the attention, but the irs continues. a former recently held official in contempt. there was a bipartisan poll. watch that i do think has been undercovered is that the irs will release all of lois lerner's e-mails. this is something dave camp has been pressuring for. the irs said it would. that will be maybe the next shoe to drop your lois lerner is not talking. until she talks, she is really the linchpin. she has claimed the fifth. i'm told there is more news out of this and other things will grab the attention of the media. class i agree.

problemils could be a or could be illuminating. eventually, as the scandal works looksy through, while it like the irs had been emphasizing or giving greater scrutiny to the conservative groups, there was the occasional liberal group that was also getting extra scrutiny. the question was, which ways the irs tilting? perhaps these e-mails will show something that we could focus on. class any word of -- from a justice department on whether they move forward? the republicans want an investigation, some sort of prosecution. request i am not aware of what the justice department is doing. i cannot help you with that one. we will move on to brenda. you're on the air. go ahead. irs, obama, medicaid

and medicare. host: what about it? benefits,l the medicare and stuff, that is also for the v.a. and everyone else. i think he ought to be audited. he could pay off the united states senate. host: you are breaking up a little bit. feedback from a television. i will let you go on that. defense and drums. a nominee played a role as far as crafting the legal memo that justified the killing of an american in yemen, a terrorist that was killed. the white house was talking to democrats about him. they want to move him through. vocal on that.be

there will also be hearings and debate on the house floor about the objection of schoolgirls in nigeria. the big thing tomorrow election wise, primaries in big states, the biggest one, senator mitch mcconnell's challenge from the right. he is expected to win. let's we will have coverage here on c-span and c-span two. what are you watching? >> how they respond and continue to respond to v.a. problems, i think the white house is leaderted to see how pelosi deals with the benghazi investigation so they could gear up for that. bob mentioned the one circuit court of appeals. they had a flat last week over a federal judge in georgia by the name of michael boggs, who the president nominated.

so that kind of through a whole deal the white house had struck with georgia's republican senators with questions over judges. >> we will watch this week and we will have coverage at the white house as well. bob husak, managing editor of the hill, white house reporter with the associated press. thank you both. josh, who will join us next. , who will join us next. later, your money series continues with a look at the u.s. taxpayer dollars with the international monetary fund. first am a news update from c-span radio. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> p williams of nbc news reports this hour the justice department has filed criminal charges against chinese officials. this is the first time the united states has wrought cyber espionage charges against a state actor. details on the charges will be .nnounced by eric holder you can hear it on c-span radio or watch it on c-span. the russian president, vladimir putin, says he has ordered to return tokraine home basis. the west has been criticizing russia for deploying about 40,000 troops and demanded they pulled back. president putin has previously claimed the troops have been withdrawn but the united states and nato say they had no sign of that. we -- "we cannot take what

we achieve for granted. russia's is aggressive against ukraine has challenged the united states to choose their own path. " go back and look at coolidge, he was a conservative hero and his tax rate was a gold standard tax rate we saw in the video. rateas what he got the top down to. he fought like crazy. it started in the 70's. that is an epic battle. when you look at what the socialites said about coolidge in washington, you want to they were probably from families who endorsed different policies. his father had a different model of president. select get him active. he was cold and not giving out favorites. she said he looked as though he had been weaned on a pickle.

his silence was cultural. he was from new england. farmers do not talk a lot or wave their arms about because a cow might kick them. was temperamental of temperament. he was a shy person. not talk ahe did lot, people would not stop talking. political leader is conflict unguarded with request. his silence was his way of not giving into special interests. >> washington journal continues. host: we're back with josh gerstein, and this is your

recent story. who watches the watcher? big data goes unchecked. about here?talking what companies are we talking about? we thought it would be interesting, given all the attention paid to the nsa and spine, what is going on. we found most interesting that there were companies across the private sector, and some of them were in the business of gathering data and others were in the business of picking up data along the way. it is everything from information in your electric meter about what time of day you use electricity homage to the numbers you give out at this market and drugstore, that tell people what products you are buying, two companies that are doing other things like taking pictures of license plates and parking lots and figuring out where cars are parked. privacyo has various

consents. computers are getting stronger and stronger data storage and the ability to crunch the data is getting cheaper and cheaper. information web of is being built, where you could put that data together and build a picture of individuals. my colleague look at this government report, that you could get up to 75,000 data points on a specific individual, things you bought and websites you visited. someone gets your e-mail address can link it to some of the other information in your profile and track you as you move around the web. in the last year or so, it seems --e there were a lot more as advertisements that followed you from one to the other. three or four days later, you start to see add enticements -- advertisements for similar products on other websites. companies are becoming

increasingly sophisticated about following them around. >> why does it matter? >> it matters to some people for a couple things. companies can use this to market to you. to talkled profiles about financial success. there may be other companies that want to purchase the information. for some people, that might not bother them, but there are obviously privacy questions. there are questions, of course, but what happens with that data. could it be used by employers? it could go back into the government. and even if information can be withned by the government a subpoena. it becomes a revolving door where the private sector can have information about your private life.

christ can people expect a certain amount of privacy when shopping online or parking their car? this is a good question. was something discussed in a white house report on big data, that you are giving consent when you go on a website and purchase something, when you click through terms and conditions that nobody reads on various website tom or whether your apple product is up to date, you are agreeing to let people share and look at your information in certain ways. that model starts to break down at a certain point, for example when you're talking about somebody building a database of -- licenselates plates and where they park, i do not think everybody shopping in a parking lot, somebody's recording that. they would not remember it for long but somebody would store that for one year, five years,

10 years, forever. it is not regulated at all in most places in the country. taking a look at the privacy and security online, most internet users would like to be online at least occasionally. many people think it is not possible to be completely anonymous online. many people sought to remove four masked their imprints. what do you think the numbers tell us about where we are headed here? >> this stems in large part out of the nsa controversy. a lot of people basically thought it was no big deal, that people would view this as a modest intrusion of privacy. program as regards to americans, phone numbers and which ones were being called by other phone numbers, some of the

information we were able to report on in the private sector, they were far more detailed. there are companies, if you use commercial e-mail vendors, they have access to your e-mail and can figure out what words you use. there are people who are creek -- increasingly concerned, and it is a fascinating diversions. young people seem particularly concerned about privacy aspects, even though a lot of folks regard young people as major over sharers in terms of putting out a lot of things on facebook, twitter, and snapshot, where they share things they perhaps should not. information in part because they have an unreasonable expectation that it will remain private area if you look at some of the data, there is a fair amount of interest in

privacy. host: can you mask your footprints from the private companies? guest: to some extent. there is -- there are different ways for your browser not to be tracked. it becomes very difficult. ,f you go to the supermarket you want to go online that -- and get an e-mail provider that does not sift through your e-mail, you will probably have to pay for the service instead of getting it for free. there are ways you can try to confuse the system. that brings up another question, which is, how accurate are these? we really do not know. is it 50%, 75%, 100% of people on the list that are accurate? a lot of this data is not necessarily coming from a reliable source. you take your car into jiffy lube and suddenly they have your

license plate and name together. if your son or father or a friend of yours takes it in, they might wink your license plate to that person's name and they are building information that is not accurate. we do not have insight into how accurate it is. house reportere talking about this new piece. we will get your thoughts and questions in a minute. let's take the second part of this. they did it goes unchecked. what do you mean? guest: we love to see what the responses are -- what the national government has made to these. it has been detected. fewe have been a legislative proposals. probably the most notable comes from senator rockefeller, the head of the commerce committee, who is retiring this year. he put out a report about data brokers selling these profilers

with distress, and things along those lines. pushing legislation that would regulate the industry. a popular idea in washington. most republicans are generally opposed to putting any new burdens on the private sector, unless there is an extraordinary reason to do so. democrats are caught in an interesting device here. crackation would be to down on some practices. some of the big companies at the center of the industry, you're talking about the titans of silicon valley and the internet world very googling yahoo!, they are not necessarily the data brokers that sell profiles to people, but they're heavily involved in the online and trying business to segment their audience so reach the people

they are most interested in. you may have heard in the last week or two, snapshot was hit with an enforcement action. in the ability to regulate this area is murky. they have the right to go after unfair or deceptive practices. the company arguably tricks you into thinking the privacy policy is one thing and then changes it

midstream without telling you. of anould be the subject enforcement action. it is not clear what the authority is if the company did not make promises to you about privacy. >> connecticut, democratic caller. you are up first. >> thank you. i first want to make the comment that when the media and government let institutions get away with lying, encourages other institutions to also lie and take advantage to other -- of other americans. why has the media not informed aboutblic of the evidence building seven on 9/11? host: we are not talking about that issue. this morning, it is about private companies and the collection of data they are doing. we will go to paul in georgia, democratic caller. hello. caller: i was just wondering, do you think the nsa has ticked up

on the future city thing? the city leadership group, and hillary -- the development in brazil to be in charge of our country by 2030. national geographic says they want to take latinos and put them in the cities like detroit and keep them -- from driving or anything. host: how is this related to our topic? caller: i was just wondering if the nsa has picked up on the spot by hillary and others -- host: where did you hear this? most in 2012 also c-span. you all took down three of the videos, but we picked them up before you all took them down. host: all right. let's go to j.crew in washington, maryland, democratic

caller. caller: good morning. to comment on the main issue here. in 2007, i work for an agency and this was my private, personal information. they came and showed me where i live. i was just wondering how in the world we are getting so up riled about something that has been going on ever since 2000? it seems as if we just lay the blame game and put all this on the administration. i am not trying to tear anything in half. withjust -- people call in all of this rhetoric and all these decisions and opinions about the administration. this has been something in existence for the last decade. >> that is generally true if we

are talking about nsa surveillance here there is no question it has been banned from the bush era to the obama era. pretty much, the president was just calling it the way he sees it, regardless whether there was a legal basis to do that. what has happened is not really a question of whether obama or bush fell down on the job. the power of these databases, as i said, in the beginning, it has become more and more intense. it is easier and easier to use a to crunchuter enormous amounts of data. 10 years ago, it would not have been possible to develop a database for millions of cars -- parking lots around the country over a several year time. it would have been impossible to store all the data the nsa stores in a meaningful way. with the strength of computers, we talked about the notion of the internet of things, like

your refrigerator, your thermostat. google just bought a company that has wi-fi connected thermostats. very useful if you want to change the temperature in your house or turn the heat on. possibilities others could either change against her will, or, track what you're doing in that area. your electric company can monitor your consumption throughout the day. of privacya form invasion. there have been many cases of people growing marijuana at home that have been covered through discovering unusual amounts of energy at different points of the day. there is so much information, the way the internet has exploded, that allows the challenge to privacy to really be more significant than a decade ago. khosla do you mean when you say

big data? what do you mean when you say big data? guest: billions of pieces of information that can be easily crunched and linked. there is also an increasing ability to combine patterns. there are sets of data, for example, the folks who collect license plate information. platesay, just license and numbers. we are not using people's names or faces or home addresses or what have you. once somebodyible gets that information to use other databases to go back and re-identify. you may think, for example, information from a medical clinical trial, they may say, we have stripped out all the personal information. information,w there might be zip codes in their and there are various studies showing it is possible to take that data for people who claim it is anonymous and discover who these people are.

you may not give your name, but people can narrow down significantly who a lot of those are. host: how are these companies able to sort through the information they get? guest: the power they have. there is no regulation in controlling the data. you have to affirmatively give information. there are limits on how much time -- personal for michigan be kept. you can only use it if a person gave it to you for that purpose. for medical appointment or by a certain product, you cannot thatsarily sell information or use it down the road for a different purpose. this information is sort of a wild west situation. that they lied to you about what they will do the information, you can go through the fcc. if the fine print says we can use this for anything, there is

no rule that says they cannot. host: what are other countries doing and which? primarily it has been the european union most aggressive on the front. a different approach there. traditionally, the u.s. has taken the view that if you do business with a they lied to yot company, the information the company gets about you but lost to the company. in europe, the view primarily has been your personal information, street address, phone number, that information belongs to you even if it is included in a broader database. they have regulations for more than a decade, data protection and so forth, that prevent that information from being shared outside of certain rules, and also give people a right to recourse if they think information about them is inaccurate. you have the right with federal government. there are laws like the privacy act that allow you to mend certain records. no mandatoryly requirement for anybody in the

private sector to fix information. if you were to end up on one of these lists about people who suffer from a specific illness, and you do not, or you do not think the information should be there, it is difficult to force the company to take you off of that. host: on twitter -- guest: to some extent, it does allow for these odd marketing techniques. i do think there is also a possibility of personal privacy notsion, even if people are concerned about marketing. if there are no rules whatsoever for the databases come a there is no reason why a stock or cannot put in your license plate number and by a surge of the databases for someone and find out what places you are most or where hang out at pictures of you may or may not have been taken over sometime. when we told people about the information that can be

assembled on them, we spoke to a representative of you talk, for example, and they said, that is creepy. there is definitely a creepiness factor to all of us a lot of people find very troubling. host: they have legislation. guest: gps tracking. it is primarily focused on the government. again, republicans have primarily been focused on the privacy area. some are interested in advancing the issue but they're mostly focus on, what is the government doing and how is the government invading your privacy? they have been slower for various reasons in the privacy sector. people that are really troubled i the nsa disclosures -- by the nsa disclosures, when they hear what the private sector is doing, they tend to be troubled. some people are not troubled by either. different people have different issues about privacy they are concerned about. some people are nervous about their information being shared but they do not mind being

aggressively searched by a psa agent at the air force -- airport. others are the opposite way. they do not mind people rummaging through e-mail accounts but do not want to be like. do we accommodate the different kinds of privacy we are in? host: host: we are talking with josh a newin of politico on series politico is launching. what is the series? severale are looking at aspects of the private world of data collection and the second installment in the series, which is from mycome out, colleague stephanie simon, who wrote about education and children- and student-related issues that have come up in this arena. people may remember there was a program called in bloom about

the gates foundation that was trying to use big data to get huge amounts of information. it is possible to trace student answers to every multiple-choice test they have taken from kindergarten perhaps through postgraduate school, and you can look and see if, for example, kids are dropping out, where do the threshold, where do we see a tipping point where they start to lose interest, and you can figure out, welcome we can do an intervention at that point. from a social scientist point of view it sounds interesting and like a good improve education, -- like it could improve education, but it freaks terrence out that some private firm, nonprofit, for-profit, whatever, would have that much , theretion on the child activates, family life, because these people want to find any doiable about white kids well and schools do well -- about why kids do well in

schools do well. they shut this program down after a couple years of experimentation because parents were reacting so angrily to the privacy aspects of it wil. host: linda, democratic caller. is thatmy qualification i've been in arpanet and an internet user since 1976. the internet went public in 1993. i have become horrified at what has been permitted to become. were madebig mistakes in the mid-1990's when legislators and their staffs, who understood nothing, got snookered by industry into accepting an opt-out standard instead of an opt-in standard, and also to accept transparency in the form of privacy policies as sufficient protection instead of making real laws, as the

europeans are kind of flimsily trying to do on actual collection of data. we are so far down the road now it is hard to even focus on any one issue, but this is what i would say. isple, when polled, think it so to conan that they think it is already easy, except it is not and they don't understand that. that is the creep factor. the information collected on you today, you have to worry about what can be done with the technology in 5, 10, 15 years from now. what can you actually do on the state legislative level? the last refuge of privacy is paying for cash at a store. but with facial recognition and license plates, as he has been talking about here, they can't tell who you are anyway and what whobought -- they can tell you are anyway and what you bought. ofhings -- state departments

motor vehicles routinely sell to license plate databases data aggregators. it is considered to be public record. pass a law that says you can't do that. if the cops need to know who you are, they can, but nobody else can. drivers license databases are authenticated identities with a face that can be used to produce facial recognition. they can't make a wall on the state level, but they can't sell the license plate databases to data aggregators. host: so, linda, that is your solution. can we go back to your -- solution. is not my it is a tiny, tiny bit of a million things. host: let me go back to what you initially set, you were part of -- were you part of the agency? caller: ha, the agency.

no, i went to school at ucla. ucla was arpanet and hence, internet 90. i know people who built these things, a lot of them, and people think the internet is relatively new, but it was there and 1970's, a government agency, extremely tightly controlled. it was decided in 1993, which i think was a good decision, today go public -- to let it go public. it is what happened next that went all wrong. host: let's get information from josh gerstein. guest: i think the comments are interesting. when she mentioned that the opt situation, that is what we are seeing with the europeans. europeans have largely gone for an opt-in model. one of the things you are likely to see come even on a news ussite, is "do you accept

putting a cookie on your computer?" you only really see it european sites, you don't see it on u.s. sites -- host: you have to opt in for that. guest: right. you may not know what that means and you may click to thdo it. in the u.s. it is presumed you have consented. it is basically on you to do it. in europe it is something where they have to get your affirmative consent. as far as the driver's license information and so forth to my think some of that is actually currently regulated. there was a law passed more than a decade ago called the driver privacy protection act that stalking andock -- murder of an actress in california. the federal government put restrictions on drivers license information that made it harder to sell or distribute it without illegitimate is this purpose to do that -- without a legitimate

business purpose to do that. some of that may be outside a lot with registrations and so forth, but it is a tricky challenge. even though it sounds relatively simple, you can bump into somebody's car and they may not be there and you have to figure out who the car belongs to and suddenly that is a legitimate reason, although a minor case of property damage. some of the questions have to do with do we change our laws because we are scaling things up from one to 10 to one million? it is legitimate for me to take a picture of your license plate while it is parked in the street. it is affected by the first amendment. news organizations take those pictures all the time. photoashington post" archive is clearly protected by the first amendment. but what if i want to take 5 million pictures of license plates? are the rules suddenly different? host: remind us of arpa. guest: arpanet is the precursor to the internet. it is a sort of an in-house

think tank for the federal government that did a lot of the technology work. the internet to was a military communications system that was designed to route around failures. it has taken on proportions that the inventors could never have imagined. host: 2 quick treats. -- tweets. as i mentioned before, anything the private sector has the government can get fairly easily. there are obviously subscriptions -- these large companies that are in the data brokering business. axiom, for is called example. situations to those kinds of information --subscriptions to that kind of information. there are those who betray this is an ogre that is invading privacy and never provide

benefits. it is clear that even in the marketing area there are people who are happy to see products they are interested in and ultimately that is why businesses are marketing to people, because they think they have something you might want to purchase, presumably voluntarily. but some people get nervous when they see that we are trying to find people who are in financial distress and pressure subprime loan or some kind of payday loan or something that will get them into an even worse state. the danger a lot of people see in these practices is mainly that they are so effective. host: this if you are on twitter wants to know -- this viewer on whater wants to know - happens if they get inaccurate information. guest: you could get lists of someone who is in financial distress -- when people apply for jobs for example, a lot of people run credit checks on those people and if you get a bad credit score, they may not hire you.

you have aot care if bad credit score and it may be based on inaccurate information. would've companies necessarily tell you that the credit score affected your hiring? they are supposed to do that but i don't know if they actually would. and wild and wonderful guest: some people do. there are questions about how effective it is from which is why people pay at a lower rate still to advertise on the internet than they do on magazines or newspapers, for example. but it does seem to be effective. i don't think companies would be paying the amount of money they do to advertise on the internet now and to follow people around on the internet. if you are looking for a specific product, it can be

valuable information. for example, women who are pregnant -- there are companies who are very eager to pay a lot of money to get your name and e-mail address to get that kind of information, because it is viewed as a very significant market opportunity. host: let's go to robert in brooklyn, new york will stop republican caller. caller: good morning. whatever public and so democrats decide to use information -- what if publicans are democrats decide to use this information to undermine the other party? number two, alabama, and kentucky, states that used to have segregated schools, democratic governor, and yet the school systems -- [indiscernible] answer those 2 questions for me,

please? host: josh gerstein, did you understand those -- the second one was difficult to understand. caller: new york is more segregated. and that has taken place under a democratic mayor and democrat governor. it shows that everything that is going on was preplanned. host: ok, sounds like it is not related -- guest: not directly related. i am not an extra on why schools have become resegregated. i think it has to do with where people are choosing to live and people opting to take their kids out of the school system. a the first question he asked was about democrats and republicans, and this is pretty understand -- pretty interesting. i cover the white house and for a long time i think the obama white house looked at this data as a boon. they were basically trying to harness the big data revolution

to get jobs and economic development out of it, various states around the country set up incubators with the big data companies there to set them up as cutting-edge research projects, because we saw a lot of jobs and positive potential of medical research and information that could come out of this data technology. the privacy danger was kind of hell that they -- was kind of held at bay, or at least the 2 groups were separated. you obama campaign is known for its micro-targeting, using these same commercially available databases to drill down on voter registration, exactly where they live, what magazines they subscribed to, and come up with particularized pitches that remind them to vote. everybody regards the obama cap and the most sophisticated users of that technology, and you wonder if that mindset took over at the white house until the nsa hit and people

realize that there are significant privacy concerns to wrestle with. host: is it allowed for a party to use a government database for their own political purposes? guest: well, some of the information is public. no, government databases, you cannot just go and convert them unless they are available to the public to purchase will stop in many states, voter registration information is available with your name and address, maybe your birth year, how old you are. it is easy to take that information and match it with commercially available information to build a bigger profile on voters and link it to, as i mentioned, magazine subscriptions. if you get what websites they visit and come up with a very targeted kinds of pitches. no, they are not supposed to use nsa information in marketing and they are not supposed to convert government databases for use of political parties. but some of this information is basically considered public record, and a lot of states, not only your voter registration, what party you are registered

to, and how many times you voted. the obama campaign was successful in using that to find people who agreed with them on issues that supported president voters,t were irregular did not show up all the time, and lean on them to turnout in the 2012 election. host: a legal question here. guest: it is possible, and the supreme court is only beginning to struggle with this. they changed their mind and the last couple years, for example, on gps tracking. the government made the argument that it is no different than following a car around. we have always been able to follow a car around and what is the difference if we just put a little module under bumper and yourntracte on -- on bumper and we can track it? court said there

is a big difference. you could follow their car for years. the government, if it had no checks whatsoever, my do that a lot. whereas putting a team of fbi agents to follow you around is extraordinarily expensive to do on a regular basis. there are basic limits on it, and the supreme court has started to recognize some of these things, and as i mentioned, it will be interesting. within a matter of a few years the supreme court will see a case talking about the first amendment right to photograph you in a public place, does that mean that therefore i have the right to build a database of one million, 10 million, 100 million such autographs that include 20%, 30% of the u.s. population? is that protected by the first amendment just like it is for a newspaper or tv crew to go out on the street outside the studio and take pictures of people as they walk by? host: hi, sally, you are on the air. caller: thank you, greta. i appreciate being able to call

c-span. i've been a listener for 15 years and i appreciate brian and "q&a" and everything that goes on. anyway, i just wanted to ask need to getat we the big money out of our government, and that is by amending our constitution also so please visit move toamend.com. i wonder what you think about these corporations who have made all these rules or allowed all this information to be collected, because our politicians are bought by the corporations. guest: i think, as i mentioned before, the fact that washington has an active very aggressively in this area is in part due to actedfluence -- hasn't very aggressively in this area is in part due to the influence that people in the technology world have in washington. some of that is derived from campaign convolutions on lobbying, but even if those 2

things didn't, these are sort of america's cutting-edge companies. what is the u.s. best exporting at the moment? we are still good editor tim and an expert in hollywood and so forth -- good at hollywood and exporting entertainment and so people overseas feel that their communications have been compromised. i do think that somebody issues of money and politics probably play into why that hasn't been more regulation here. i think washington would have been somewhat slow on the sushi even if those factors weren't in lay -- slow on this issue even if those factors weren't in play. thank you for taking my call. invasions of privacy have become so absurd that nobody is safe anymore. privacy as we understand it has come to a hault.

is there a way out of this mess, and can the government accurately regulate it? host: josh gerstein? guest: i think there are some questions about what the limit of government power is. the internet is a global phenomenon. even if the government were to set up rules about what websites can or can't do, what information can or can't be stored, it will be very difficult to enforce those outside the united states. we have fights between the european union and the united states over these issues, because there are different policies in place. could probably be done to set rules for the largest players in these industries. at in the specific case it will be difficult to do -- but in the specific case it would be difficult to do. there was a case in the court about the right to be forgotten where an individual wanted information taken off of google. if different countries have

different rules about how that will be handled, we have a very messy situation very quickly. i think there are, at the margins from some practical considerations that will make it difficult to say there will never be privacy challenges. host: was that a big decision for the tech companies out of the eu? guest: i think it is a potentially big decision. i don't know how interested people are in going online and taking things down, but it is a different approach and i don't think that would fly at all here in the united states and it is, frankly, one that makes media companies, a lot of reporters nervous,lf a little because i spent all day writing articles that are about people. are they suggesting that those articles could be taken down if people don't like what they say? could they be taken down in a 5 years or 10 years of the people think at that point they are not newsworthy anymore or whatever important? -- isn't important? traditionally those things have

been available forever and you just have to look at them at a library on microfiche or microfilm or something like that. all of that information is available at the click of button, so there are new privacy challenges there. host: josh gerstein with politico. the stories "who watches the watchers?" part of politico's new series "beyond the nsa." coming up, we will look at the international monetary fund. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> more from politico, this from their labor this morning. talking about foreign policy today in a story titled "john doctrine: more intervention." "in 1966 as a graduating senior, john kerry told yale graduates that what has been in excess of

isolationism has become excess of interventionism." that was 48 years ago. he returned to the campus in new haven for another class day speech that he saw as a book and a to rail against government in washington and elsewhere for not assuming enough of her role in the world. -- enough of a role in the world. rarely is a date -- really has a day gone by where john kerry is not flying to another country. from the associated press in new york, "courting powerful jewish donors for the second time in 2 months, new jersey republican governor chris christie called yesterday for a more aggressive foreign policy that defends american values abroad, even in, in his words, some very messy, difficult places. he says the rest of the world watches in desperation and hope that america will realize and act upon its indispensable place in the world."

governor christie said in his keynote address yesterday, this before the champions of jewish values international awards gala in new york, "we must lead." is, thenational associated press reports that pakistani police officers as a judge has dismissed the case against an american fbi agent who was arrested over ammunition found in his luggage. the officers as the judge acted after police produced a letter from the ministry of interior attesting that the agent was allowed to carry a weapon while in active stand and therefore, any ammunition was legal. andhile in pakistan therefore, any ammunition was legal. americans may be largely unprepared for meeting long-term care. government figures show nearly 7 in 10 americans will need long-term care at some point after they reach age 65. yet the poll by the associated press and the center for public affairs research finds 20% of those surveyed think they will

need such care. president obama meets tomorrow with business leaders in an effort to promote foreign investments in the united states. the obama administration and key members of congress have been about u.s. companies moving overseas to gain tax advantages. those myths can cost the federal government billions in tax can cost- those moves the federal government billions in tax revenue. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> you can take c-span with you wherever you go with our free app for your smartphone or tablet. listen to all 3 c-span tv channels or c-span radio anytime , and there is a schedule of each of our networks so you can tune in when you want, play podcasts a recent shows from signature programs like "after words," "the communicators," and "q&a." download your free app online for your iphone, android, blackberry. thomasover 35 years

c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, also public service of private industry. we are -- all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought you as a service by your cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a narr -- in our last hour on monday, we take a look at your money. our focus is the international monetary fund. edwin truman is the senior fellow for the peterson institute for international economics. as begin with what is the imf, and when did it start? in 1944,e imf started bretton woods, new hampshire,

conference held during world war ii among the powers to set up an organization that would help prevent the problems that caused -- contributed to the great depression. host: 188 member countries. guest: yes, going on 189. host: offers financial assistance to troubled countries. it is well, that is what mostly known for, but it is set up to monitor the international monetary and financial system and has rules about exchange rates originally but now about many other things. it offers advice to countries at an when countries don't follow that advice and get into trouble, they come to the fund. host: who works for the imf? guest: about 3000 employees these days, economists and all other kind of a financial analyst. host: where is it located? guest: nineteenth street in

washington, d.c. host: why d.c.? guest: the bretton woods agreement says it would be in -- "it would be in the country with the largest financial intermissions. -- the headquarters would be in the country with the largest financial conurbations -- contributions. host: what is the difference between the world bank and the imf? guest: who will buy deals with the lemon juice and dmf deals with -- the world bank deals with development issues and the imf deals with macroeconomic issues. host: how is it funded? guest: the operations are funded by 2 principal means. each member has a quota, a commitment to lend its own currency to the funds of the fund could lead to the currency

and convert it into usable currency to other countries. those quotas are due to 3 things. how much you learned to it, how much you can borrow from it, that's how much you -- how much you lend to it, how much you can borrow from it. it has a permanent supplementary borrowing facility. the new arrangements to borrow. periodically, some countries on periodiceir quotas -- on an adade are hoc basis -- it made are on an ad hoc basis from other countries. host: which countries contribute the most? guest: we do. host: why? guest: because we are the biggest country. and we will continue to be. our share of world gdp, no matter how you slice it, is over

20%. host: so what does that mean? what is the united states get for the money? guest: what do we get for the money? we get several things. first, we get an institution that is committed to cooperation among countries for economic and financial stability. activity-- much of the has little to do with landing ending. with l toot more is devoted research and analysis of countries and trying to help countries, before they get into trouble, let me put it that way. that is all helpful, right? people get together and talk to each other and hopefully come up , andsolutions to problems

lend, and in the lending 17%.ations, more than $4 from every other country that contributes and it is all there to begin with. if you have a problem in a particular country -- say, mexico -- the money is there. we put in money and every other country puts in another four dollars, and it is already there ready to lend. rather than having to go into long negotiations saying will you contribute, will you contribute? host: mexico tops the list for the current imf bailouts, credit lines, and concessional lending, in billions, $72 billion to mexico. mexico needs money and they ask for it? -- or the imfys says you need money and your is what is going to happen? guest: the former.

the mexico number is a little -- this is actually a commitment to what is called the flexible credit line. it is a new type of framework that was put into place in the global financial crisis of 2009. countries who think they may need the money and qualified in terms of having very good policies -- they have everything good now -- they can be granted a flexible credit line. if they get into trouble and we have another global financial crisis -- the united states stock market dropped by 25% or something like that, affecting mexico, they can borrow from the credit line no questions asked because it has been preapproved. mbia and poland also a flexible credit lines -- also have flexible credit lines. a different category from what

you call rescue operations. host: ok, how do those work? guest: you have to apply them pass the test. the more restaurant operations -- put it that way -- like ukraine, the country gets into trouble as political problems that contribute but it gets into economic and financial troubles and the contrabass to the fund and the programs take lots of different forms, but in the case of the you can program -- the ukraine program, for example, we got ourselves in a mess, and for ou -- before any money can flow from the fund, they took some actions to shore up their budget and so forth and so on and they committed over a period of 2 for then return international monetary fund, designed to put them on more stable circumstances so they can start growing and expanding again. money"art of our "your

series, we are talking about the international monetary fund and now much the united states contributes to that along with other countries. in new go to john mexico, democratic caller thing. caller: i would like to start by thanking you for c-span, 35 years of wonderful news and informative people like our guest. a paper -- an old college student, about to graduate, and i wrote a paper on the imf and i will give you 2 criticisms and a 2 positives about the imf and i will let him respond. the largest holder of gold in the world, more than any other nation. another criticism would be if the conditionality of these loans destabilize regional economies -- jamaica losing its chemical industry that produced m -- cattle industry that produced milk and having to buy powdered milk from the u.s.

they are subject to any price increases that those companies would put. the loans where the imf would back these banks to make loans to poor countries, usually central america, and when the loans were paid back, the neighbor could then get a loan. you had to pay your loan back so that your neighbor could get a loan, and that program was very, very successful, over 90% repayment. the ones that don't work are when they go in and give every fisherman money for his home in butce -- not greece, iceland. it is only worth $35,000 because some of banker score to that -- host: ok, john, thanks. guest: that is quite a lot. congratulations on your degree. the imf is the world's largest holder of gold. that is partially how it was set up.

quotas, and of the the idea was that gold could be used as part of the system at that time. some of that gold is been returned to countries, some of that gold has been sold, but most of it is still held at the international monetary fund. the second one had to do with it -- not host host: conditions they put on these countries that destabilize the region. eye ofthat is always the the beholder. i think there is 2 tables but those 2te there more -- examples sound more like they are world bank programs than imf programs. they are related at times and often work together. but the conditions will say that you have to cut your budget deficit. you have to free up your exchange rates. you have to adjust your economy

loss-makingff government-owned enterprises. the fundamental choices that are made by countries -- what they are going to do to get from here to there -- our choices made within the country. the fund doesn't impose them. it says that you have to get from here to there and the country chooses out it will get from here to there. not to say that the fund doesn't offer some advice. there are good and bad ways to do it. good and bad ways to change a budget deficit, for example. host: on twitter guest: boy, that's a heavy question. in the case of the imf, let's talk about that, when you are leading a country that may already have a problem of excess debt, you are adding up more

debt. the idea is that in the process of lending them additional money, a, they pay off some of the old debt, replacing dead, and b, buying the country time to get the economy growing so that the ratio, the gdp, can grow again. short-term -- are and some can be as long as 10 years to pay off, but they are often 5-7 years. not often longer-term operations. host: edwin truman is a senior fellow at the peterson institute for international economics, served as assistant secretary of the u.s. treasury for international affairs december 1998 to january 2001, returned as counselor to the secretary march 2009. he directed the division of international finance of the board of governors for the federal reserve system from i did some seven to 1998.

-- from 1977 to 1998. our operatives the international monetary fund. mike, new orleans, independent caller. caller: i will give him a minute to spit the marbles out of his mouth after that last inane answer. the economic hitman john perkins, for decades working with the imf, essentially in the book where he said the imf is nothing more but an extortion racket, where we go in and get exorbitant loans to foreign companies so that they cannot -- so we can take over their resources. if the leaders of these countries did not take our loans , then we send in the jackals among the cia assassins and if they fail, we send in the army. this has been done over and over again and i want to know how this man that you have, this

can sleep with himself defending something that countries byrt getting them deep in debt. this man ought to be tried for treason -- host: all right, let's give them a chance to respond here. accusing him of a lot. how the imf works? guest: i do not recognize your discussion or the description you have in the book -- your description or the description you have in the book. it is true that the fund engages with all th countries. part of its job is to review the country policies and give advice which the country can choose to take her not to take it, including the united states -- take or not to take, including the united states. when the country gets into longer meetcan no its international bills, it goes in and tries to help the country

to straighten things out. they are not connected to the cia, they are not connected -- they don't lend it to corporations. they landed to governments -- they lend to governments. there are strong and weaker governments, more and less attractive governments. it is one of the challenges of the international monetary fund that you have to work with the government that is in power in the country if you want to help it at all. sometimes that has led over time to working with less than savory people. host: here is a tweet from one of our viewers. , no.: uh, technically we had a program where some of the countries would borrow a lot from the imf and world bank and other organizations. official debt, including from

government, bilateral lending, it so large that all the debt for these countries come even though it was low interest rates , was too much of a burden. various programs started in the late 1990's and exist in our now where-- exist countries could reduce the debt in return, again, for countries for forming the programs. funded inight it was the international monetary fund, the fund donors in one form or another put up extra money to pay down so that the imf itself did not forgive the loans. the imf accepted somebody else's money in return for forgiving loans. host: can the country borrow more money to forgive the loan they took previously? guest: some countries work that way. it is not encouraged, often seen as a sign of failure.

with antry was left program for $1 billion, and you, at the end of three years, are not back in the kind of shady shaped youm -- started from, you have to take another loan in part to refinance the first loan. that kind of prolonged use is generally discouraged, and the hope is that countries within 3 years, many programs are 3 years long, the country can get out from under it. current examples, both ireland and portugal have imf loan programs, 3-year programs, and they just ended those programs. here is a tweet from one of our viewers. host: just wondering what the united states get out of supporting the imf. guest: well, 2 points need to be made. lend to all, when we

the imf, we get interest. so the costs to the united states is different between which we borrow, treasury borrows, and interest rates we get from lending to the imf. sometimes it is plus, sometimes it is minus. it depends on how you do the arithmetic. over the last few years it has been a wash. don't -- because the imf has never defaulted, the countries have never defaulted on the imf, the money is pretty good. we often have capacity to borrow ourselves from the fund. host: has the united states ever -- guest: the united states has borrowed from the fund. had economic and

financial difficulties in the drews and 1970's what we foreign currencies out of the fund because we wanted to use that for foreign exchange market intervention or something like that. we get the financial return from the investment and the bigger return is in terms of a more stable global economy and financial system. it could be better but it could be a lot worse. host: darlene in las vegas, republican caller. caller: good morning. nice to speak with mr. truman. sir, i do believe i heard you say that 75% of the imf is in currency. how is it that we can have a financial stability if the united states holds the world's reserve currency? we seem to be having a hard time keeping our own house in order. dependentth can we be -- to help the rest of the world -- how on earth can we be

depended on to help the rest of the world? guest: well, i misspoke if i -- so, imagine to the question about -- in answer to the question about gold, when the fund was first set up, each countries quota, you pay 25% of that quoted i -- quota in gold. 75% was a commitment to lend dollars. that is what i meant by currencies. the way they do it now is slightly different, but it is basically the same thing. that is how the financing operates. got richer gold and capacity to borrow -- return capacity to borrow. a change of assets. we commit to lend 75% in terms of dollars to the fund. how does the world work with the

united states and the reserve currency role of the dollar? worse, theor international monetary fund, when it was started and today even, is largely based upon the dollar. you can argue whether that is good for the united states are not good for the united states. but we really can't do much about it. it does mean that we have come in terms of our own policies, or nationalility for responsibly for keeping our house in order and countries whose currencies are not as central to the financial system -- that is sometimes a burden and sometimes not, and the recent global financial crisis in the united states is an example of where we messed up. host: bill, you are on the air. caller: how are you doing this morning? it seems to me that you people must be affiliated with the project for a new american century.

are you affiliated with them at all, any of your directors or bank presidents or anyone like that? guest: nope. caller: not at all? guest: no. caller: wolfowitz, none of those people you are affiliated with? guest: the peterson institute for international economics is where i work now, is a standalone think tank. it is nonpartisan, and it works on international financial issues. ofget support from a number individuals and corporations and foundations in the country and around the world. peter peterson is one of the more generous benefactors of the place come but our work is independent. but we are a think tank, if you want to put it that way, and rick haas, president of the council on foreign relations, also a think tank. host: we will go to darlene next in new york, democratic caller. caller: hi.

host: morning, you are on the air. what is your question or comment? caller: i would like to know about the extended unemployment rate. nothing is being said or done about it, and the people are still waiting to hear something about it. people are losing their homes, they don't have money to pay their bills. i mean, you need 2 people working to make money. i have worked for 35 years -- host: darlene, how is that related to our topic of the international monetary fund? caller: um, i'm not sure. host: ok, let me move on now to matthew in georgia, independent caller. caller: a few questions. i would like him to address structural adjustments. that has to do with what the gentleman talked about,

confessions of an economic hitman. i'm currently reading "trilateralism," in the subtitle commissionlateral and the elite world government." maybe you can talk about the new world order and what it has to do with the imf. can you talk about one country that the imf has helped? i can give you many of them that the imf has given money and pretty much taken over the country and ruined the lives of the people. as much is going in in one country in south america and taking over and taking over the water system and the rates going up 250%, and in the end, the united states government has the government of that country tell the people that even the rain -- they couldn't collect the rain for their own. host: what country specifically? caller: i want to save olivia,

but you can look it up on google -- i want to say bolivia, but you can look it up on google. host: we will get a response from mr. truman. guest: bolivia -- 2 parts to your question. one partisan structural adjustment -- one part is structural adjustment. there are 2 things you want to do to help a country, reform the program. one has to do with making the bills work better, have the money to pay the bills. the other is to try to change the structure of the economy so that the problems you got into are not repeated. the fund has changed the way it approaches that nowadays. they are not conditions for the loans, they are called benchmarks for the loans. the country wants to sell some state owned enterprises and we plan to sell 3 of them over the

next 12 months or something like that. that is a structural benchmark, as an example. bolivia is a very interesting case, and i'm glad he mentioned that. bolivia had a lot of problems -- hyperinflation in the 1980's. the program has essentially been very successful. among other things i do, i teach at williams college and i had a bolivia whoe from work at the central bank there. early career people, not college students. he was frank that if it weren't for what the imf and other - ntries did to help bolivia in the 1980's, we would not have had the relative stability we have had in the last few years. it is true that the social programs have changed, but

interestingly enough, the basic edibles -- basic principles that beingf preaches are still followed in bolivia today. more broadly, the programs that the imf has had over the last 20 or 30 years in latin america, africa, asia, and the fact that countries committed to those programs and took the measures, one of the reasons that when we had the global financial crisis, these countries were not affected the way they might have been in the past and moreover were able to use their own monetary and fiscal policies to prevent spillover from our disaster affecting their economies to the degree which would have been the case in previous decades. host: on twitter guest: well, that's not an uncommon view. it is true that the international monetary system is not based upon gold today.

up, ite imf was set really wasn't the gold standard, but of course it had a link to gold and that was severed by the and movedtes in 1971 to a system of floating exchange rates. whatever one things about the merits of gold as an anchor for the financial system, i think it is a mechanism whose time has passed. the global financial system is just too congregated -- too complicated today and for better or worse, we have too much going on today and it is difficult to imagine the kind of discipline supposedly imposed by the gold standard. people need to remember, under the gold standard it was all voluntary, and when it got too painful, countries when offered, it ass we did, or changed

we did in 1971. not a system that operated globally for the world as a whole. host: what is the debate like today in congress over the imf? guest: well, the international monetary fund is an evolutionary system. it started out with 35 countries and now has 188 and the world has changed, and in particular, advanced countries, traditional advanced countries, western europe, united states, japan, smaller share of the world economy, and one needs to recognize that the way you run the governance of institutions like the international monetary fund. in the wake of the global financial crisis, it was agreed in the so-called group of 20, some in 2010, to make reforms to the governance of the international monetary system unit 3 ways. first of october there were going to double the size --

first of all, they were going to double the size. second, there were going to reduce the size to mention commensurately -- no new money, just reallocating. and then changing the representation of the imf executive board to have less representation from europe. the proposal is to approve this for -- congress has to approve these changes, or at least the amendment part of it. he doesn't cost taxpayers any more money -- it doesn't cost taxpayers any more money. cbo, $350 billion. but what it does is by changing not our quota -- our quoted here and voting shares stays the same. it increases the share of the

dynamic emerging market economies somewhat and increases every country's capacity to borrow from the fund and capacity to lend it to the fund. it is a simple adjustment. and it is something that we, the united states, has promoted and has been promoted by secretaries of the treasurer and secretary's estate from both parties going back many decades. it is a shame that this institution, which we have led hasproposal that we crafted not attracted support in congress. , democratic caller in a new york. caller: the imf globalize is opportunities for investment but -- it doeslobalize not globalize opportunities for unions, which go for collective bargaining and working standards. why not? what good is it to have these investment opportunities when the middle-class can't meet

ions. unions? -- thru un guest: the imf -- obviously, it is part of the international financial architecture. in that sense it is part of managing the changing nature of the world, which includes finance as well as trade as well as migration and all other kinds of things, and the responsibility is principally for the economic -- macroeconomic stability. into much in the way of labor issues. it actually works with other international organizations like the ilo, and they try to share information and analyses, they tried to take account of the interests of other -- various groups.

but it isn't in a position to dictate to countries out there run their labor policy -- how would run their labor policies. countries are sovereign. host: let me read a tweet to you. guest: well, first of all, it is lending to the government of ukraine. you can argue whether it has a government or not, but at least is judged to have enough of a capacity to do that. there are important questions, and the fund wrestles with this from time to time. are you lending to a country in some sense of meeting the commitments that they have made in order to get the loan? that is the question they ask. they reached the judgment,

obviously, that the government, such as it is, and such as it will be able to meet the commitments that are associated with this loan. and they don't get too much into the question of how the government. there -- how the government got there or not. host: we will go to wanda next. i need you to make it real quick, wanda. caller: i've been reading recently that july 1 is a new policy taking in and countries are moving away from the u.s. dollar and our u.s. dollar is going to become nothing and we will be bankrupt and our money is not going to be anything. [dial tone] host: have you heard this? guest: i don't know what will tendencyly 1 but my would be to doubt it. they have been wrestling about the role of the dollar in the

world ever since the imf was created, 1944, and since we went off gold in 1971. i can assure you that although it will be changed over the next several years and decades, it will not be cataclysmic and it won't happen on july 1. host: ted truman from the peterson institute for international economics, thank you for your time. guest: you're welcome. host: i want to bring you over to the justice department. we are waiting on attorney general eric holder, set to announce charges against individuals in the chinese military c-span.erage here on