look at the food industry. later, kerilater, keri geiger talks about the justice department's decision to indict 14 officials within fifa. those conversations, plus your facebook comments, tweets, and e-mail. ♪ host: former illinois republican house speaker dennis hastert received charges of and properly using bank finds an attempt to pay off a long time acquaintance. he was charged with lying to the fbi. it is "washington journal" for may 29. yesterday, president obama made a visit to the national hurricane center in miami. he spoke about the connection between climate change and severe weather events like hurricanes and severe flooding. he said climate issues lead to security issues across the globe

. when it comes to severe weather much like you are seeing in texas currently like the flooding in houston you have been seeing on television what do you think are the causes of the severe weather events? are they naturally occurring or perhaps due to man-made causes? does climate change push these along? here's how you can let us know what you think. 202-748-8000 if you believe natural causes are the cause of severe weather events. 202-748-8001 if you think man-made causes have something to do with it. if you want to weigh in on twitter, @cspanwj. on facebook, facebook.com/c-span. and journal@c-span.org is how you reach out to us on e-mail. if you want to phone 202-748-8000 if you believe it is natural causes. 202-748-8001 if you think

man-made causes have something to do with it. the president making a visit to florida yesterday at the national hurricane center in miami. he not only talked about the upcoming hurricane season, the ability of the government to track these events as they occur, he often talked about climate change and the role he believes it has in seeing these events. the headline from "the washington post" saying that the president defends the plan he has concerning climate change. also making a connection between hurricanes and climate change and saying it was after touring the national hurricane center, the president defended his controversial plan to combat climate change which centers on restrictions on power plant emissions, increased efficiency standards and other steps. he talked about connections between climate change and severe event. here are some of his thoughts. [video clip] president obama: we are better prepared than ever for storms of today. the technologies improves, the forecasting has improved, the

tools we have tomorrow may have been -- what may happen with something like a storm surge have gotten better. not only do we have better information that we have new mechanisms to disseminate it. we are focusing on making ourselves more resilient to the impact of a changing climate that are having significant effects on both the pace and intensity of some of these storms will stop the best climate scientists are telling us that extreme weather events like hurricanes are likely to become more powerful when you combine stronger storms with rising seas, that is a recipe for more devastating flood. climate change did not cause hurricane sandy, but it might have made it stronger. the fact that the sea level in new york harbor is about a foot higher than a century ago made the storm surge worse. host: severe weather and what causes it, what are your thoughts? if you think natural causes are the main driver, 202-748-8000. if you think it is man-made

causes, 202-748-8001. again, we have been showing you footage from houston, texas taken by drone. it shows some of the flooding going on there. climate change exacerbates these kinds of conditions. give us your thoughts. we will take them momentarily. gallup has a poll that took a look in march at americans' thoughts on climate change. they were asked about their beliefs and if the effect of global warming was already happening. 55% saying the effects had begun. 33% saying never have made the gun or not in the lifetime did they see effects of climate change. comment from richmond, virginia believes severe weather is caused by natural causes. tell us what you think that. caller: north america is not

doing what it is supposed to do to help its people. so therefore, my belief is that god is doing this to north america. when we look at all the natural causes around the world -- i'm a great believer and i and a religious person -- we have to change as a nation of people. if we do not change, we will have to look for signs that god already has told us what is going to happen if we do not do what is possible. martin luther king has already said, if we do not live up to our culture of who we are, we as a people will suffer. this is just the beginning. the seasons are the most

important thing. god gives you four seasons. now that the seasons are not balanced therefore, destruction will come to north america. it is coming. people do not look at it, but it is coming. it is coming very soon. host: from richmond, virginia. andrew in alexandria virginia. he thinks man-made causes are effective. go ahead. caller: good morning. i love c-span and listen to it every morning. you know, the thing about it is i have a background in chemistry. when you add heat to a reaction the reaction happens faster. heat is a catalyst. it is obvious to me that when you put more asphalt onto the ground, when you cut down trees the massive deforestation that is happening in our world, then

you are also putting more and more carbon dioxide more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, as well as the depletion of the ozone that happened with cfcs previously from the 1920's to the 1960's. you are going to have more heat. that is going to me like the reactions that happen in the atmosphere more robust -- that is going to make the reactions that happen in the atmosphere more robust, happen quicker. you get more moisture. with the heat islands from the asphalt around cities, that is going to put more and more heat into the air. it is basic science that asphalt puts more heat into the air than a meadow. caller: -- host: do you think the things that you are describing are reversible? caller: on a large-scale, no, i

do not think they are reversible. there are things we can do to mitigate them, to make them smaller. however, there is no way we are going to be able to make our cities appear like a forest. host: we have divided the lines differently. if you think it is natural causes, 202-748-8000. man-made causes, 202-748-8001. san antonio, texas next. lynn thinks natural causes are the blame. caller: hello. i don't think it is 100% of the blame. you understand that if it had not been for climate change, we would never have evolved. africa used to be a cool plane. we evolved because climate change never appeared.

i'm sure everything that goes on the earth. i don't think there's anything we can do to stop it. host: president obama has a plan. .

>> that's how we're getting your thoughts on that this morning. wayne, columbia mississippi. it's man made highway, go ahead. >> i believe that the man made component of it is really exacerbated. what's been going on is a cycle lick thing. i've seen severe weather. i was in camille and katrina.

but there's no doubt, that when you put so much co2 in the air, and cutting down trees that absorb it and there's just no doubt that the weather is getting worse and i believe there's a combination of a natural cycle, but also because people have put down so much of the asphalt as mentioned a while ago, and the wind and things that dissipate the heat. >> that's wayne in columbia mississippi. have you lived in mississippi your whole life? >> all but maybe a year and about four or five stretches. >> so the climate there, the seasons generally the same has it gotten warmer over the years? more rain? more storms? anything that sticks out in your mind as far as patterns have

changed significantly? >> yeah i was -- i write a good bit, and this past year it seems to me just during the past nine months or so it's never -- it's more reminiscent of when i was a unit and the way -- it just seems like the temperature has been more in line with the way it used to be. but i'm sure it's just a temporary thing. but the lack of rain in the summer and, of course, we've been working on a rainfall deficit for years and years. we're getting a lot of it now so there's a good thing on that period of time that we say enough and the weather says i'll show >> that's wayne from columbia mississippi, spoke about

deficits in rain. the story about the wall street journal this morning. looking at texas and what they've seen before as far as rainfall and what they're seeing now. this is miguel bustello writing, may is the wettest month in recorded history. 7.54" across the state, beating 6 6" in 2004. the u.s. army corp of engineers was releasing water to prevent flooding. forecasters predict an unusual lesogy texas summer. paul from florida. go ahead, please. >> good morning. i think the lady from san antonio, texas, was absolutely correct and on point. there was one event that took place several years ago that resulted in a japanese tsunami, and that was a major under-ocean

earthquake that not only created the tsunami but also shifted the earth on its axis just a couple of degrees, enough for airports to change their designated landing signals for aircraft coming in. to this day no one has fully explained why that happened or what happened and its effect on the earth and the weather, and i certainly believe that there's a nexus between that event and what we're experiencing today in severe weather situations but i do think the lady from san antonio is on target with regard to the fact that we're having over eons of time major weather changes. major. >> michael in new orleans, you're up next. go ahead. >> yes good day. i'm going to bring -- i'm going to start the institute of environment alternatives in 1971

so i know a little bit of what i'm talking about here. i want to give you several government programs that are ongoing weather modification programs that are never ever mentioned in the weather -- in climate change discussions. fact, operation pop-eye, vietnam it was used to prolong the monsoon season. in 1974 we have the weather weapons treaty banning -- the father of weather weapons was on a radio station informing with four planes they could have stopped hurricane katrina. haarp and geoengineering better known as chem trails are federally funded and ongoing, then we have 1997 weather is a force multiplier owning the weather by 2025.

turning fossil fuels into bicarbon credits, making more money off of carbon credits than fossil fuels. so what we have here is our hopes being perpetrated by the powers that be so they can go ahead and force us to be the polluters and put in a world tax and hence a world government. this is a total farce, and anybody pushing this, either hasn't done their research or is guilty of producing or promoting this hoax. >> eddy from massachusetts. you are up next. good morning. >> good morning, pedro. how are you? pedro: fine thanks. >> as the woman mentioned earlier, in grade school it was about the next ice age coming in. they came up with the term

called global warming. you usually don't see global warming mentioned anymore because that's been disproven over the past 15-17 years. there's not been an increase in temperature. so they had to come up with something else. of course there's climate change. it's been changing 4 billion years and it will change for the next 4 billion. when everything comes up about climate change it just kind of rings hollow. you were reading the story earlier. with all the rain coming in it was a closet climate change. everything can't be about climate change. i'm from the northeast. today, it's a beautiful 80-degree day out here after the worst winter ever. i think climate change just kind of rings hollow. >> when you hear the president and the administration talking

about their concerns over the effects of climate change what goes through your mind? >> government just more money on government. reporter: -- caller: i think it's all going to be government run and i think the democratic party likes to throw money at things. the old saying goes don't fool with mother nature. the old commercial that used to be on. don't fool with mother nature. doesn't matter how much money you throw at it host: there's a lot of factors that come into climate change. caller: there's cycles that are 25 years long. i think there's more reasons at play than man-made factories.

if you take those elements away i don't think you could change the climate. so if humans were to disappear from the planet all the consequences of our existence would be erased. i don't think the climate would change. if you go out with a hose you would be contributing. i think man kind contributes to it but i don't think if we stopped everything and tried to reverse it i don't think it would make a difference. host: so there you go people's thoughts on severe weather and what causes it if it's a natural effect if they're man made causes that, you know, influence, the weather patterns that we've been seeing. here's your chance to weigh in.

if you think it's natural, call 8000. if it's man made call 8001. video of houston, texas. another person joining the republican race to become the president of the united states george taki former new york governor making the announcement yesterday, and he's joining a crowded field of other people interested in the position as well. his message of fiscal conservatism and government steering clear of decisive social issues champion inging by viewers. they were able to build in the united states. he posted a little bit as far as his introduction and a video he posted on his campaign website. here is a portion of that video. >> america has a big decision to make about who we're going to be what we're going to stand

for for. the system is broken. the question is no longer about our government but what we should do about our government. we are founded on a miracle, a heroic past built on encourage. a visionary hero a god-given belief in nobility and the fact that liberty is the only way for that spirit to thrive. washington has grown too big, too powerful, too expensive, and too intrusive. this is exactly what the found ing fathers feared. they grow endlessly to take power from the people. it's time to stand up and take it back. >> george takei.com if you want to see more of that announcement video from george takei.

up next in michigan as far as the cause of severe weather, what do you think? caller: have you ever heard of nicola tesla? in every book he wrote, he said you can control the weather. all you have to do is make a standing wall of radio waves and hold the jet stream in any position you want it to be. and we've seen that winter after winter when you have a deep freeze and the jet stream can't go normally across the state, but the people need to read about nicola tesla. the haarp system is what causes these radio waves. it's man made. you've got to remember, satan ran the earth when he made the apple. he ran it his way. he's going to do it and god will destroy it again. >> emily from wisconsin. host: she believes that natural causes are to blame. hello.

caller: good morning. you had a gentleman call a couple of calls back and he mentioned he believed that earthquakes were a cause also. and i agree with him. i've been on the internet to internet to look at how much it may have tilted on its axis and as of 2007 the earth tilted on its axis 27.3 or 4 degrees and we've had many more earthquakes since then and after every earthquake, it seems the weather just gets worse and worse. i would advise anybody that wants to know to just type in how much has the earth tilted on its axis and you will have all these sites reading. oh, it's very interesting. there may be some natural causes non-man made, i'm not sure but thank you very much for letting me call. have a good day. host: if you think natural causes are to blame or man made causes.

202-748-8000, if you think it's natural. if you think it's man made 748-8001. pause for a second to show you the front page of this morning's chicago sun times. a picture of the former illinois representative and the former speaker of the house, dennis haster with the large words "indicted" under his picture with a series of words. can you paint the picture for us of what happened to the former speaker and why? caller: sure. i mean some people are summing this up as a black mail plot to put it plainly. the federal grand jury alleged yesterday that he agreed to pay somebody from his home town of yorkville $3.5 million to keep quiet about what what is called

quote, past misconduct from this person. from june 2010 to april 202012 the former speaker began making withdrawals of banks of $15,000 and providing it to this individual every six weeks, again, according to the "nhl tonight." the feds said that apparently triggered questions from the bank employees, because these transactions involving more than $10,000 off these reports that goes out to the national crimes network and they asked him about the money so he began making withdrawals of $10,000. he ultimately made $1.7 million in cash to this unknown person. what he's actually being charged with, he's charged with two counts and the one actually involves just this technical violation of the rule of trying

to make his bank withdrawals in order to avoid these reports, so he was making withdrawals of less than 10,000. and the second count relates to his interview with the fbi, and they asked him if he was doing this because he simply didn't trust the banks. he allegedly said yeah kept the cash, that's what i'm doing. so he's in charge of these. host: so as far as the unknown person or the unnamed person is it typical to have someone not named? caller: i think at this point it is. and this could be somewhat strategic on the u.s. attorney's part as well. this indictment is stunning and raises a lot of questions, and perhaps, you know, now the u.s. attorney's office is hoping mr. haster will enter a plea

instead of letting details come out about who this person is and what went on. this person a has been a resident of yorkville, illinois and has known john dennis haster most of his life. we know that. and we know that the feds found it fitting to include in the first paragraph of the indictment that he was a high school teacher and coach in yorkville from 1965 to 1981, then going on to become a public official and speaker of the house. host: so as far as you're looking into this, you said this raises questions. what questions does it raise in your mind looking at this candidate? caller: it raises questions about who this person is what is alleged to have gone on how did this arrangement come to be between mr. hassert and this person. there's also questions about the conduct of the unnamed person in

the indictment. have they been charged with extortion? has this person become declaring this income on their tax returns, you know, things like that. i mean, we could probably go on but those are the ones kind of at the top of our mind, i think. host: you kind of hinted at it. what are the options for mr. mr. hastert now? caller: he's going to be arraigned in chicago at a date that last i checked, has not been set. but he's going to come in and he's going to be arraigned, so he'll be talking with his lawyers, i'm sure, but he could -- i mean he could plead guilty to these charges or he could take it to trial. if he were to take it to trial, then you know that could be potentially embarrassing to the former speaker. clearly, according to this indictment, he was willing to pay $3.5 million to keep something from the past hidden. so perhaps that could come out

at the trial. again, this is a very technical charge. really all they have to do for the first count is show that he structured these withdrawals so that they weren't triggering these reports at the 10,000 mark. the thing of it is that probably won't be very difficult for the feds to prove. as far as lying to the f.b.i. i've heard people suggest he was trying to argue he was just making a joke i don't know. what else went on in that f.b.i. interview, where it happened when it happened fhe had his attorney with him. so we don't know what the circumstances are there. it's probably going to be difficult to avoid these so he may eventually plea guilty. that's speculation, we don't know know. host: what's the penalty if he does if found guilty? caller: my understanding it's five years on each count, ultimate maximum of 10. i don't know that we would be

looking at that in the end, but five years in prison on each count. host: john title with the chicago sun times. coming from 100 million years ago, and processing it in today's atmosphere.

that leads to environmental disasters. environmental disasters of some kind. you do not necessarily know when this happens, or what kind of disaster will occur. disaster is an inevitable. it is absolutely certain. host: dan. good morning, go ahead. caller: all of these are naturally made causes. the only people that talk about global warming are progressives. who would have benefited from a carbon tax? democrats. liberal progressives. global warming is nothing but a giant ponzi scheme. they want to control the american people. there was a pledge 50 years ago and it was probably never even

on television, it has to do with social media -- where everyone can see what is happening instantly. 50 years ago we only had one tv camera covering the flood we had. it frustrates me so much. the oceans will not rise. yesterday, they voted not to waste any money for one of males or solar panels -- any money for windmills or solar panels. their building islands in the ocean for military bases. the oceans will not rise. i cannot believe people are stupid enough to listen to progressives. host: john from new jersey. all are i work with a nonprofit. the pentagon is not a political organization.

the oceans have risen a foot in the last 100 years in new york. the real issue is the question whether or not man god, or who is creating it, but oil is extremely expensive. i work with a nonprofit organization called climate mobilization participating in the left form to get any politician to sign a pledge to address climate change. we could have a world war ii style mobilization. regardless of whether you believe it is an issue, we can go fully green and build a massive economy and make up for the fact that the u.s. has contributed to 60% of the world's issues with carbon. there is melting permafrost in eastern siberia. a gated ton of methane is expected to happen at any moment. as the permafrost melts, one gigaton can be released into

the atmosphere and contribute as much climate change has contributed 18 50. it is not a liberal thing. any serious politician needs to address this. we should repurpose factories like we did in world war ii and go totally green. host: hello. caller: i believe that the other caller that it is a ponzi scheme. i've have an article from 1975 in "newsweek." it is from april 28, 1975. it is called a cooling world. here they say, and of course meteorologists are almost unanimous in agreement, that the world's population is going to starve to death by the end of the turn-of-the-century. i did not see it happen.

this is a big ponzi scheme. it is a way to scare people. it is amazing that this is going on. host: question. why did you hold on to that article? caller: to show people. i don't know what to say -- to show people that it is a ponzi scheme. if it was first global cooling, and the ice age ended in the middle 1850's, i would hope that it is warmer now. why do people think that us on earth are going to change the weather and the climate. the climate has changed year-to-year, and it will keep changing no matter what. there's nothing we can do about it. host: this is bill from louisville, kentucky. caller: how are you doing?

host: fine, thanks. caller: i was calling to answer a question. it seems as though we forget about our past. in callow or near we had the same arguments saying that we could do nothing about the pollution. there were taxes put on vehicles forcing it to change, and now california has gotten better. one more point is that when you look at situations, as of years ago, when automobiles first were introduced, when there were very few automobiles were instituted as well as airplanes, years ago there was no air-conditioning in homes or in automobiles or in businesses.

all you have to do is look outside your window every day 24 hours a day, and you can see numbers of automobiles, airplanes going up by the millions per week, every single day you exhaust going into the atmosphere from our home exhaust , from air-conditioning units, from coal, from everything else. in one city in one state you can see all of the things going into the atmosphere. when you combine that, with situations like china, that has billions of people who now have automobiles and everything else, the has change from now since the 1950's, so to speak, he could not help but understand that it is bound to happen if you do not start restraining

what you do. it is not to say that everything should change and everyone should stop living, but it is like the bible, people believe or they don't. to the people that don't believe, there is a hell, and it is too late when you get there. we need to take this seriously. if we don't do something, it will cause problems. host: that is bill from louisville, kentucky. the headline in the wall street journal is that jpmorgan is cutting 5000 jobs. the move comes as the nation's largest bank overhauls 55 branches to rely on technology and less on human. the chairman and executor says that the chase branch would lose employees to attrition. there is -- they are looking to

counteract regulatory. they have been hurt by low interest rates. jp morgan is looking for sophisticated technology to automate work. at the wednesday presentation, dimon said the average branch could lose two tellers and one financial advisor. let's hear from michael in jamaica, new york. hello. caller: are we still commenting on the climate? host: yes. caller: i personally believe, that whether it is man-made or not, there is a lot for us to take care of, and we need to look forward to the future. there is a multitude of scientists that believe we are making changes to the climate. i believe that fracking so on and so forth, is causing changes in the climate, and it is not

healthy for us to begin with. i've seen videos of people lighting their sinks on fire because the water is flammable. i don't think that is good. we should come to some kind of consensus, because either way we should always look forward to making our future better, and we should get off of carbon fuels. it will individually. we cannot just drive and pull oil from the earth to the rest of eternity and expect nothing to come from it. it is almost fantastical to think that. digg from the earth, suck the fuel from the earth, and everything that makes the earth the earth, and nothing will change. host: robert from arizona. caller: my name is robert. i have to say that after the climate, everyone started jumping on the fact that they had modified the data. people forget that the data they

left out was the medieval warming. -- the medieval warming time and before that the minoan warming time. the climate changes every 2000 to 4000 years. the angle of the sun, the angle of the earth's tilt over the centuries, we are exacerbating the problem, because we are taking buried heat energy, that has been buried in the earth for millions of years, and we are releasing probably 1000 years a day of heat energy into the atmosphere. that is one source of the problem. the other source is the methane. anytime you're drilling for oil, they flare off methane. the fracking does not just get collected. a lot of it goes through the rock into the water table, thus

damaging people's wells and releasing into the atmosphere. methane is four times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. plants eat carbon dioxide, they do not eat methane. the forest thing. entire regions of the nation. and they have been for 200 or 300 years. we d forest it the entire east coast which change the climate. host: as the number of carmakers concerned by the airbags made by takata has expanded, more recalls have been put into place. fiat chrysler, honda, and bmw have announced that they are part of an action raising the vehicles to 53 million globally, including 34 million in the united states. the airbag inflator's can

explode with too much force, sending shrapnel into vehicles. this has been linked to 6 worldwide deaths him honda vehicles. stephanie is in pennsylvania. caller: this thing about global warming and climate change, i wish it had not,. -- i wish it had not come up. stand behind your car with the car running to see if you can breathe the exhaust fumes or three minutes. you can't. that is going into our air. forget climate change, i think it is causing cancer, asthma, a multitude of problems. i went to new zealand a decade ago, and you cannot believe air that you cannot see.

in this country, we do not understand -- very few days are clear days. when you go to a place with not a lot of cars, exhaust, that we spew into the air, the air is pristine. we would not understand saying that. forget climate change, just for health reasons, let's clean the air. thank you. host: kenny from columbus, ohio. hello. caller: my name is kenny. i think that anything that god made its is a piece of heaven. look at the world. the world's billions and billions of years old. when man stuck his hand into it, he takes the subatomic particles out of anything, it takes the natural resources and minerals out of the earth and uses it for his own gains.

they've tricked the people and the thinking there's global warming. we even have the president saying there's global warming. it is like the wrong drugs. they create them to make money and trick the people. host: that is kenny in ohio. if you follow this program you will hear about the iowa straw poll. there is a piece saying the straw poll was an eventful thing for most republican candidates. it is now fading into irrelevance for 2016, saying that this august straw poll may be the least consequential in decades. some republican hopefuls are competing halfheartedly, others are opting out altogether. no one believes a summertime victory would provide a meaningful jolt.

and information meeting in des moines said that only some of the candidates dropped by, but none of them from the top tier. scott walker was absent. scott walker spent part of his childhood in iowa. he seems poised to bypass the straw poll and focus on the caucus next year. steve is in north carolina. caller: good morning. i am a retired science teacher. it amazes me the ignorance of science in this country. there is a law and nature called the law of conservation of matter stating that if you take a gallon of gasoline, which weighs 7.5 pounds and you burn it, it turns into 7.5 pounds of water vapor and carbon dioxide and goes into the air. every day worldwide, 1.5 billion gallons of liquid fuel

is burned. if you do the math, you can see how much gas we are putting in the atmosphere every day. a good example is to take and -- take an empty aquarium and put a drop of water and it every day. eventually, the aquarium will be full. that is what we are doing. you can deny science, but science is the truth. you make your decision based on your beliefs, but if you look at science, if you look at the fact that nine out of 10 scientists worldwide say that we are causing this to happen, and you do not believe it, you need to think about things. thank you. host: the european press photo of the european prime minister david cameron says they're talking about the topic is britain should stay within the european union. mr. cameron is asking if the

united kingdom should remain a member of the european union before that he wants a treaty change that he is unlikely to get before referendum involving improvable by all 28 governments, some requiring their own referendum. cameron wants changes in four areas. the restriction of migrants claiming welfare benefits, and the weight of up to four years to claim benefits, making sure countries using the euro cannot be hurt by rules and the eurozone protecting trade, and he wants britain excused from closer union, and he wants brussels to return powers to national parliament. we will hear from mark in jupiter, florida. hello. caller: good morning. my name is mark. i am a young grandfather in florida. this is an incredibly important subject.

the woman who spoke earlier about standing behind her car to see if you can breathe the air we know how the air is in china and all of the world. the things that we are doing that man is doing, -- the climate is the air, the water, the earth. between fracking and the things that we are doing -- the stranglehold the oil companies have on our politicians, what we need is a kennedy moonshot challenge where we ended up in the moon in 10 years. we need a clean energy challenge. we have abundant clean energy coming onto the earth every day and i know the ingenuity of man can do it but there is another thing that is more important to the question. it is that there is a manipulation of the weather.

this is provable, it is known. there's a lot of talk about chem trails, but if you watch engineering.org, there is a video and there are credible scientists and people who are heartfelt, there is a video called clear and present danger on that website. it is showing what is being done to the weather to control and use it as a weapon. much of the weather that we see is not an act of god, as people would think, it is actually being done by who knows who it is being done by, but it is clearly the manipulated. it is a proven thing. i think the two sides of the story are that one we need a clean energy challenge for the world, and that we need ask for that --

host: you already made that point. we will go on tour next caller. you are the last call. caller: thank you. ok. all right. we can't control the weather, we cannot control the floods, we are not putting any more coal mines, we see no change since what we did with a comb lines. in fact, it is worse. it is worse than before. we have not stopped the floods. not in china not in the united states, nowhere. it is all around the world. whether they take care of the climate, the ozone, we cannot stop it. we do not have control of the weather. we cannot stop the flooding, we cannot stop the earthquakes, no

matter what we do. we cannot stop it. it is out of our hands. host: that is the leaves from pennsylvania. the last call on this topic. we will look at an initiative being done by the federal communication system making changes to a program hopefully increasing the use of broadband internet access in the low income areas. rendon sasso will join us to explain those proposals. later in the program, two guests will join us to discuss the oversight of the food you eat. that will be on washington journal later. first, we have the head of fema, craig few gate. the interview, which will air on sunday, he told a reporter his worries about the hurricane this year. >> going into hurricane season can you give us your three worst case scenarios.

the top of your list that keeps you up at night. >> you think any area has a lot of people, a lot of traffic congestion along the coast, and that will be a problem area. the density of the population in new jersey and new york has the highest density. that is a challenging area. some areas the not -- some areas that have not been hit by hurricanes are also a challenge. some of those areas are like the hampton roads area. they have not had a lot of hurricanes and people think they do not have a hurricane problem, but it would be difficult to evacuate. it is an area, that as the governor working with local officials, we need to highlight why it is so critical to take the time going into hurricane season to find out if you live in an evacuation zone, and where you will go.

not everyone realizes it is not only along the coast. often we will have flooding inland on rivers and canals that will flood further inland than people realize. a storm surge is not just on the beach. as we saw in new york, water coming through an urban area can cause devastation in areas were people have lived their entire lives. >> one of the things that you have been working with in fema is a public-private partnership. can you give us a sense of what you have been doing. the response you have gotten a big corporations. do you think they're more prepared now to face disaster, particularly hurricanes? fugate: the whole idea was that we started with the question, what can the private sector do doubt the government to our job. the better question was, what can we do to get businesses open

? the reality is that we are providing food, water, and other supplies recurs stores are not open. if we can get them open, they have a better system of logistics to meet in need, and we can put efforts in other places. host: joining us is brendan sasso who covers technology. we are talking about the proposal for the fcc for increased access of broadband or the poor. can you tell us about where the drive to bring internet access to low income areas comes from? brendan sasso: it has been a priority of the fcc for a while. the first chairman under the obama administration and now tom wheeler and commissioner clybourn. this has been a big priority. the idea is that the internet has become so essential to our lives, it is a basic

communication service, it is how we communicate with loved ones, how people apply for jobs, how kids do their homework. the idea is that the program which had only funded phone service, does not make sense anymore, because the internet is the main communication service. they would let people use this subsidy for $9.25 a month. host: the lifeline program, who funds it? brendan sasso: it is a fee that everyone pays on their phone bill. if you look at your phone bill it is the universal service fund. it is overseen by the fcc, and there are a few different programs. some are for expanding on service and rural areas, then technology in schools, then lifeline, a section that goes to $1.7 billion to subsidizing phone service. host: if they qualify they would

get assistance on them up phone bill, that is how it works generally? tom wheeler, and speaking about broadband access he said these are the changes he wants to make. more than 95% of households over one hundred $50,000 have broadband, only 48% of those making less than $25,000 have it at home. can you expand on that? brendan sasso: i think the idea is that access to high-speed internet is no longer a luxury. it is the basic way that you can apply for jobs. a lot of people do jobs online from home. the idea is to be a participant in the economy. to get an education. that all requires the internet. it is no longer a luxury, it is something the government would

want to help people get online. host: if broadband is the destination, and the changes go through, what happens to the subsidy? what choices will people have? brendan sasso: it is just a proposal. they have not voted to begin receiving comment on the proposal. many things could change before a final decision. the idea is to avoid stirring more controversy. the program has had a lot of fraud, so republicans have been critical and there have been a lot of reports of fraud. they're trying to institute new measures to crack down on fraud and to keep the program from growing. they're asking if they should tap the size. now they are saying they're going to cap it at the current size of $1.7 billion. that is just a proposal. right now it is nine dollars and

five cents a month that people can use or phone service or data plans. a lot of homes do not have a fixed connection, they only have a smart phone bill. this would let them use the money to get a data connection. host: this is the effort from the fcc to bring broadband to low income areas. we have divided the lines differently by income brackets. maybe you can talk about your broadband experience. maybe that access, maybe not. but those who make under $25,000 -- for those in the 25,000 to $50,000, -- if you make between $100,000, -- if you look at a map of the united states and you look at the income brackets, does it air that those in lower income areas

have less access? brendan sasso: it is the statistics that the fcc chairman was citing that people who have lower incomes are less likely to be online. some people have to go to something because they have free wi-fi and kids have to go there to do their homework or something. there is definitely lower access. a lot of people choose to have their smartphones, they would rather use their mobile device. you spoke about concerns of fraud. this is part of the reason their findings back in march were saying without a program evaluation, the fcc does not know what lifeline is ensuring the availability for telephone service while minimizing the program's. it looks like they have problems with the current programs as it exists is guest:and the fcc

chairman took some, this proposal that was just announced what institute new reforms. the basic program problem is they have problems, they get more money from the government the more people they sign up. not everyone they sign-up is eligible for the frog or -- program. that israel out of this front is coming from. host: it is sin toured around the phone companies. guest:that has been the general criticism. the sec's leading up to this and outside -- announcement. host: let's take a couple questions for our guest. michael is in manchester township, new jersey. talk about your broadband experience, then you can ask the guest a question. caller:sure. i was using the internet, sold

at walmart. it was a bad deal for me. it was over expensive and cost me too much per month. i was having to re-up. it was a disappointment. host: is that your only connection to broadband? caller:yes. that was my only option. host: can i ask why, is it not affordable at home? or are there other factors. caller:there are other factors, credit factors. so i was going with a prepaid permanent. host: guest:it is not a question of competition, where a lot of people have access to one provider for that connection. so there has been what can one

-- what can the government do to encourage more competition? just recently they blocked the merger over time warner and comcast. there is less competition, when there is less competition there is a good grade of price and more control for the company. host: mickey is in ohio. good morning. caller:i was just wondering -- wanted to comment speaking about clean air and everything. i think that in itself, we have more people to have that service -- there are people trying to find a job and things like that. that might cut down on some of the air we are not breathing anymore and climate change and things like that. in that i also think that if our

government or however this will be taken care of, part of the funding coming from everybody through their phone service or whatever. i think probably it might be a good idea to have a certain amount of time where children can only be on it , and x out where they could get anything bad. if i'm understanding right, if it is a government based service. guest:just to clarify, it is not like the government will be running the intercept -- internet, just the subsidy. just a few months ago the soc took the net neutrality to

expand their legal authority over internet access, to call control how they can control traffic. this is a new issue. host: is there a philosophy whether it be through this program to make the internet more of a utility question guest:with the action on net neutrality to an these rules that they believe could hold up in court, they took up action to reclassify the internet as a telik commission and -- telik commission nation's service for giving themselves more authority. the idea is that it is more likely the utility, because it has become essential to our lives, it is more important for the government to have this role in order to not regulate content, but in order to ensure access for everybody and control the ability of your internet provider from manipulating what you can access online. host: if they want to make it a

broad-based system for this lifeline program, does it mean there has to be more access or more lines or capabilities for people to get the internet? guest:that is a separate part of the universal service fund. for a long time they only pay for phone access in rural areas. then the chairman created the new program to pay for internet access in world areas. they are a subsidizing these areas. there are places in the country where we only have dial-up access. kr subsidizing to bring high access broadband intergroup areas. there are a lot of people in rubric -- urban areas that cannot afford it. host: john, good morning. caller:i am phoning because rob

-- broad bean access to me is one of the big thing that the world needs, not just the u.s.. in some cases, i believe it should be universal access, meaning the same way that you spent 23 cent stamp to send a letter from hawaii to new york or from new york to alaska, it is the same amount of money. just have that universal access. broadband should be the same way. now instead of writing letters we are doing what benjamin franklin wanted us to do. it is broadband. at 1.i would make is that norway, which happens to have the world's largest sovereign -- fun. they are lucky because they have offshore oil. they believe that high-speed

internet access is a universal civil right, meaning that every citizen should have that high-speed access. norway, if you look at the country, it is spread across a long part of the arctic ocean. delivering that and i think the only solution, we hear a lot about three and four at five g now, but it is only fiber optics which will do that. it involves installation. it is a wonderful thing, because that means jobs. host: thank you. there have been a lot of comparisons internationally how is the u.s. doing, it sort of like behind in a lot of metrics how fast the internet is. it is a lot is a two wire up a small urban country as we have a lot of world areas.

it is not an apple to apple comparison. although we have closely wireless, we are faster in that area. that is also infrastructure. there are so towers that are built and there is a lot of investment in companies. host: we are talking about broadband in lower-cost areas. you fall in the 20,000 to 50,000 bracket. anthony go ahead. caller:i want to make a comment about the commercial internet companies. the only person in my area is at&t. the problem i have this i shop around but in my area that is the only provided -- provider. they charge you $40 a month then if you don't pay for that month they shut off the service

then i had to pay $30 on top of what i hold them. it becomes difficult finding something affordable and something fair. like a herd of france, they have dozen -- dozens of companies to choose from. host: how much does your broadband bill, how much of your budget does it take a month? caller:i want to spend no more than $30. i get it bundled with my satellite and cable. $30 a month is ok, videos internet, online stuff it takes a lot of broadband. 40 or 50 a month. that is very high and too high for me. host: thank you. guest:the issue of competition is a big one, where the more

choices people have an lower prices but also very expensive for these cable companies in particular to build out. in a lot of areas, there is only one cable company. sometimes there is a telecom company like at&t. in a lot of areas, there are that many options for the connection. usually with wireless companies, there are national providers most of them don't serve -- there are gaps in coverage. you are often stuck with whatever you have in your area. host: the proposal by the chairman has its critics including some in congress. quoted this morning this proposal misses the mark on the reforms that we need. simply expanding the program without ensuring the longevity is the wrong approach. if we are going to do right for those who pay for the program and those who depend on it, how

much pushback will this get from congress? guest:we will see. the two republicans, five commissioners to our republicans on the the. they have not said what they think about it yet. the republicans in congress are starting to push back. in theory for some republicans they might not necessarily oppose using the -- letting people use it for internet access. there is some criticism in general because of the waste and fraud allegations. this program has been called the obama phone program, even though it was created during the reagan administration. it has become a conservative bogeyman, this wasteful handouts . and there are legitimate questions about waste in the program. i think they would much rather see them six it before expanding it. even the proposal doesn't

increase the amount of money, there is still a lot of questions from republicans on the hill. that is the thing that people say, obama phone. these perp providers who get funding to lifeline and they say go get your obama phone. it became this rallying cry. there was a video before the 2012 election with this woman saying i am voting for president obama because he gave me an obama phone. inc. a -- it looks like obama was buying votes with this program. of course, it stirred -- started during the reagan administration and expanded under george w. bush when the expanded it to allow people to get wireless access. it has expanded under obama and there were questions about fraud and waste. host: the extension from the obama administration, does it

cover a certain type of cell phones? guest:i just mean the overall size continues to increase. it is up to $1.7 billion. a continues to grow. that means that the fee that consumers are paying on their phone bills are increasing. the money has to come from somewhere. host: jim in michigan, hello. good morning. caller:early on in this administration, there were several -- shovel ready projects which included five world -- fiber-optic cables being buried along the road i am on in west michigan, from at least muskegon although we have to mackinac island. these were put in five years ago , no service has been offered on these lines in five years. when we inquire what is happening with this, nobody wants to operate the system. what the -- what is going on?

host: before you leave us, tell us a little bit about the broad band options you have in michigan. caller:the only option we have in this township i am at the very end of a dsl service. other than that, we have satellite internet available. guest:i can't speak to the particular situation there in michigan. i just don't know. there have been questions about whether dsl is fast enough replacement for cable internet or fiber-optic lines. i think some of the companies would say dsl, you can do a lot on there, it is getting faster. i think that a lot of credit -- critics and the sec is --fcc is critical.

if you want to look at classes online, it is not a replacement. you need -- the fcc just raised its requirement, i don't think dsl will hit that. and satellite in particular, in some areas satellite is the only option. but it has been getting faster too. there is a lot of lag. host: how widespread is a 25 megabyte accessibility? guest:there are a lot of areas that have it. but if you look at how many options you have, then it becomes, only one provider in an area. a lot of areas that don't have it at all. host: charleston, south carolina. you're next. caller:good morning.

pedro, you are my favorite on c-span. i am talking to you now and insurance wireless phone. that is a lifeline found. -- phone. prior to having these cell phone assurance lifeline, i had lifeline on my landline, which they reduced your bill, by 10 or $12. so i don't get the other one reduced. i have this one. i recently made the switch. i used to pay nothing for this one because i had their basic plan, 250 minutes for talking and i wanted to text. then, on my landline i was paying $50 a month for unlimited

calling with no lifeline. i was paying $50 a month for unlimited nationwide calling and the wi-fi. last month i got a bill that jumped up to $74. they said i had a promotion. i said i didn't know the promotion ended. i forgot it was a promotion because it for almost two years. they took off the $24, kate my $60 and i decided to have the phone -- the landline disconnected. that took away my wi-fi. now i pay 30 on the assurance wireless, the lifeline or whatever you call it for low income people. i am under 25. i am on social security.

for $30, i get unlimited minutes , i can talk all day. i am originally from connecticut , that's my home state. i am not a republican, like the people in south carolina. host: what do you use your phone for? caller:i just want to throw this in. i have symptoms from missing the wi-fi, but the lucky thing is i live in a seniors building downtown charleston. in here, they have wi-fi, there are two buildings. they have it into different rooms so i'm going over there to use it. it is really a pain. not as convenient, obviously. what do i use my telephone for? for calling everybody and all my

family is back in connecticut. that's why when i have the unlimited nationwide calling on the landline i didn't hardly had to use my cell phone at all. i just took it with me for these . -- for emergencies. i use it for texting talking and if i get real desperate i might just put the wi-fi back on. i would have to pay $29 a month. i don't want to do anything too big right now because in about six months i am going to move to virginia beach. there is no comcast there. comcast is the worst company in the world. i have comcast now just for tv. i used to have -- with them. but that's what all these companies do. i'm not talking about assurance wireless, the government. i am talking about, they give

you promotions, then they up the price. years ago they pay the same price as maybe once in a while the bill went up. now they have all kinds of contract. host: thank you for calling us and telling us about your experiences. guest:right now, it is only about $9.25 a month roots of the proposal would be instead of only being able to use that for your voice minutes on your cell phone on landline, you would be up to use that for data or internet connection at all. that would not cover all of the costs, but right now often the cell phone companies will give free, cheap, phones because they want to get you in as a says ryburn -- subscriber. a lot of people are able to get lower no cost voice service on cell phones.

for landline, or a big data package, the nine dollars 25 cents will not cover all of that, but it would give people more choice in how they wanted to spend the subsidy. host: you are talking about access to low-income people. she said if she got desperate for wi-fi, she might consider it. guest:people, that is how you stay in touch, it is how you access news. it has become a central part to our lives. it is considered really critical , for keeping in touch and participating in your community. young people can go to mcdonald's or a library. it is central to our lives now. host: andrew from new york. good morning. caller:good morning. thank you for c-span. i want to talk about the access to low income. it is important for people

nowadays to have access to the internet. it was originally developed to be free. we pay for the majority of broadband which is paid for by the fees we pay for on our bills. the internet was made to be free but somehow these corporation and are using these money to provide these services are taking advantage of the people. if you remember back in the day they dismembered it and it became verizon. now verizon is controlling the same thing it had before. you have at&t, which was dismantled and they are back on top of the scene. time warner cable, these are monopolies. people are paying every month for something that they already paid for. i feel like they should have some way for low income people to have access to the qualities of life. guest:there are a few things there. the companies would argue that

it is not free for them to build the -- people feel like the internet works like magic. there is huge billions of dollars investment to dig up roads and build in these lines telecom lines. that is a huge investment that they are making. but then the art -- other argument is, there -- we only have one provider and the government did in the 80's right up the belt system and they have been slowly merging back together. the government just block comcast did for time warner cable, at&t buying directv is likely to go through. also just recently, charter announced a few weeks after comcast abandoned its bid, you charger stepping in. that will -- the two biggest companies would be comcast and charter and then everybody else.

in both situations, we have companies that are getting bigger and bigger. they argued that they need more leverage because i have to pay for these channels and programming fees are going up. at the same time, there are questions about how much competition they really at in terms of a providers can you use. when these merges are considered -- when,

guest:there could be some sort of conditions like you have to start offering some sort of low-cost plan to low income consumers. it will be a while before they decide host: about it. let's hear from bill in california. good morning. caller:a couple questions. first the idea of low-cost saving maybe $10. he said directed to the poor. my concern is that from my understanding, they pour do not have a computer -- the poor do not have a computer or a smart phone that has internet access and iraq -- all that to help

them facilitate a better life. without the computers, clearly, we have this other bridge in the way. secondly again, the services. you have to allow them you have to be hooked up with their particular providers such as charter or comcast, which if you are report income family chances are you don't have these services readily available. i am trying to understand how is all this expense to consumers -- for the services to be provided for these poor income people. guest:that is a good point. with the comcast program, i think they do offer certain subsidies for computers.

i sure of the exact circumstances. i don't think this would exist under lifeline update they are proposing. although now people are our calling and saying they are giving away free obama phones. it seem like everyone was paying for the phones. it was just the company was willing to give you a found because they knew they would then get the government subsidies for a while to pay that back. i don't know exactly -- i don't think those are the smart phones. i don't know exactly how it will work, whether will people will be able to get smartphones or the program or offered at a lower cost. you have a question of the service per month, but you have to buy the technology at the front end also. caller:thanks for taking my call. i wanted to say, you have to have internet access. you have to do it now in the 21st century to get a job, to

file your taxes, to do just about everything. the days of putting on your shirt and tie and looking for a job are over here at everywhere you go the first thing they tell you is, have you been to the website? have you found your application on our website? you have to have internet access in order to function. i think without it people without it will go further and further behind. host: what is axis like in detroit? caller:it's good if you can afford it. i don't have wi-fi where i live. i get it at work because it's free. i don't own it, i can't afford it. that is $40 or $50 a month if you're paying that i cable. it gives to be expensive. guest:the argument is this could boost the overall economy if

people would be able to participate in the economy and generate more economic growth for everybody if they are able to get over the initial hurdle of needing to have internet access. the government is subsidizing these companies to build up world areas. that was a lot less controversial with republicans. the government is spending billions of dollars to build up a company in these ways that would not be economically feasible because people in the world areas, you can hook up people in these areas. a lot of people in urban areas that are not able to get online not because the company has a build up their but because it is too expensive. should the government be stepping into that. should we be doing it for low income people, also. host: paul you are up next. caller:hello. someone was talking earlier about comcast being the worst.

at&t and my experiences the worst. i signed up for tv, internet package that was supposed to be a hundred dollars a month i knew i was getting a bill for $1500 a month. it took me over one year to get that taken care of. getting to my point. i have been disabled i was 21. they go back five years to determine what you receive. at the time i was disabled, i was an assistant art director for consumer electronics magazine for grand total of two months until i had a motor

vehicle accident cap --, and thus the disability. so i get $7,000 a year -- to live on. i did get some money left to me from my mother and because of having that, which is going to go to having my leg amputated as well as list of other medical things, i can't get an obama phone or anything because i have what they consider assets. host: ok. when you use wi-fi, where do you go to use things of that nature? caller:i have comcast and i get

basic cable. i get maybe 20 channels and half of those are duplicates of the same channel. they just have different numbers on them. host: thank you. guest:i don't know the exact circumstances of why you can't qualify. to qualify, you need to be under 100 $.35 of the properly -- poverty line. 135% of the prop -- poverty line. host: one more call, joe from annapolis, maryland. caller:hello. thanks for taking my call. you i saw an article in the

washington post that talked about this weird it indicated that people earning less than $30,000 a year about two thirds or three quarters, i forget, greater than 50%, they had wireless. they figured out how to buy wireless and they were humming along like the rest of us. it seems to me if they can do it if they were making less than $30,000 a year can do it then it is doable. it doesn't have to be converted into a civil right that the taxpayers have to find someone wireless when they can do it themselves. there's a breaking point in this society. we have to allow people to stand or fall on their own for some things. there is a safety net. but wireless to watch netflix if they want to do it they should figure out how to do it and rearrange their budget likewise. i think there are a lot of

people like me that just feel that we shouldn't have to subsidize things that are part of the human existence that the rest of us should not pay for. i saw an article in the washington post, that said if you added up all of the things that people give for free, food, housing, housing assistance, pell grants, it comes to about $60,000 a year. i wouldn't want to live on $60,000 a year. i would rather earn my living. host: thank you. guest:a good point, the money has to come from somewhere. it is not technically taxes, but it will be fees that everyone is paying on their phone bill. if the program continues to grow, that is a larger and larger fee that consumers will have to pay. it is not just the top 1%, but this is a fee everybody has to

pay into the program. is a question of whether they should expand that fee to internet access, to expand where the fees are coming from. at the same time, that is more fees and people will have to pay that will discourage people from adopting internet access in the first place. there is an argument for trying to cut down on the fraud and waste in the program. host: what is the timetable? guest:june 18 they will vote on the proposal, they will have to accept comments and have to reply to the comments and have to make a on a decision after that. we are ways away from getting subsidies, but we are starting the process. brendan sasso, thank you for your time. and coming up, does the federal government doing enough and it comes to the oversight of the food that you eat?

richard williams, former director for the food safety. later on the world of professional soccer came into aimed at top officials. later in the program, keri geiger a bloomberg news will tell us what happened this work as washington journal continues after this. this summer, but tivo will cover book festivals from around the country and top auctions and books. we are live at books expo america in new york city where the publishing industry showcases upcoming books. in the beginning of june we are live from the chicago tribune

including the three-hour live in depth program of author lawrence wright. and your phone calls. near the end of june, watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival from the roosevelt presidential library. and we are live from the harlem book fair with author interviews and panel discussions. at the beginning of september we are live from the nation's capital for the national book festival, celebrating its 15th year. that's a few of the events this summer on c-span's book tv. this week i q&a, our guest is pulitzer prize winner david mccullough, he shared stories about his new book, the wright brothers. >> they didn't graduate from high school. that was because their father always encourage them if they had some interesting project to work on companies that stay home and do that. he knew how bright they were. wilbur without any question was

a genius. orville was very bright and very thin fact if, clever mechanically, but he didn't have the reach of mind that wilbur had. they love music. they love books. nathaniel hawthorne was probably orville's favorite writer. catherine loved the sir walter scott on one of her birthdays the brothers gave her a bust of sir walter scott. here are these people living in this little house in ohio with no running water or indoor plumbing. and they are given a bust of a great english literary giant to the sister for her birthday. there's a lot of hope in that. i think what i would like to get to know even more about was the sense of purpose that they had. it sounds like a bad purpose but

high purpose, not something ordinary. big ideas. to achieve a big idea. nothing was going to stop them. >> on c-span's q&a. >> host: washington journal continues. host:our topic takes outlook at the government's role in the oversight and regulation of the food industry. two guests are joining us to richard williams, george mason university. and also former director of the fda's center for food safety joined by michael jacobson executive director for science and the public interest or gentlemen, thank you for joining us. let me start with an umbrella question. how much regulation does the government have over food products, and is it enough in your opinion. mr. williams you first. guest:it has considerable oversight over the food

industry. host: specifically how does the government do this? how does it work he oversight of food? guest:there are two areas, fda responsibility for everything except the meat and poultry and usda is responsible for meat and poultry. they regulate some places food and color additives, they have to be regulated before they go on the market. so there is testing. other foods are regulated in a post-market situation, through regulation. basically telling company what good practices are. host: mr. jacobson, same question to you. guest:the usda and the fda divide up the food supply. they have responsibilities. the fda has responsibility for ensuring this foods are not riddled with john thain ingredients are safe and that labeling is on us.

unfortunately the fda's regulation false short on all of those counts. the marketplace is rife with deceptive labeling. there are, as food ingredients that have never been approved by the fda. the industry says the law allows them to introduce in gradients without even telling the fda what is going on. with regard to pathogens, germs and the food supply just a couple of years ago the fda is now implementing. it requires companies to set up systems to increase the safety of their foods. hopefully, that will have a significant effect on foodborne illnesses. host: mr. williams, labeling and gradients and other issues as far as more of a need how would you respond? guest:i don't have the same concerns that my calf. generally, i think the love that was passed in 2010, the food

safety modernization act it looked at the food industry and said what type of foods are you engaged in now. the practice is they look at the process, they go through and they say where can a pathogen get into the food and how can we keep it out? the food industry has been doing that for a long time. now that we know this we will mandate that you do this. this is not a new idea. this is not something that is going to revolutionize food safety. i don't really see that it will help. i think there would be a better way to improve food safety and that is what i'm concerned about . we now have the ability for the first time, within the last 10 years, to trace back problems when they occur and go back and find this site -- where it occurred, find the farm where the occurred and we can find out what was the problem. what this does is it puts up the initiative back in the food industry itself to say i don't

want to be the person responsible for an outbreak. that kind of a system i think we are spending much more of our resources on problems come up making the incentive tips -- the incentive on the food industry will increase food safety, as opposed to the older regulatory models where we set standards to go out and try to enforce them. host: it was signed into law in january of 2011. it aims to ensure u.s. food supply is safe by focusing and on contamination and the prevention. what do you think of this mr. jacobson question to test? guest:the act of four years ago the fda has been slow at finalizing regulation. we really can't say whether it has achieved desired -- desired effect.

host: ebola talked about issues of pathogens and the responsibility of the food industry and taking arab -- care of these issues. let's look at the blue bell ice cream situation where it was scary at was found in the ice cream. mr. william, did the company do enough to prevent this from happening? guest:guest:one of the problems we have is pathogens are let ubiquitous. they are everywhere. there will always be food safety problems. there is no such thing as perfectly safe food. what we hope to do is a lot better than we are doing now. i am concerned that this particular set of regulations with hell. fda is required by every presidential executive order since 1980 to go out and find

evidence that the regulations will work. they had been unable to do that. they simply don't have evidence that this will improve moves host: -- food safety. host:mr. jacobson? guest:i am not certain of the situation with bluebell. they had listeria in the food. they make ice cream. listeria is a tough but to get rid of. -- bug to get rid of. i'm not sure if management knew they had a problem and didn't successfully deal with it. the fda needs to crack down on companies that have had some problems. bluebell caused a few death. let me open the blinds much wider. americans are eating a lousy diet. food safety is a small element.

big things we are not eating enough fruits and festivals. the fda does not have a lot of control over that. but the federal government centers for disease control makes to make -- needs to make a big efforts to get more beans and fruits and festivals, the good stuff unless of the job. with the junk, the fda has a lot of control. the two biggies, salt and transparent. salt, everybody is so familiar. fda regulates it and generally recognized as safe. so companies can use however much salt they want. the government has been urging theseveral years ago, the institute of medicine, which is the big authority on these kinds of things recommended look, 40 years of voluntary effort has failed. americans are consuming as much salt as ever. the fda needs to regulate and set limits on cheese and bread

in a kind of stuff in the food industry hates regulation. cutting sodium from sodium chloride and other ingredients in half with say 50,000 to 100,000 lazuli or. this is big. the fda has been sitting on this for four years now. the other biggie is transparent. in 1999, the fda said, you're are probably there that. the fda said trans fat is closing causing premature heart attacks a year. scientists think the totals are greater. the fdi required labeling. it has been trying to -- sta required labeling. industries are fighting it tooth and nail. the fda bans trans fats i would

say blunt -- thousands of lives a year. host: the phone lines if you want to call and ask questions about the oversight of food from the other government and food safety issues, call the following lines. mr. williams, go ahead. guest:i worked on trans fat back then. it was a difficult issue for us. when we started, only 13% of americans only knew what that was. the other half of the people thought it was good for you. i think the labeling has been a huge success. we have taken conception from four grams down to one gram. it was one of the best things during my 27 years there. i am concerned now that trying to go from one gram 20 grams is

lacking a good scientific basis. we know that a lot of soups substitutes you concern are bad for you at high levels but no problem at low levels and in some cases are good for you. think of think of some of things that frighten you, arsenic we know that very small doses of arsenic can be good for you. same thing with radiation. the question that i have is why are we banning trans fat if we don't have the science to know how low is enough question --? what's more, if we ban trans fat the fda doesn't know and what will be used in its place? remember how we got trans fat to begin with. the food industry was using animal fat. the concern over animal fat was saturated fat. that concern grew and grew and then the food industry responded and say ok, we will use

vegetable oil. we will have to hydrogenated them, which they did in the 1970's. nobody asked the question, when we go from animal fats, what will we get, really be better or worse? that was policy that was uninformed by science. my concern is the exact same thing is happening again. we have policy that is uninformed by science and i think the fda should stand back and wait and get the right science. make sure they are doing the right thing, which you do not want to do for something that is a public health negative. that is my concern on this. host: lexington kentucky, linda go ahead. caller:my concern is the fda with all the pesticides and herbicides that seems to be included with the way we grow our food, i have noticed over the past several years, even the meat, the fruits and vegetables that is grown that we purchase in the grocery stores, they don't even taste like they did years ago. i am just wondering if all this

cancer running rampant and the united states, would this have anything to do with the food on the grocery shelves for us to purchase? i am concerned about that, the large majority of people with cancer in the united states. guest:it is true that some pesticides, some herbicides can cause cancer. the amounts in the food supply are very low but they are probably contributing a little bit, not to the vast majority of cancers, that is clear. anybody who is concerned should buy organic. those foods are much lower in these resident -- residue is. guest:i eagerly with mike. the amount of pesticide residue that people concern is extremely low. we have cups of coffee here in the studio. one of my toxicologists says if

you are concerned about cancer, the total amount of pesticide that you consume a year will have less carcinogenic potential than one cup of coffee. does that mean coffee causes cancer? it does not. but if you're concerned about cancer, that shouldn't be the first place you look. caller:i would like to agree with mr. jacobson. the fda needs to have more regulation. republicans in congress do not care about the average american. you are correct. bluebell ice cream, they knew what was going on, that man sitting across from you mr. jacobson, he doesn't care. he talked about arsenic.

why don't we give him a dose of arsenic, and see if he is still alive. i don't listen to nothing that a republican has to say because they are bunch of idiots. host: mr. williams, do you want to go at that? guest:no i don't need to respond to that. guest:mr. jacobson, when something is done that in the she doesn't like, they run to their friends in congress to change the law and stop appropriations, to scare the agency away from regulating. they do that marketing of junk foods to kids. host: does the industry have us way over the fda? guest: absolutely. they are terrified of bothering companies. if congress says, we will cut your appropriations. the fda has to listen to that.

guest:every year the food industry does go to congress and they generally request that they get a larger appropriation that they have. the food industry requests regulation. they reason they do that is for various reason. they understand they cannot sell their food if people think it is unsafe. i think this is an overstatement. i think the food industry does care and i think accidents will happen like bluebell. i have no idea the management knew if it was happening. but people care. the food industry has changed in the last 20 years. it used to be again that you could have a food safety problem and very few people would know about it. that's not true today in a hyper connected world. everybody knows about it. there are recalls and lawsuits. this kills food companies. nobody wants to be bluebell and be in a position where you have lawsuits, where you have to recall your food. it has changed completely. we now have contracts in the

food industry where every food company that buys ingredients from another food company will do their own private inspections. everyone is concerned. the world has changed considerably. host: next call, hendersonville, north carolina. good morning. caller:good morning. several months ago i read an article in the wall street journal that stated aspartame may be used, the fda rolled aspartame may be used and not listed as an ingredient on the label. i am wondering why our experts think of that as a comment on some of these calls. it's not fair to beat up republicans. thank you. host: mr. williams. guest:aspartame is a food additive. it has been tested to the max. it has been tested over and again and found sapient personally i think it is in food i do think it should be on the label. i am surprised to hear that.

guest:when it is used in food it is always on the label. it should not be used in food. the only independent studies not done by the manufacturer has found that aspartame causes cancer in rats and mice. the fda disagrees with those findings. the findings have been published in the u.s. government published journal. i think aspartame should be outlawed. host: how do you respond to that? guest:using the animal protocols we have right now, what we do is we get rats and mice huge at doses of whatever we are trying to test. think about second. when we tested that we gave red c equivalent of 800 cans of soda . not surprisingly, i have of everything we tested found to cause cancer. that doesn't necessarily mean that will cause cancer. when you get it back down to what normal people drank him is

not clear that will cause cancer. the likelihood is that it is not. when people say something causes cancer, you have to be clear. these are based on animal studies at very high doses. i think that's probably why fda is going to better science. guest:you are not a cancer expert on animals. all cancers, the industry and government and academic community pretty much worldwide agreed that if the chemical causes cancer in animals it will likely cause cancer in humans. in these studies, they use small numbers of animals, 50 animals per dose. the only way you can do it is you need large doses. every regulatory agency except those kinds of studies. the world health organization, fda, epa and so on. we should be interpreting those studies very carefully and give them a lot of respect because it

is our kids who are drinking this stuff. host: mr. jacobson, there is a story according to diet pepsi they plan to drop aspartame for customer concerns. our food companies changing their mind toward some of these attitudes? guest:in some cases they are. and that is good. pepsi says is not because of safety reasons, it doesn't matter what they say. the less aspartame the better. as richard says what is the alternative? one of the chemicals, one of the artificial sweeteners that pepsi and others use is called sulfate potassium. it has flown and under the radar. very poorly tested. if it were ever tested again, it might turn out to be worse than aspartame, i don't know. when companies do things voluntarily, it creates a trend and it allows -- it makes it easier for government to regulate.

if they are doing it for pr purposes and not health reasons then government is not going to ask. host: mr. williams, if there is a change, what is causing that? guest: i am not aware that there is a change. we have a food law -- food additive law that is very strong. these things have to be shown to be safe before they go on to the markets. i think some of these things are a distraction. food safety is clearly a problem, but it is a small problem relative to what we voluntary -- voluntarily ingested to our bodies. if you tend to focus too much on these non-problems, particularly problems with colors and food additives, i think you are distracting people away from what is exley killing most of us. host: from california, lori is up next. hello. caller: good morning. my -- my budget is a little over

$10,000 a year. i am basically housebound, so i can only get out a couple months -- couple times a month to shop. when i do, i don't know -- they don't taste like they used to. it is tough and it takes forever to cook. and my basic diet is peanut butter sandwiches and chicken breasts. i know that is not the healthiest diet in the world but -- how can food tastes are different than it used to? i am in my mid-50's now and i can remember what chicken used to taste like. and it doesn't taste like that like it does today. host: thank you lori, i appreciate the comments. poultry safety, maybe we can frame it that way? guest: and i am not an expert in poultry safety.

my expertise is in the food and drug administration. host: mr. jacobson? guest: there are a couple things that has been going on in the poultry world. factory farming, hundreds of thousands of birds treated with drugs. and that is not the greatest way to have tasty chicken the way it used to be when she was young. the other thing is they take that chicken and they might -- typically, they inject 10% to 20% saltwater into the chicken. it is a little water down and loaded with salt. -- watered down and loaded with salt. on her income, she is not going to buy organic chicken. but i am told that that is -- that tastes better. host: from louisiana, go ahead. caller: yes. boy, do i agree with that lady from california and the other caller about how food tastes different. we have two horses chickens,

our own garden. tomatoes don't taste like tomatoes out of my garden. we don't use any chemicals in our garden. corn doesn't taste like one at the store. i brought the stick back and said i am not going to eat this. this ribeye, it hurts businesses, i cannot buy this ribeye, it taste like horse. and they said, well, we will give you another one. i said, i don't want another one. we have raised calves on our property, and that tasted like a real stake. i wish we had a cow. our deer venison is our stake. it is disgusting what they sell in the stores. i don't know what your problem is, but i wish you would quit it. guest: again, i can't speak to

why things don't taste the way they used to. certainly, food is changing all the time. it has been trading for the last 3000 years. we have been modifying foods through crossbreeding plants for thousands of years. and i think the same is true of animals. it constantly does change and i think that is very interesting. you know, it is too bad it doesn't taste as good as it used to. guest: the growers -- fruits and vegetables livestock -- their aim is production. how many pounds per year can reproduce, and then let's breed animals or plants that will give us that greater production. like roses. roses don't smell the way they used to because they are grown for different purposes. food is the same way. we have lost some of the taste of food. and then when you go to package food, then, you know, stuff that is canned or frozen, it just doesn't have much taste because

of the huge amount of processing. guest: if i could respond, that is absolutely right. the united states is one of the key players in feeding the world's population. we still have two children every second who die of malnutrition or starvation in the world every year. and the united states is going to be responsible for increasing the food supply. we have to feed a lot population, so food manufacturers are concerned about production. and i think rightfully so. we also have to be concerned with what we need, which is continuously increasing the yield of farms. host: to the topic of safety what is the ground force of the fda, so to speak, when it comes to inspections? what is their ability to investigate? guest: the fda has a large staff, but it is not now nor will it ever be sufficient to

ensure food safety. in fact, the fda is not the primary group to ensure food safety. right now, it is the food safety itself. everybody that sells upwards from an ingredient to a manufacturer to a supermarket they have to have food safety contracts. they inspect each other. they do millions and millions of inspections. the fda is never going to have the staff. when you think about it, there is over one million places where food is sold. supermarkets, warehouses restaurants, over one million of these. the fda is never going to be able to inspect those to any degree. you might get a food company that gets inspected once every six to eight years. to me, this is like telling a child, i want you to keep your room clean and i'm going to come in about once every seven years. that is not a real incentive. i don't think we can rely totally on fda for food safety.

i think we have to rely more on the food industry itself. the fda's role can be when things go wrong, they can go out and investigate and enforce the law and find out what the problem is and keep those incentives on the food industry, which is where it belongs. host: mr. jacobson? guest: i think the scariest thing is imported food. we are getting an awful lot of food from asia -- china, india thailand -- where there is much, much less regulation. roughly 1% to 2% of food imports are inspected. so the fda, this new law, food safety modernization act, tries to push the responsibility back. importers should check on who the exporters are. the exporters are supposed to be checking on who is growing the food. but when the food comes from tiny factories and farms somewhere deep in china, it is very difficult. and when you only have 1% or 2% of the food inspected, it is

like that kids' bedroom. and the challenges money. to inspect 10% of the food would be five or 10 times as much money. and congress is not opening its purse strings. host: does the industry have enough information to where the food starts to where it finishes? if it starts as a vegetable and ends up as a can. guest: more and more, that is the case. and the food modernization act helps that. we have come along, but for imports, it is much more challenging. there are credit issue -- accreditation agencies that are supposed to be inspecting farms and factories. host: mr. williams? guest: the evidence is that there is not a proportionally greater problem with imported food than there is with domestically produced food. the fda samples about 1% of

imported food. again, somebody in this country has to do the importing. there is an american company going to be importing that food and they certainly do want to import food that has food safety problems. so the incentive is on them. they don't want to be the people that cause an outbreak, wherever they import that food from. so they have a strong incentive to make sure that that food is not contaminated. again, it is a huge problem. i agree with mike. more and more, we get increasing imports from food all over the world. which is actually good for us, but we have to exercise due diligence. host: tom is in frankfurt kentucky. caller: good morning, gentlemen. my comments and questions are about quantity and pricing. a couple years ago, you got 64 ounces and a half gallon of ice cream for $1.79. today, you get 48 ounces and

half-gallon of ice cream for $3.99. what is driving this reduction in quantity and increase in price? why isn't something done about this? and incidentally, on the imported food from foreign countries, and the inspection thereof, why do we take some of this foreign aid money and put it towards the inspection of our food coming into this country to protect the people in america? thank you. host: mr. williams. guest: well, certainly, i think food prices are generally reasonable in this country. to the extent they do increase a lot of people tend to think that we have a regulation and that regulation causes the crops to go up, the food industry pays for it. absolutely not true. those costs are virtually always passed on, either in the form of reduced wages for workers or

higher prices for consumers. if you are for regulations, that is great, but you have to realize as a consumer, you are going to end up paying for the cost of that regulation. my concern is not regulation per se, but is it effective regulation? i think too frequently, we pass regulations where we don't have enough accidents -- evidence to make food safer. in that case, you are paying extra money and you are not getting anything for it. guest: the quest of regulation is trivial in that one dollar 79 cents -- $1.79 pack of ice cream. if they can get away with giving the people 40 ounces instead of -- ounces, they are going to try. it may not lower the cost, the price to consumers, or it might

sometimes. the same thing with yogurt. yogurt is to be eight ounces. all of a sudden, they are 5.3 ounces or six ounces. it is a way to cut ingredient costs and maybe hold down prices. that is a marketplace thing. it is not the cost of regulation. guest: i think too often in this town, people in washington think that some of the cost is trivial. perhaps here in washington where salaries are quite high, these are trivial costs. i'm not sure what is trivial in washington business is really trivial in other parts of the country. host: our guests are george -- richard williams. and also joining us is michael jacobson. talking about government oversight and regulation of the food industry. paul, you are on next from chesapeake, virginia. caller: hello.

yes, sir. my question is for both of you. c-span had a guest on a couple of weeks ago with a young lady that discussed the testing of products by the fda. and that many of the regulators go to work for these food companies. and when they put a product out on the market, they are taking the word of one food company's researchers and basically just signing off on that. as far as organic foods go, yes they are great, but the cost is double of the retail product. so, i would like for both your guests to address those issues. host: sorry, mr. williams. guest: certainly, i think within any regulated industry, we get people who will come from the

industry and go into the food and drug administration. sometimes they leave the fda and go into the industry they regulate. what you want is people and fda who actually do have knowledge of how the industry operates. i don't think that that is a particular problem. certainly, a lot of the testing is done by food companies. the fda will review those tests to make sure they are done well. guest: i think the revolving door is terrible. it's on like you just have the food industry moving to the fda and regulated. we had a classic example recently. the fda has a dietary supplements division. so after a couple of years, he leaves. where does he go? to the dietary supplement industry. it makes a mockery of regulation. it totally undermines the public's confidence in government. and i think most people at the

fda and other government agencies really want to do a good job, but they have some industry representative come in, really undercuts their credibility of the people who are trying to protect the public. guest: i guess i couldn't disagree more with mike, with my friend mike on this. i worked at the fda for 27 years. i am telling you, it is an incredible staff of people. you need lots of specialties if you are going to regulate food. you need to know what is going on in the production process. one of the best ways to do that is to actually have worked there. when people leave the job in industry and they come into the fda, they know what they are there for. they are there to enforce the law. that is what they do, and i think everybody at the fda is dedicated. i have never, never encountered somebody within the fda who

says well, i am just to to represent industry. at -- and -- and it doesn't happen in practice. i have never observed that. that may be a suspicion. i never observed it in 27 years. guest: people who come from industry, they don't get a new brain, they don't get a new philosophy. they come in with pre-existing beliefs. we all do that. and we don't share them when we enter a new job -- shed them when we enter a new job. the obama administration has generally done a good job of stopping that revolving door. could do a slightly better job. host: by the way, if you wanted to find out more about those guests that we had that took a look at the fda inspections they joined us on a program to talk about the investigation. you can find that on her website

at c-span.org. leslie is up next. virginia. hello. caller: hi. i was just calling because i was wondering why people just don't can their food, and can at themselves -- it themselves? you can put it in cardboard boxes and potting soil and grow just the same. what about meat? host: is that something you do, leslie? guest: -- caller: yes, it is. i do it every year. it is right time-consuming, but it is very worth it. i think because people eat all this processed foods that the fda approves, is why so many people is obese. and they say, what about me? go out and kill deer. it is much more leaner meats. host: thanks, leslie.

guest: leslie, good for you that your canning your own food, but i would advise you to do it carefully. one of the problems we used to have was one of the most deadliest forms of food poisoning we could have. most of the cases that we still have come from home canners particularly in alaska, oddly enough. if people are going to can your own food, you have to be very very careful. guest: you know, it is great to cut in. i think a lot more people are gardening now than years ago. and that is terrific. but most people just of have the time to grow their own food. more people are buying from local farmers, going to farmers markets. there has been an explosion in interest over the last 10 years or so, facilitated by government. but most of us are going to go to the supermarket and get most of our food.

hopefully we will make smarter choices. more fruits and vegetables. less soda pop, less candy, less meat. and eat a diet that is healthier for us and the planet. host: route is up next, your he, pennsylvania. hello. caller: yes, i have been listening to you on tv. what i am very concerned about is this foreign food that comes in here. who does the inspection on them? and, you know, i have heard where more or less the growers are responsible for this and that. why not assess a fee to the grower, the canner, the importer, the exporter, then get a service here in the united states and we hear will inspect everything, but be paid by those people? thank you. guest: well, i think it is a good suggestion. and the people who would have to

pay, all those with manufacturers and so on, -- those food manufacturers and so on, they hate the idea. funding for food inspection comes from general government revenues. guest: again, if you did have those kind of fees, they would be passed on and they would raise the price of food. a lot of our food is coming from imports now. again, we don't seem to have data that shows imported food by volume is more of a concern than domestic food. the question is, if you want to raise prices by that much, would it actually be worth it? host: is there better labeling of food these days? guest: certainly since the food labeling nutrition act. host: even to the point where the food is coming from? guest: that is an interesting problem. when you think about it, there are a lot of things that you

could put on the food label that people are -- would be concerned about. what is the possibility that they could have food poisoning? there are tons of things. the food label is very small when you think about it. so the fda is charged with well, what is the most important things? and that is what drives the decisions we have. there are tons of things people are interested in. host: mr. jacobson? guest: there are two kinds of labels that i think are really important. one is the nutrition label. that is very valuable. it is very complicated also. and most people's eyes glaze over. so it has been proposed for quite a few years now to have simple nutrition symbols on the front of the package. a smiley face or a frowning face to be simplistic. in europe, they are using more green, yellow, red dots to

signify sugar content, sodium contents, and so on. the industry has fought off anything meaningful in that direction. eventually, i think we will have that simple labeling so you can send your kids to the store and say, you can buy anything you want, but it has to have a one green. on it. -- green dot on it. another one is warning notices on soft drinks. soft drinks have become a major cause of obesity, diabetes tooth decay, and so on. but -- fortunately, americans are beginning to reduce consumption, but it is nice to have a warning notice to remind people. guest: let me agree with mike. absolutely. this is something that we worked on a number of years ago. the industry did try to get together and they created a label that would have reduced

all that complicated nutrition information and say, this is a healthier food and the other fruit in its category. in the end, it didn't work. i think the fda has just not fallen down on the job. i think they have not pursued that as much as they should have. i absolutely agree with mike. the food label is far too complicated for most people. most people are not nutritionists. what they need when they go into the supermarket is an easy simple to use to say, if i'm interested in eating healthier is this a good food for me? guest: we were on that industry panel, and put together the system. and companies fought off sensible things, like sensible limits for sugar. so when they came out with their system, everybody made fun of it. i quit the panel because it was a joke. so, they have fought off anything that would make it easy

for consumers to find healthy foods and avoid junky foods. host: let me get to calls and -- two calls in. caller: hi, how's it going? i am very concerned about what's the fda has done with labeling and what -- what they plan to do in the future to make consumers aware of bad attitudes to their food, such as gmos, msg's, aspartame, those types of things that americans are consuming at a rate that is -- and almost every one of their foods, but they are not really aware of because of the labeling. i know overseas, mr. jacobson, i really appreciate you talking about how oversees regulation and labeling to have different color codes for their labeling.

i think that is a great idea. i think that america needs to step up in the industry. i think that we need to get more americans aware of what we are consuming because it is not just one item or two items, it is everything we consume. everything that goes into our mouth is to be labeled. host: thanks, brian. anything you want to add? guest: brian, you mentioned genetically modified foods. there has been a call by some for labeling. the fda has declined to require labeling of genetically modified foods for one reason. there is no scientific difference between foods that have been traditionally crossbred, which has been done for thousands of years, and genetically modified food. the fda says the law actually doesn't permit us to do that. host: mr. jacobson? guest: clearly, a lot of people want labeling of genetically

engineered foods. my feeling -- and they wanted because of safety reasons. with these products, they are not safe accommodation not be on the market. there isn't a shred of evidence that genetically engineered foods or ingredients from those crops are unsafe. so, the department of agriculture is trying to work out a voluntary scheme that would allow companies to say non-genetically engineered. host: jeremy from st. petersburg, florida. you are the last caller. caller: i just wanted to talk about the direction we are going and, as far as food regulation. we're seeing a movement that can do what we have seen in europe. we are starting to see more -- change their ways, as far as hell. -- a long time ago implemented no gmos in their food.

and mcdonald's is getting hurt from the strength of the dollar rights now. i know mr. williams was discussing that the fda doesn't have as much power -- not power, maybe, but influence as the food industry does. does the fda feel it needs to exert power or regulate something, i really don't think that the food industry -- the food industry should not have enough say to kind of stop them in their progress. for example, people that were formerly involved in the food industry that i now a part of the fda, it kind of hurts the fda's power on how to regulate. thank you. guest: let me be clear. the food industry cannot stop fda from doing anything. they don't exert that sort of authority. they are concerned about food safety because they are concerned about their own

companies. they are concerned about lot -- not losing sales. but they cannot stop fda from doing anything. they can comment, like everybody else, and generally what the comments are -- and i think for most people that it get involved -- is what you are proposing to do, is it going to do some good? and too frequently, the fda, as is happening now is unable to come up with evidence that the things they want to require is going to do some good. what we want of our regulations as we want them to be effective. if they are not effective all they are doing is cutting out good regulations. host: mr. jacobson. guest: i think that is a textbook discussion of how washington works. industry can comment, consumers can comment, fda makes a decision. the fact is the food industry has enormous power in the administration and in congress.

they can stop a lot of things. i remember grocery industry lobbyists said it several years ago, our top priority is, what, to improve food safety? no. to kill a proposal by the fda and other agencies to reduce junk food marketing to kids. and they killed it. they stopped it. because they have the power to go to congress and congress can then write to the administration and say, if you go ahead, we will cut your funding. they have a lot of power. but let's not -- guest: marketing is in the -- guest: that was something done by the fda, centers for disease control, and the is the prominent agriculture. and the industry said, let's kill it. host: unfortunately, i have to end it there. michael jacobson at richard williams, to both of you, thanks

for the conversation. guest: thank you. guest: thank you very much. host: coming up, soccer is considered a world sport. the department of justice, however, has just handed down some punishments. keri geiger joins us next when "washington journal" continues. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend. on c-span, saturday, starting at new, politicians, white house officials, and business leaders offer advice and encouragement to the class of 2015. speakers include former president george w. bush. and at a nod: 15 p.m., former staff members reflect on the presidency of george h w bush. and sunday at noon, more commencement speeches from across the country. with condoleezza rice and madeleine albright. on c-span2 saturday morning

booktv is in new york city with events from this week's book expo america. sunday evening at 9:00, a professor looks at the case callings with the parry -- the law that rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry and california. and on "american history tv on c-span3, saturday evening at 7:00 eastern, a conversation with a white house historian on first ladies who have had the most impact on the executive mansion. and just before 2:00, the life and death of our 20th president james garfield. he was assassinated 200 days into his terms as president. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> the new congressional

directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress, with color photos of every senator and house members, plus contact information. also, district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill, and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, and state governors. it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from new york is keri geiger, who works for bloomberg news. here to talk about offense that have been at an organization known as (202) 748-0003 for -- fifa. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: what is fifa? guest: they are the governing body for world soccer. one of the main things they do

is they put on the world's most-watched football tournament , the most-watched sporting event in the world every four years. the world cup. they also govern the rules and the kind of associations that basically make up football, or soccer as you would say here in the u.s., worldwide. so they basically are the pinnacle of soccer and soccer leagues worldwide. host: so the justice department gets involved, hands down allegations, and arrest people. why did this happen? guest: well, fifa had been plagued with corruption rumors for decades. particularly in the last 10 years, they have had several high-profile corruption allegations. nobody has ever been charged. people have been put on leave within fifa over allegations of corruption. however, what we found out three indictment and what the u.s. attorney's office in brooklyn

did was basically use the office at sue brought the indictment against several fifa individuals. we found that there are basically -- if all the indictments are true, the organization exists on rapid corruption ranging from bribes -- rampant corruption ranging from bribes to which cities host the world cup tournaments. they cost millions of dollars to host the event. also, sports marketing firms and people have been brought in order to get the rights to televise and do other things to market football, games, and tournaments. what happens is that everybody that they needed to arrest was at a fifa meeting in direct. through the help -- in zurich. through the help of swift -- swiss authorities, they arrested

several individuals. 14 of which have now been indicted. the u.s. is basically interested in this. and beretta lynch has said this in her -- loretta lynch has said this and her press conference, that an organization that exists with rampant corruption and bribes, a lot of the stuff happen on u.s. soil, it happened to the u.s. banking system, and is basically corrupting the sport of soccer in general. host: soccer and fifa and the department of justice being involved in this, that is a topic for our guest, keri geiger, of bloomberg. if you have questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents. we are going to hear a little bit of loretta lynch is statement -- loretta lynch's statement from earlier this week. 1[video clip]

>> we are here to announce the arrest of individuals as part of a long-running investigation in the world of organized soccer. many of the individuals and organizations we will discuss today were interested with keeping soccer open an excess of to all. they held important responsibilities at every level. from building soccer field for children in developing countries to organizing the world cup. they were expected to uphold the rules that keep soccer honest and to protect the integrity of the game. instead, they corrupted the business of worldwide soccer to serve their interests and enrich themselves. this department of justice is determined to and these practices -- end these practices. host: so, what is the impact so far on the soccer world because of these events? and what can we effect in the future? guest: i think it is probably

not going to have a negative impact. fifa, as an organization, has not been indicted. we don't know what is great to have the next with this investigation. -- what is going to happen next with this investigation. we have had indications of this and reporting that this could be the tip of the iceberg and we could see more to come. football/soccer is the fastest growing sport in the world. in many places. it is getting increasingly popular in the u.s. it is popular all over latin america, africa. it is the most-watched -- the world cup is the most-watched sporting event in the world every four years. so we don't expect to see a slowdown in the popularity of soccer. it is such an integral part of so many cultures and so many countries worldwide. i think what people would like to see -- and there are a lot of people cheering for these indictments and basically peeling back the layers of fifa

of a secretive organization in many ways, to inject transparency into how soccer is managed and how fifa is managed. host: in your magazine this week, there is a picture of the head of fifa, sepp blatter. does he get charged in this as well echo guest: this has been -- as well? guest: that is one of the -- that has been one of the most interesting points in this. he has not been arrested. he is up for reelection. i think the big question -- and i think you have it when you have an organization that is under siege and so many executives that have been a -- have been indicted is how much he knew. even if he says he wasn't aware of this -- it does beg the question of how they couldn't see what was happening and not

know that basically the entire organization existed on this culture of paying bribes and other types of illegal activities? host: fifa being the target of an investigation. russ from connecticut, you are pursed up. caller: -- first up. caller: hi. i have two comments. the first time -- the first thing is that the u.s. has done this because they turned down a bit for the world cup in the united states. my second comment is this, this is how the u.s. congress operates every day. host: ms. geiger? guest: there has been, like he says, that people thought it was because the u.s. didn't get the 2018 or the 2022 world cup games, which are going to qatar and russia; however, a lot of

this has happened on u.s. soil. once prosecutors get their hooks into something like this, they carry the case through. so, you know, there is a lot, a lot of evidence the on just the fact that the u.s. didn't get -- didn't get picked to be the host city in this case. host: steve lives in pendleton, indiana. you are next. good morning. caller: good morning. hello. i just want to -- i appreciate the attorney general going after corruption for whatever reason, but i just want the american people to also think about the fact that not only did the banks get caught rigging the interest rates, but they also just got caught completely breaking the currency markets. and they just got a small slap on the hand. but they are stealing from each

and every one of us every day. i want to see the attorney general go after the real corruption, and that is our money. and if you look at the constitution as it is written you will see that they are doing illegal things. having the federal reserve as an institution altogether. i want to know what you think about the ultimate corruption. host: that is steve. ms. geiger, is the u.s. banking system involved in any fifa activities? guest: he brings up an important case -- and the foreign exchange reading case, we saw five banks plead guilty to criminal charges and pay upwards of $10 billion in fines with that. and with the fifa investigation and the indictment, several bank accounts are cited as accounts in which the bribes were paid

into to these various fifa executives. basically bribes, you know, to get them to vote for certain cities to host the next world cup, among other things. and the u.s. attorney's general office has said they are looking at the banking system to see how the money has flowed through the banks. it includes citigroup, j.p. morgan, among others. now, the big question is, if the banks are going to be trouble for any of this, if they violated their own compliance issues. they didn't do their proper due diligence. so the investigators and the prosecutors of this case are looking into that to see. now we don't have any indication right now that the banks are going to be charged. or that they are under, you

know particular scrutiny for this. but it is definitely a big factor of the case. this case was built around -- very much so -- they follow the money case. and the investigators look to see where the bribed money flowed through. and much of that flowed through u.s. bank accounts. and that is the reason why the u.s. department of justice has jurisdiction on this case. so it is a relic important component. host: from art in north carolina , hello. caller: hi. my question is not so much on the criminal investigation, but what is going to be the effect to all the soccer fans, especially you soccer players here in america, when they hear fifa, the world cup, the pinnacle of the sport is now, frankly, under investigation for a major scandal?

soccer in north carolina is, i think it is one of the largest youth sports. that is what i'm worried about. i would like to hear your thoughts if you know anything about that. guest: i think that is a great question. and there are concerns that soccer fans -- you know, this board is way much what people call a sport of the heart. it is embedded in culture, in school. it is fast-growing, widespread throughout the world. and people love it. you know, there is concern that it is going to impact that. it doesn't appear that this investigation, looking into how fifa does business and how allegedly corrupt individuals at fifa is going to do anything to hurt the growth of the sport. if anything, -- definitely from the department of justice's interview, if you root out the

corruption, it will run better, it will flourish. and the game will become more popular. so there is probably most likely a light at the end of the tunnel for even better opportunities and more growth for the sport in the future if fifa can basically reform itself. host: and keri geiger, what about major global companies attached to fifa? could they see fallout? host: absolutely -- guest: absolutely. there is a lot of major companies, including adidas, nike visa, who are all sponsors of the world cup. and none of those companies have been obviously accused of any wrongdoing, of course; however those corporate sponsorships are a huge part of the revenue generation for fifa, which on average, generates about $1 billion a year.

in sponsorships and leading up to the world cup and so forth. so companies are definitely taking a step back and reassessing this. the fact that the investigation exists will cost some companies possibly to pull their sponsorships for future events, or just take a break from fifa and some of these large event until we can figure out -- events until we can figure out what the fallout is. host: let's hear from jim in missouri. go ahead. caller: morning to you. i am just curious as to why is it that our -- our justice department goes after a sporting activity? it is just entertainment. why don't they set their sights on the real problems we have here in america instead of worrying about the problems going on around the world? host: ms. geiger? guest: i think that is a good question and a lot of people

have asked why the u.s. department of justice did go after fifa. a lot of this activity took place in the u.s. a lot of the bribes took place here in the u.s. one of the main individuals in the case is a new york resident. and had received and accepted bribes here in the u.s. the bribes went through the u.s. banking system, which gives the department of justice jurisdiction over this case. when you are seeing widespread corruption of an organization, and a lot of that is flowing through the u.s., then the department of justice does have an obligation if the cases there to go after the case. host: ms. geiger, there is a picture in the "wall street journal" this morning. who is the -- ? guest: jack warner was a very prominent fifa executive. the caribbean association. he was arrested in trinidad and

was recently -- actually, i think he is out on bail now. he is one of the many individuals in this case that was caught for, you know, the department of justice has evidence according to the indictment of taking bribes, particularly for -- to get votes in favor of awarding the world cup to russia and qatar in 2018 and 2022. host: in some of these cases bribes came in envelopes of money. guest: exactly. i believe he was the individual -- we had a great story on this yesterday -- the individual who sent somebody to pick up a simple -- suitcase full of cash in paris and transfer it back on. it was faxed of $10,000 bills in a suitcase -- stacks of $10,000 bills in a suitcase. host: about russia, it was

vladimir putin who responded to this whole incident, saying, the u.s. is in flagrant violations of their operations. talk about the response of mr. putin. is it a risk rise -- a surprise response? guest: i don't think it is a surprise. it is very much in line with how he would typically respond to events like this. i think what does surprise people sometimes is the strength and grasp of the u.s. department of justice. they have been doing this pretty extensively since 9/11, particularly with terrorism cases, and have been going after overseas cases. you just need a small tied to the u.s., as i said earlier, to tie it here. i think that does frustrate some people. and it is seen as overreach by some. however, this case and many of these cases have that. host: from randolph

massachusetts. marlon. caller: yes, yes. my comment is about -- i think this is only happening -- since they got it came from trinidad has a history of corruption and fifa is propagating that, it is just the cost of doing business, honestly. host: ms. geiger? guest: the cost of doing business is an interesting way to do it. a lot of people would say that bribes are just a part of how this culture works. however, this is a large multi-billion-dollar worldwide entity that governs one of the most popular sports in the world. there really is -- doesn't appear to be any genuine reason for people to be bribed in order to cast their votes or other types of business deals.

i think the department of justice and others that are supporting this investigation was a that there is absolutely no room for illegal activity in the sport of soccer. and the cost of doing business doesn't necessarily, you know, add up an investigation that shows a sprawling, widespread, rampant corruption and money-laundering. host: thank you for holding on from new york. you are on next. caller: hi. i just have a question and a comment. my comment is, i agree with one of the callers that called an earlier that said that congress does this everyday because they do. but here we call them lobbyists. you know, i would love to hear her comment on that. and two, my question is -- is there going to be full

disclosure on the part of the united states to what made the fbi just all of a sudden look into fifa? i would like to know who tipped off the fbi or asked the fbi to look into it. i have a sneaking suspicion that it was whoever was that didn't -- that didn't pay enough for fifa to come here to the u.s. guest: so, the fbi investigation -- the "new york times" has an interesting take on that. it was tied to another investigation that they were doing that surrounded russia at that point. they do have a really good story on that, i believe it was yesterday. you know, what happens in these investigations is people get -- investigators, whether it is the fbi or other parts of the department of justice, they will get tips information they come

across and then they build that investigation. i don't have any comment or, you know, opinion on the whole issue related to this is what congress does every day. what i can say is that i think the point of the investigation and i think the point of this is, whether people agree with it or not from the perspective of the department of justice, is to rid this organization that has so much power globally over the sport of soccer -- of these really corrupt actresses. it has frustrated people and make people very angry and many parts of the world for years. even fifa's own commissioners have spoken out against this for a long time. so it is definitely seen as some relief. if you look at the moderate evidence the indictment has, it just goes so far beyond, you know issues that would be

considered. as the earlier caller said, the cost of doing business and other things. host: here is paul. oakland, california. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call today. i really feel like the callers are onto something because they are asking why the u.s. the bombing of justice would concern itself so much with this. the u.s. government is repositioning itself in the world stage, especially after snowden's leaks. there is a lot of distrust with the u.s. government, so this might be a way of lobbying power back on something that is so internationally recognized. and my point is, would this come back to u.s. ports? because in -- u.s. sports?

because in 2002, you had ralph nader calling an investigation into the nba. that never happened. look at the state of football now with less and less kids wanting to bash their heads in with each other. this is more than just some guy getting some bribes in new york. i really -- i just want to commend the callers seeing what this represents. more than just the investigation. thank you. host: ms. geiger, there are four who pleaded guilty in this case you -- case. what will will they play in the -- role will they play in the ongoing investigation? guest: some of them pleaded guilty as early as 2013. kind of secretly pleaded guilty. and they appear to have been

provided the government with some pretty important pieces of evidence in building this case out. so it is really interesting that this case was basically fielded for so long and nothing leaked out about it until they were able to make these arrests. it has been going on for a long time. in cases like this, it is important to have cooperating witnesses. to get more information to -- to see how far up the chain and widespread the corruption in the organization goes. host: baltimore, maryland. hello. caller: hi -- hi. i am just curious as to why the resources of the justice department are wasted on us sport that nobody is interested in, particularly in the united states? and which we know is corrupt --

always, these locations, deals are that way. why we don't have effort on what the clintons are doing with their -- financial activities or some of the others with the republican side. and we just seem to be redirecting all the effort away from corruption in the united states government. host: ms. geiger? guest: there has been some criticism in the case that this was not necessarily something that the department of justice should have focused on; however the department made the case earlier this week on why this is important. and i am sure they are going to continue to, you know, basically make the case. a lot of people worldwide i think were relieved by the

indictments and so forth because they are so frustrated with the state of soccer and how fifa governs it. they definitely is a wide range of opinions on whether or not this case was worthwhile. host: from florida, sean is up next. caller: good morning. i would like to tell you honestly, this is all a joke. i speak from experience. the international soccer committee -- community has nothing to say about what is going on here it is a matter of power. if you look at qatar, there is no reason for qatar to have been chosen. those people that are under indictment they didn't do what they were told to do and 70 turn them in. again, we go back to money. the $150 million or whatever it is has nothing to do with it whatsoever. it is all about power. and one person makes the decision where that is going to be. i tell you that from personal experience.

thank you and have a pleasant day. host: keri geiger, sepp blatter if i understand, he faces an election today? guest: he does. he has won largely unanimously for several terms. i believe it is his fifth term. just days after this indictment comes down, now he is facing reelection. it looks like he is going to probably win this, despite the fact of everything that has happened this week. there has been some people in the caribbean associations that have, you know, basically started backing one of his opponents. the prince of jordan. it is interesting to see basically how this will pan out although i think most people are expecting him to win again which is a fascinating piece of the story in another itself.

given that so many people blame him for the state of fifa right now and the fact that fifa is under so much firepower. host: keri geiger from bloomberg news joining us to talk about issues of fifa. has sepp blatter, with a definite plan of moving forward from this? guest: i mean, he has publicly said that, you know, he welcomes the investigation and they are open to making changes for the good and so forth. many people have been calling for him to step down or not to run for another term for a long time. i feel that a new leadership is necessary to really see the change and opportunities and potential growth that this organization has. we will have to wait and see what happens with the elections. host: keri geiger from bloomberg news is joining us and talking about this