the house recently voted to repeal country of origin label requirements on beef pork, and poultry. we will talk about that with the secretary of agriculture.

first woman to get the nobel peace prize. if it wasn't her, i would vote for frances perkins, who was a member of fdr's cabinet and the first woman who served in a cabinet, and was responsible for establishing social security. host: do you think it is the $10 bill that should be changed? caller: yes, that would be great. host: all right, jim from

colorado. here is the website of the lobbying group "women on 20's" that has lobbied the white house. hariiet tubman was the winner of the poll for the replacement of andrew jackson. the group argues that andrew jackson was no longer appropriate to hold the spot on the $20 bill because of his role in the march of two years and also because he was a former slave owner. autry from arkansas's up next. tutti's should be on attend on the -- who do you think should be on the $10 bill? caller: i am more of a judicial guy.

leave it alone. it is perfect how it is. i would rather see a bear, a cougar, and eagle. i would rather see an animal face than a person's face, one of our strongest predators. it is our tradition. host: that was autry from arkansas. on twitter, there is this comment. there has been a small movement to save alexander hamilton, if you will. that is the headline of this piece from "politico."

he writes, the desire to elevate a woman on our currency -- to pounce on andrew jackson is committing one historic injustice on another. hamilton was a figure in our history most identified with money. in 1791, he endorsed the dollar as our basic currency unit, and endorsed putting presidential faces on coins. arguably, no one put a greater step on the currency that we all use today, which has become the world's premier currency as well. save alexander hamilton is the message from this "politico" piece.

bill is calling now. good morning to you. what are your thoughts? caller: i believe that the only woman who should be put on there is diane nash. host: i'm not familiar. caller: she was the greattest freedom fighter that this country has ever seen. she stood up to her country as they persecuted her. she let the freedom writers -- riders. she stood up to robert kennedy. if you pull her up on your computer you will see one of the greatest freedom fighters of all time. host: all right. caller: diane nash. pull it up on your computer.

she went to university national, tennessee, and was one of the greatest freedom fighters this country has ever seen. host: diane nash is the vote from bill. next up is dennis from staten island, new york. tutti think should be on the $10 bill? caller: i would like to consider hamilton because he is a great founding father. i think they should make a double two dollar bill and not discount hamilton. there is only one woman that deserves to be on any currency and that is on the god of -- abigail adams. she is the founding mother of this country.

she was wife and call for not of her second president -- wife and confidant of our second president. host: this comment from twitter. hopefully she will be the first of many women to come on our currency. the next caller is lloyd from baltimore, maryland. caller: harriet tubman. i went on a tour of the underground railroad through baltimore up to niagara falls new york. i went to the other side on canada and saw many things of the work that harriet tubman did . it is courageous, the work that

she did, going repeatedly to the south and bringing slaves to freedom. it was incredible to witness. every american should go and see that. that is what i think should happen. thank you for allowing me to say it. host: lawmakers have waited -- weighed in with their choices as well. here's nancy pelosi with her thoughts. [video clip] nancy pelosi: i would add frances perkins, the author social security. she has certainly affected many lives. i'm a big fan of so many of the women who are being digested. -- -- suggested. any one of them would be great. in any event, any one of them would be great.

i would add her name to the list. all of them are women of courage who made a difference. the got started before with a statue to rosa parks at the capital. sojourner truth. helen keller. we have a statue to her. we have others who have contributed to the success of our country. i'm excited that all the names have been to assist -- suggested. we should look at other denominations as well. host: jeff merkley tweeted this out.

a few other headlines this morning for you. an update out of south carolina. "the new york times" with this headline -- the story states that one by one , they looked into the expressionless face of the man charged.

in the "washington post" there is an update on the south carolina murder. the south carolina governor asked prosecutors to seek the death penalty. he said, we absolutely want him to have the death penalty. prosecutors said the decision had not yet been made. the prosecutor pursuing the case said that she will make the decision after speaking to the families of victims. meanwhile, a civil rights investigation is underway. federal officials have described as a hate crime investigation. the south carolina paper also focused on forgiveness on its front page. here is have the story looks in south carolina. "i forgive you" is the main

quote. there are several quotes from family members who were impacted and had victims who were shot and killed. we are turning back to our question for you today which is which woman should be featured on the $10 bill? we will hear from robert and south carolina. robert, go ahead. caller: depression era mona lisa, henri touched -- un -retouched. host: why do you think that should be the portrait on the $10 bill? caller: i think it reflects or represents the women in my family. host: next up is lenore from middleton, indiana. go ahead.

caller: i think it should be princess diana. host: someone who is not american. caller: i still think she ought to be on their. host: why? caller: she comes from a good family, has a lot of wonderful people in her family, and i think they have done quite a bit far country. she is usually on everybody's mind quite a bit. we have them on our tv screens very often. host: a few comments from twitter. if alexander hamilton gets downgraded, the current $10 bill will become a collectors item.

if they put marilyn monroe on the $10 bill, it would be very popular. another comment from twitter. our next caller is marie from virginia. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i think that metallica should be on the $10 bill. metallica is in adult name for a book on it -- pocahontas. she was welcoming to people coming to this new land, and i think would be good to honor her in that way. host: all right. pocahontas. next up is julian from florida. who do you think? caller: i would just like to say

that it is only going to cost her country more money to do this, and everyone uses credit cards now. it doesn't make any sense. how many people do you think use money? they don't. maybe a long time ago. i think it is a waste of time. leave it the way it is. host: next up is marie from texas. who has your vote? caller: harriet tubman. host: do you have any thoughts behind the? white you choose her? -- why do you choose her? caller: she did not just take slaves from the south to freedom. she was a spy during the civil war. she worked in the hospital. treating soldiers. she did so much for people who did not stand up for her, but

she stood up for them. she was amazing. host: this story in "the washington post" says there is a big change that no one is talking about. the announcement is overshadowing a discussion on how the $10 bill will field. an accommodation that visibility rights groups have been fighting for four yy years. our next caller is mary from california. who has your vote for the face of the new $10 bill? caller: i would vote for am alive for us -- emma laverus.

we do not honor writers on her money as much as i would like. she was a poet. the statue of liberty is as perfect of a definition of america as i have ever read. host: we mentioned earlier that the pound will feature jane austen as one of the faces of its currency. do you think the u.s. should switch it up more often? the last time a portrait was change was in 1828. caller: personally, yes. there is the issue of tradition and how much it costs, but why not? we do it with stamps. there are so many deserving people of both genders, all denominations. why not have fun with our money? i would just thererow out emma.

host: turning back to the story in south carolina that is still developing. this is from "the new york times." 2.5 years after the massacre of 20 children in sandy hook lawmakers seek modest gun control legislation. the prospects are now even more remote. the president spoke yesterday on this issue. in "politico" they quote him

saying that he is not giving up on guns. obama said that he would make -- his initial comments on thursday were perceived as a, he said they were. he said, we have to feel sense of urgency. here is a clip of president obama speaking yesterday. [video clip] president obama: the parent motivation of the shooter reminds us that racism remains and we have to combat it together. we have made progress, but we have to be vigilant. it is poisoning the minds of our young people and tears our democracy apart.

as much as we grieve this tragedy, i think it is important, as i mentioned to step back and recognize, these strategies have become far too commonplace. you do not see murder on this kind of scale with this kind of frequency and any other advanced nation on earth. every country has file and people are mentally unstable people. what is different is not every country is awash. i refuse to act as if this is the new normal, or pretend that it is sufficient to grieve and

any mention of us doing something to stop it is somehow politicizing the problem. host: that was president obama speaking about the shooting and south carolina. we are turning back now to our question of the morning which is who should be featured on the new $10 bill? we are taking her calls. next up is bonita from wyoming. caller: i think we should have esther morris if we change it. host: who is she? caller: she is the woman that got us to vote. the government to vote. -- that got women to vote. host: next up is david from kentucky. who do you think? caller: good morning. i'm calling to voice my concern about the woman being placed on the $10 bill. i am for many -- as in many

innie mouse, a suffragist. she believed strongly in the women's right to vote. she worked tirelessly for that effort, giving women access to public office, and opportunities and politics and public life. that is why i'm voting for today. host: it should be noted that 2020 is the year that the new design bill will be unveiled. it is also the hundreds anniversary of women's voting rights. next up is bob from west virginia. go ahead. who is your pick? caller: i would like to just that we do with like with the state

quarters. there are so many deserving women. sacajawea. eleanor roosevelt. rosa parks. make it cyclical, and every year, with a new $10 bill that would have a different lady of importance on it. maybe even make it to where you put online and let the people vote on it. make it interactive like that. host: do you think it should be limited to the $10 bill? do you think other denomination should have a different portrait as well? caller: i would not have any problem with andrew jackson being taken off. make it strictly historical figures. the princess diana's and madonnas and all that is frivolous. there are too many serious women that have done things for our

country and helped us go forward. i would like to see that honored. host: all right. here is a, from twitter -- a, from twitter comment from twitter. our next caller is mark from white plains, new york. you are on the air. caller: i think the free market should decide who should be on the currency. i think it is unfortunate that the state controls the money supply. i think gold and silver is a much better combination and should be read introduce host: and you have a deer who should be on them? caller: i think the free market

should decide that. i would rather have the gold and silver and worry who is on it after that. i think the current system is fraud it is a backwards way of taxation an unfortunate that people do not realize the federal reserve is a monopoly. host: you may be interested in our next segment after this one. we will talk about the federal reserve. next up is marvin. who is your pick this morning? caller: harriet tubman. host: why? caller: she was a runaway slave for marilyn who at great personal risk, led hundreds of slaves to freedom.

host: our next caller is freddie from los angeles, california. go ahead. guest: ein rent -- ayn rand. she came up with a sterling defense of individualism, free enterprise. personally she changed my life and i know many other people whose life she has changed. host: you are not the first person to mention her this morning. that's ok. you are entitled to pick whoever you want. another comment from twitter. and i take this as a

tongue-in-cheek suggestion, tina fey and amy poehler. you have to be deceased to be on the bill.

in "the wall street journal" there is the story about the epidemic of drug use in rural united states, including this chart, showing the consequences and the national rate of the hepatitis c epidemic.

. there is a map of the u.s. that shows the rate of infection is increasing dramatically in states like indiana, kentucky, west virginia. and "the new york times" there is an update on vaccines and drugs that treat ebola.

our question for you this morning. should a woman be featured on the $10 bill? and if so, who would you choose? our next caller is herman from bronx, new york. good morning to you. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. i think rosa parks. we are not looking only at what a person can do, but what a person stands for. rosa parks stood for men and women, not only women. she said, you will not send anybody to the back of the bus. she met what she said -- meant what she said. host: if you think rosa parks should be the face of the $10 bill, why not harriet tubman?

caller: why not what? host: why not harriet tubman? can you hear us? caller: my comment is that they are talking about people who stand for our country. host: next up is margaret from louisiana. go ahead. what do you think? caller: i think there should be a whole group of women. that would be more appropriate and everybody would get a chance to be on the bill. they have all done great things. to pick out one is almost an insult. host: do you mean a rotating cast of women, or a group portrait? caller: a group of several women

. it would be more appropriate. host: all right. next up is tvince from new york. go ahead. caller: good morning to you. my only comment is regard to the expense of this entire endeavor. i'm opposed not to a woman of being on the $10 bill, but opposed on the expense necessary when we have trillions of dollars of deficit. i do not think it is appropriate to spend money, so to speak on changing the $10 bill. that being said, why don't we wait until after hillary clinton gets elected, and then we can create a transparent bill with her face on it. it would be the only instance of seeing transparency related to hillary clinton. host: derek, who do you think

should be the new face of the $10 bill? caller: i think clara barton should be. she was instrumental. host: next up is conrad. go ahead. caller: until eagle rights are obtained -- i do not believe the men on the democrats and republican side will give them the choice of who will be on the bill.

a man is going to decide who will be on the back of the $10 bill. until women get equal pay and equal rights like men, then they should decide who will be on the face of the 10bill. men want to tell women everything. in reality, the man is the one who will decide it. women are not getting the same pay as the men. host: our final caller for the segment is jerry from springville, michigan. you have the last word. caller: thank you. i have sat patiently and listen to a lot of people talk. i listen to a lot of people mention the late and great harriet tubman. let me tell you why i picked kerry tubman -- harriet tubman. anybody in history who puts personal risk above all else and

maintains there safe and god and returns to the south not once twice, five times, 10 times but 19 times at personal risk. i make a prediction that the final choice will be harriet tubman. host: he was the final caller for the segment. you can log on to the website of the treasury to vote in. next, we will continue our conversation about money with the reuters correspondent howard schneider. he will talk about when interest hike might come. and, later on, millions of dollars have already been spent

on negative ads. michael beckel will talk about who is doing the spending, and who are the targets. our "newsmakers" interview airs tomorrow. [video clip] >> this leadership plan that you talked about -- how close are republicans to having one cohesive solution that you can present not only to members, but to the public and say, this is our alternative? >> the specific point that you mention that there is commitment from those folks who are currently receiving subsidies to purchase insurance. we do not want a woman in the

middle of chemotherapy to lose insurance that she needs to pay for it there is consensus that we will hold that person in harms way. in regards to whether or not it is in place. i think what there is not a consensus on is whether we can put forth a plan that would replace that segment. the patient freedom act would replace that segment. >> one of the issues is how you protect those people. some people want to restore subsidies. others worry that doing so would be embracing obamacare. do you think that the parties can get together in a unified voice on that? >> the legality of obamacare

will be determined by the supreme court. the cost of health care is flat -- it started before obamacare, but he is right. but the costs of premiums has got up. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined now by howard schneider, the federal reserve reporter for reuters. thank you for joining us this morning. the federal reserve met in washington this week here and what did they decide? guest: they did not cite anything. they kept interest rates at where they have been for six or seven years, pretty much the euro. this was the first meeting where they had a live discussion when

interest rate increase was on the table. you have stripped away all the promises that they have had to keep rates down. as a result, they could have raised it, but they felt the economy is not there yet. they pushed it off a little further in the year. host: the thinking is that interest rates will increase this year? guest: frankly, if you look at one of the meetings where they issued their so-called forecast in which each of the 17 board presidents predict where interest rates will be. they are clustering towards the bottom. it seems like the halfway point, the median, is still at about

0.625%. it means they may raise twice this year. i think it would be very easy to get a bad job rating in july or a weaker job rating and august, or see something happen with the unemployment rates that a do not like, and fall into 2016. host: why does the federal reserve think the economy is not yet ready? guest: there are two or thtree things going on. you have to look at the macro number. right now, the official read of the bureau of economic analysis is still negative, a contraction from the first quarter. that was deeper than anyone expected. there has been a long debate on whether or not that is a result of the way statistics are generated.

there is always something out there in the rest of the world -- what is happening in china, they are slowing down. what will happen in greece. there are risk factors internationally that feed into some uncertainty here. you have a bad read in the first quarter, not a great read on the second quarter. we are still in the second quarter. that is weighing on them. then, if you look at the last unemployment report, the unemployment rate ticked up a bit. job generation with strong. that was a good sign. people started coming back to the labor market. but one thing that bill dudley referred to and the chair before to -- referred to in her press

conference this week, things to watch like long-term unemployment have stalled. they did not come down over the last few months. the key phrase to me in janet yellen's press conference this week was when she said that she wanted more definitive evidence that the labor market had healed. she is looking at a lot of stuff. if those things stop, that will make them wonder if the economy is really healed, and therefore, delayed the hike. host: we are taking phone calls this morning. you can join the conversation by calling us at (202) 748-8001 on the republican line. democrats can call (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 745-8002. you can also send us a tweet. we are on facebook,

facebook.com/cspan. on twitter, @cspanwj. or you can send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. here is just ellen -- janet yellen, speaking about why interest rates are not ready to rise. [video clip] janet yellen: since the committee last met in mid april job gains have picked up and labor market conditions have improved somewhat further. inflation has continued to run below long-term objectioves. the committee continues to judge that the first increase in the federal funds rate will be appropriate when it has seen further improvement in the labor

market and is confident that inflation will move back. at the end of the meeting today, the committee concluded that the conditions have not yet been achieved. it remains the case that the committee will determine the timing of the initial increase on a meeting by meeting basis. depending on the assessment of the economic information, and specifications for the economic outlook. let me emphasize that the initial increase should not be overstated. the staff on monetary policy will likely remain highly accommodative for quite some time in order to support continued progress towards our goals of maximum employment. host: that was federal reserve

chair janet yellen on why the federal reserve decided to not increase the interest rate in june. we are talking to howard schneider of reuters. can you talk about how the federal reserve comes to make this decision. guest: let's walk through a cycle. they have a month to talk about this. there are the regional bank presidents around the country -- kansas city has one, boston has one, new york has one. they are watching the regional economies and getting affirmation from businesses around there. then, there is the board here that is supposed to be nine members, but is now down to seven. they are sitting here in washington, getting a lot of

data flowing in, staff are preparing reports. international stuff feeds and as well. then, they have a two day meeting here. they come and sit. they convene on a tuesday. they talk and bring all these questions in the door. stoffel make -- stoffelaff will make a presentation. they will look at financial conditions, how credit is slowing -- flowing. our banks lending money? etc. etc. it is a combination of art and science. all of this gets pumped into the models, and the model says, maybe under this rule you

need an interest rate hike, or under this rule, you don't. some are more worried about inflation, some are more worried about the employment gap. then, janet yellen is much like the supreme court. her view carries an awful lot of weight. the city has some fairly heavyweight figures like fisher and fisher. an economist at the imf also has a strong voice. then, they talk about it. the idea is that right now, the bias is to hold. they walk in the door without

bias. and they see if there's gravity yet so pulled the trigger. host: our first caller will be james from seattle washington. good morning to you. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. this all started with ronald reagan. he took office from jimmy carter, and inflation was high. the deficit was $900 billion. what improved gross domestic product under ronald reagan is all the illegals he brought in. under ronald reagan, the gross domestic product -- which does not matter to the average person -- was 7.5. 10 million illegals were brought in. after that reagan spent more

money. he spent three times more money than all the presidents before him. host: all right, we got your point. howard schneider, can you talk a little doubt about the recession. guest: listen, this was an important piece of current history. you had inflation getting up to around 10% at one point. this was ultimately fought with a recession. the fat at the time -- fad at the time was to raise interest rates with the intent of causing a recession if necessary. if you remember 1981 on 19 two -- or 1982, i can't remember the

figure exactly but it was getting close to 11%. once things start to heal, they healed fast. that was an interesting intervention by the central bank. the central bank has intervened in certain ways. that was a more classic monetary policy that was -- inflation cause a lot of heartache for a lot of people. i lived in south carolina at the time, and it was devastating. textiles were moving offshore to korea and places like that. yes, it did set a baseline for inflation that was very very low. there has not been in inflation problem in this country.

trade policy here. having said, they do watch obviously, they do not intervene in currency values right, but they watch them carefully, the value of the dollar is certainly a factor in their models, and

one of the reasons that the first quarter looked so bad was the drop in net exports, and that is directly related to skyrocketing really, the value of the dollar. i will disappoint dale on that note but why is the dollar going up in value? one of the reasons is europe. the feeling there was particularly some currencies used to assess the value against a bunch of other stuff euro have got a big role in that, and the euro was just cratering through the end of last year and the start of this year because of doubts about the union, monetary union, and whether it would stand on greece. coming back to a little bit of what mario draghi has done, the president of the european central bank, still pretty low,

and that is a struggle for u.s. exporters. the debate on capitol hill within the tpp about whether they will be currency provisions, rules for how japan sets the value of the yen, they are a little more interventionist than we are. or even down the road if say china were to join or korea were to join, really separate from monetary policy. host: next up is bella. good morning. caller: good morning. one thing i'm not hearing from janet yellen is about what is happening with seniors in america and the interest rate savings, and the growing poverty levels amongst seniors and we are near poverty rates that are pre-stop i would also like to find out about the cost of living. what is the formula?

's gas and food are not part of the formula, what is it based on? guest: i am not sure if you are referring cost of living on the total adjustments of social security may be -- caller: yes. the cost of living increases and i'm interested in trying to get one. no one is interested about the importance of the interest rates being changed so that seniors and others can gain some interest on their savings, and how important that is to be able to make it from month to month. guest: two things here. i am not intimately familiar with how that is collated. i know it is based around the cpi, and by all accounts inflation has been very low. i am sure people are disappointed that the cola has

not gone up faster, but that is a strict interpretation of where prices are going, and prices have not -- you go back to the 1990's, and the classic example is the care of blue jeans probably cost less today than it did 25 years ago. certainly the well advertised -- i think we all know, the prices for electronics, things like that, stable appliances in the house. they do not move, they do not really go up. they come down you get a better thing for the same amount of money. now this other question of a savings rate i think is one of the fed kind of chews on every now and then, it pops up every now and it. you cannot really depend on -- back in the 1980's, people would buy a certificate of deposit at 3% four percent, 5% or something like that. you stick your money in the bank and get a rate of return on it.

the fed does not put monetary policy on that basis. the argument on the other side the comeback to that is always that we are trying to create a stable economy with full employment and stable prices, and that also has benefits for seniors, for savers, for everybody. and had we not cut interest rates and cap them the slope for this long, the economy would be in much worse shape, everybody would be in much worse shape and we cannot look at over 65 savers of a discrete group and set interest-rate policy around that. host: you mention inflation, and right now the fed is concerned that inflation is actually too low, which is something that many americans first struggled to understand. how can inflation actually be too low? guest: this is an interesting question because you grow up and you are taught inflation is a bad thing as it decreases your spending power right?

it is like tax in a sense, right, that it affects everybody equally. the reason why the fed targets and interest rate, and it is an interest rate of 2%, which is modest, they look at it this way. they say there is a level of price increase that is actually healthy for people because it means wages are also rising a little bit. it means businessman businesswomen, entrepreneurs can look ahead towards slightly rising prices. and if you get it at the right spot, and they really kind of made up this intuitive bright spot. there is no magic formula, they feel 2% is the rate that will not affect people's decisions, if that makes sense. it will not make you rush out to buy stuff because you think the price is going to rise and suddenly become way more expensive, and on the other side the deflationary side, it

will not make you hold off purchasing because you think the price is going to fall. they feel that 2% is kind of a sweet spot where prices are going up in little bit, but it is not causing people to really distort or change investment decisions, savings decisions. and importantly, it also give them room to operate. here is where really comes into play. if interest rates are zero and effect was the target rate is zero, they have got nowhere to go when the economy hits a recession or turns down. the classic monetary policy tool is the interest rate. you raise it when things are overheating, and you lower it when you want to stimulate consumption and credit. if there is no interest rate there is no monetary policy. as we have seen these six years of the zero lower bound, when the country was in the crisis and the fed cut 20 whatever it

was, back in 2008 2009, at that point is when they start having a discussion about quantitative easing and extraordinary things that they could do other than the interest rate because they needed a positive rate. host: here is a chart that shows the change in the rate over time. you can see the dramatic drop-off in 2008, in the beginning of 2009 when the rate went to virtually zero. this comment from twitter -- the market reaction is to drop. does that indicate a bubble and stock and bond value? has qe distorted markets? can you explain what qe is and whether or not it is changing the dynamics of the star market -- the stock market? guest: quantitative easing almost describes itself. it is an effort by central bank to basically -- the money

supply. all three major central banks around the world, the bank of japan, european central bank and the fed until recently had been engaged in various aspects of this and various dimensions. what they did was essentially this -- you know banks investors hold securities treasury bonds for mortgage- backed securities issued by government organizations like fannie and freddie. we will not get into the bear of fannie and freddie here. the fed when out and said we are going to buy those, we will buy them up by the trillions of dollars and actually went into the secondary market and started buying treasury bonds and mortgage backed securities. what that did was put cash in the hands of the investors, and then they could do what they wanted with it. some of them but treasury bonds again, some put the money to work some rented out these

transactions with banks. a couple of things have happened as a result of that. one is that the reserves at banks, commercial banks hold at the fed at record levels. a lot of that money ended up getting recycled right back to the fed, and that has been a bit of a mystery. a bank is supposed to have a certain amount of cash on hand, to keep the description simple here, at any given time. they can keep the minimum, if they have lots of good opportunities, they can keep the minimum, but they can keep as much as they want, and they put a lot back in the fed's hands $2.5 trillion. as a distorted market, there has been an awful lot of stock buyback the last two years, so obviously the increase of money

in circulation, the increase of liquidity available to companies both because of earnings and because of the way the financial system is operating, you know, arguably helping push up stock prices a bit. debates about how much of this as a result of economic fundamentals versus things like quantitative easing, but certainly there is a bit of something in there that is a result of what the fed has done. bond markets and so hard to read globally right now because of what is happened in america and elsewhere. the fed was the bottom line is they do not see a red warning sign of instability. yellen has spoken a couple of times now to equity valuation. we've seen elevation in certain parts of the market, but nothing that will give up that we are going to hit a crash. host: patricia on the democratic sign. -- side. good morning. caller: good morning.

thanks for having me on. no matter who says what and so on, the fed needs to address the long-term unemployed, the unemployed, the types of jobs that there are not anymore. people are hurting all across this country and is anyone of us actually believes that anybody is for anybody today think again. host: patricia from florida. guest: so you bring up the issue of the long-term unemployed, and there is an interesting debate that has been going on at the fed really for a few years now about healing in the labor market and exactly -- trying to figure out who was displaced by the recession and who has kind of gotten traction back in the labor market and found jobs and who has not. the number of long-term unemployed, and that means you have been out of work or six month or longer, is at a pretty high level right now.

it is higher than it has been since before the recession. the debate is whether or not these folks have fallen out of step with the skills they -- that are needed to get the jobs, whether they are so close to the retirement, perhaps, that they are not going to come back, and what effect that has on the rest of the labor market. beware like to frame it is this -- the 1990's look a certain way for the u.s. economy. very tight labor markets, high productivity. that gave way to the years of the post-9/11, post tech bubble and into the housing bubble which clearly from a financial sector perspective was not sustainable. then we had the crisis. what the fed and i think a lot of economists are trying to figure out right now is what are we returning to? are we returning to an economy that looks more like the 1990's, that looks more like the 2000's,

or that looks like something yet to be defined? the relationship of workers here, the workers abroad, the sort of global labor margin, how much a worker makes in a factory here is a lot different from what a worker is earning a germany, france beijing, shanghai, brazil, than it ever was. so they are not quite sure yet what we are going to get back to and whether or not the norm for things like long-term unemployed today ought to look like they did five years ago or 10 years ago or whether or not they are going to be higher forever. host: next up for an san antonio, texas on the independent line. go ahead. you are on the air. caller: first, i believe the predictable housing bubble was engineered under the clinton

/rubin leadership. the second issue is the unfunded pension in the levels of government, i think that is probably a serious threat. thank you, sir. guest: a couple of things there. it was not just the clinton administration. it was the bush administration as well. i do not think you can cite this as republican or democratic thing of encouraging people to buy houses. this has been really come if you think about the elements of "the american dream," right owning a home, getting a mortgage, pay it off getting the equity, and having that there is an asset is sort of part of the deal. that was not ever democratic or republican -- it has been around

for a long time, and there have been a lot of federal policies that have encouraged and try to make homeownership accessible. where it kind of ran off the rails was the financial invasionization of the whole process. it sort of ran away in 2000. you sort of had a perfect conflagration of new financial products that were sort of speeding mortgage issuance and making it accessible to more and more marginal -- you know people whose credit records were not very good, and ultimately could not sustain the payments. and then the spreading of that debt throughout the financial system around the world, so it was not necessarily homeownership that caused the bubble. it was the financialization of the mortgages that helped cause the bubble, and because there was so much money and profit involved, the fact that the underwriting standards were kind

of shocked to the side and -- kind of shoved to the side and forgotten. again, home ownership is not necessarily a good bad, or different thing. it depends on the property and the terms of the mortgage. and the acceleration of all that caused the problem. in terms of the pension liability -- look, entitlement pensions when they become unsustainable and large levels, it is an issue right? government has the issue for the economy to grow its way out if the tax base starts to expand. the curbs on social security are starting to look a little bit better now than they did a few years ago. i think that is the case, anyway. the unemployment prior

liability, it is a difficult thing. i do not know enough about it to make a blanket statement about the degree of risk that it closes on a macro level versus a micro level versus people who may not save their money. host: some lawmakers are pushing for increased congressional oversight of the federal reserve. here is a chair janet yellen giving a response to those efforts. chair yellen: i was asked -- what exactly is the problem? i -- we place high priority on being an accountable and transparent central-bank, and i think that if you compare the transparency of monetary policy decisions in the federal reserve with other central banks we are one of the most transparent central-bank than terms of the information that we provide to the public in a whole variety of

ways. to my mind, the fed is accountable, and we work well as an institution. i am not sure what the problem is that needs to be addressed. host: and that was federal reserve chair janet yellen speaking about the central-bank's response to lawmakers' efforts to increase oversight at the federal reserve. we're talking with howard schneider of reuters. what are they trying to do? guest: let's go from the sort of general to the specific here. some lawmakers have had a drive for lack of a better word to audit the fed. the notion is that we do not know how these guys and gals are

making their decisions. we want them to be more formulaic and basically publish a formula of some sort. and monetary policy, there are things called rules my third policy rules, the most famous called the columnist john taylor. -- the most famous called the taylor rule named after the columnist john taylor. a have to decide whether they are going to a here to one of these rules, and they do not, if they deviate inside the economy -- they need to state exactly why. i do not know a central banker in the world -- i would guess that even if john taylor was appointed to the fed, he probably would not even want to follow his own rules mechanically. they feel there is a lot of judgment. that, interestingly enough, has not gotten into the legislation.

it is the sort of debate right now, the so-called shelby bill. that has provisions that will bring more congressional oversight to the fed. the request for quarterly appearances by the fed chair rather than semiannual, twice a year, appearances that she makes now. there is some internal structural stuff, getting fed governors the ability to hire more staff, a lot of dependence on the central staff right now. there is a provision to make the president of the new york said, who is maybe number two on the total paul, at least number three, if not number two permanently set, but is hired by the board of the new york side so there is a provision that there should be a presidential appointment, there should be more public oversight with that appointment, and then some

infrastructure. it gets a little bit down in the weeds, but the broad idea is they get a chance at the fed chair and there will be structural reform around the new york fed, and then some variance gao studies, for example, on monetary policy rules. host: next caller is carmen from florida. you are on the air. caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask mr. schneider -- hello? host: you are on the air. guest: we are here. caller: yes, earlier a young lady: regarding interest rates. i do not believe that he expanded to a real question. he spoke about interest rates, but janet yellen spoke regarding

seniors who had been contacting her, and it is a big problem you know, interest rate cd's, ira's that seniors do live off of. ever since the interest rates have been dropping, and now they are down to 0% 0% or .25% whatever you want to say. something must be done regarding this situation. not reliant on other items, you keep talking about business is having a problem. you know, the seniors that helped the economy while they were all working, of working age, and now we are talking about businesses.

how about talking about the seniors in this country, please? host: all right, that was carmen from florida. guest: i think the point was when this issue came up a few minutes ago was that i think the fed does think about the impact on favors, and some of them will bring this up in the readings. the bottom line may have is that they cannot set national monetary policy on the basis of one specific group of people. host: next up is peter from california on the infinite line. caller: good morning, c-span. i'm calling from l.a. mr. snyder, let's go back to the 19 -- mr. schneider, let's go back to the 1940's, 1950's, i worked for a doctor and got paid three dollars in real silver halves. now, these young people, i mean these young people are so stupid -- they have never seen a silver

half-dollar, silver dimes, and over quarters. with a silver half-dollar, you get 10 hershey bars, 10 bags of chips, five coca-colas in a bottle and i have silver certificates will stop i want to tell mr. schneider, i am sure you know, ron paul has been trying to tell all americans listen to me but this whole thing about the federal reserve is a big hoax. now, when i show people real money that i grew up with, and you do not see it, the biggest hit in the economy today -- are you ready for this? the real smart people are not giving their money to chase or a big jamie dimon or wells fargo. people are taking the worthless dollars -- i mean worthless -- and buying silver. take a been frank today, right

now, hurry up, you can get five ounces of silver. host: all right, that is eater from california. guest: that sounds like an ad pitch there. people have seen gold go up and down and up and down. it is a risky bet. host: all right, jane from a result, -- james from marysville. no ahead. caller: how are you all doing? i want to know -- can you buy stock in the federal reserve? guest: let me ask you -- would you want to? caller: i do not know. these corporations, the federal reserve is a private corporation? guest: no, it is a government institution and is not have stock. host: can you tell us a little bit about how the members of the board of the federal reserve are pointed? guest: sure. 7 -- there are supposed to be 9

there are currently 7 sitting. these are presidential appointments with senate confirmation, so for example when last year, lail brainard a ranking of four official went through a presidential confirm confirmation, and he also picked stan fisher to be the vice chair. it is similar to any other high-level cabinet appointment or something like that. host: people mentioned the impact the federal reserve might have on favors. what about the impact the federal reserve might have on the inequality in this country? guest: like any of these big economy issues, there is a matter of some dispute. a nobel winning economist out of columbia university basically

said well, of course, they help drive up stock prices, and that helps investors, and people who invest in this country are not poor people. they are people who are at least middle-class is not upper middle class. so the fed has been great for them and has not done a lot for poor people. and that is broad. the trend that a lot of people see in this country of wealth being divided between the very rich and increasing lower-class. there was a panel at the brookings institution just a couple of weeks ago dedicated to this. a lot of different perspectives on it. one of the arguments that was made there was that by reviving the job market in getting the country through the crisis, even if those wealth affects made it through markets, had increased inequality at the margin, they

also put more people back in the jobs who would not be working today. as the old adage goes "the best response to inequality is work" -- is jobs is steady employment. so how it all pans out across the income distribution is really difficult to say. host: what are some of the factors that the federal reserve considers when they figure out whether or not is the right time to raise interest rates? guest: they have been a little preoccupied with the risk that as soon as they raise, they would have to cut again. there have been a couple of interesting examples of the last two years, for example, the european central bank, which is now in the middle of this ongoing greece saga. i forget when exactly the year was, but pretty soon after the crisis, started raising interest rates, and then realized well wait, that is not a great idea, and started going in the other direction.

they do not want to make that mistake. i believe it was the st. louis fed president james bullard said -- what is the problem yucca we raise, we lower, we raise, we lower, who cares? it is certainly a pretty supervision -- a pre-distribution on janet yellen's part to not raise rates until there is a high level of certainty that they are able to keep going in that process and get back to what is considered a normal rate. keep in mind -- i do not want to get to in the weeds here, but in the back of their mind, there is an interest rate that is sort of consider the long-run equilibrium rate for the u.s. economy, and that rate is the target federal funds rate that neither encourages people to invest or discourages them from investing. it is kind of like a neutral long run it will agree kind of there in the background, and

then everybody -- neutral long-run equilibrium rate kind of there any background. and in every but he gets back to normal. that rate is summer -- is somewhere between 3.5%, 3.75%. host: next is brad on the democratic line. caller: i was going to ask about the fact that the federal reserve is, you know, part of the issue, but there is also fiscal policy, and also paul krugman talked about secular stagnation. if you are familiar with that. so yeah, if you can talk about those two things. guest: sure. on the fiscal policy side, if you could get members of the fed

in their heart of hearts to talk about the last few years, i think they would feel like they have done a lot of the heavy lifting, for example, the sequester at the federal level a couple of years ago came along at a pretty an opportune time, and they felt like well, my gosh, we are just trying to get the economy back on its feet and keeping interest rates low, and doing this quantitative easing. and then the other side, the fiscal side, is engaging in a contractionary action that is kind of undercutting what we are trying to do. monetary fiscal policy coordination is always a difficult issue in economics. there are theories analyses, things like that the people apply, who should go first, who should do what, and it gets very complicated. the long and short of it is the fed feels it kind of has held up its end of the bargain here keeping the economy on track. it has not always done the best job. the second question was about secular stagnation. this gets into in a sense the

heart of the debate that they are having over there and now because if you agree with the premise that productivity has slipped, and it is a permanent slip, and that the vitality that the u.s. economy shows say over the last 25 years has amped down a notch, and that long-term growth is slower and slower than it had been historically, say, since world war ii, 3%, 3.5% growth was the norm, then your debate about when to raise interest rates and what you are sort of equilibrium rate we discussed a few moments ago is, that all becomes a very different discussion if you think the economy is going to be less productive and grow slower. host: our last caller now is from louisiana on the independent line. jen, you are on the air.

caller: can you hear me? it will be really brief. i was going to ask you -- what is the deal with the interest rate and the reason that they had to say that it was a patient's matter and still go on with the rate? guest: so the language you are referring to that the fed would be "patient" and raising interest rates, that was part of a whole real regime for a lack of a better were that have been offered up at the fed for several years. it was called forward guidance. basically coming out of the financial crisis, made what they considered a constrained promise not to raise interest rates for a long time to come. why did they do that? they did that because they could not cut interest rates anymore and they were already down to 0%, and they were hoping -- and i think there is some evidence -- that by saying we are never

going to raise interest rates until a long time from now that investors and banks would keep lowering other interest rates longer-term interest rates with the confidence that the fed was not going to surprise them with a rate hike. so that word patient was a transitional word to the regime we have today, which is no forward guidance, no promises, every meeting we might raise, we are not going to tell you. so, yeah patient was important to get rid of because it was one of the last strengths on their action. host: howard schneider, real pet, who is your pick to go on a new $10 bill? guest: i got two. i was born in cambridge maryland, so i have to shout out to harry a tubman, it was her birthplace, so she would probably be not -- to harriet tubman it was her birthplace so she would be my number one pick. and then an astronomer in the

late 1800's invented the classification system. host: all right, howard schneider, reporter for reuters, thank you. up next, the campaign for the white house and 2016 is over 500 days away, but $1 million is already been spent on negative ads. politics reporter michael beckel will be your to talk about who is doing the spending and who are the targets. later on, spencer chase will be her talking about new legislation that will appeal to the current agriculture labels on beef, pork, and poultry sold in the u.s. and in our you -- and then our c-span cities tour travels to key west, florida. coming up later on booktv, we put all of our literary programming together in one block to showcase ernest hemingway. >> i've had the privilege to not

only work on the hemingway home but also live on the quarters. it has been one of the greatest honors of my life. i have the benefit of walking on the property after 5:00. he once said if you really want to write, start with one true sentence. ernest hemingway: a true writer, each book should be a new beginning, something that is beyond. you should always strive for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. how simple the writing of literature would be if it were only necessary to write another way what has been well written. >> here he fell in love with fishing, he fell in love with the clarity of his writing. in fact, he knocked out the first rough draft of "a farewell to arms" in the first two weeks of arriving in key west.

he said i need to live here, i need to write here, and i need to fish here. they found this house for sale they bought it for $8,000 in 1931, and pauline actually converted this hayloft into his first formal writing studio. prior to that, he wrote on coffee tables, dining tables bar tops, or tables and restaurants. this was his first formal office. >> eliza johnson was 54 years old and an invalid when she was thrust into the role of first lady, determined to be a makes to as husband, andrew johnson as he navigated the turbulent end to the civil war reconstruction of the south, and his own impeachment. eliza johnson, this saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series "first ladies," examining the public and private life of first ladies and their influence on the presidency, from martha washington to michelle obama on american history tv on c-span3.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by michael beckel, here to talk about campaign finance in 2016. inks for being here. -- thanks for being here. you reported that one million dollars has artie been spent on negative ads so far. is this unusual? guest: the election cycle has started a little bit later than we saw in 2008, but at this point you have got candidates jumping in super pac's jumping in, and the political parties themselves have already jumped in. democrat senate hillary clinton has artie been targeted by native attacks, and a lot of those have artie come from the rnc. you got super pac's him and they are able to -- those have already, from the rnc full stop you have got super pac's and

they are able to tap into a lot of money. host: is that a lot at this point? guest: this is a first drop in a bucket that will be a very big wave. by election day, both candidates in 2012 spent about $1 billion it including the parties including the super pac's. the first $1 million is a milestone of sorts, but that number will escalate quite rapidly in the months ahead. host: can you break it down for us where the money is coming from? guest: absolutely. the candidates themselves are already raising money. they are required to have cap's campaign contribution limits, so if i am trying to raise money, i can only accept $2700 for the primary, another $2700 for the general, but the parties can accept much more money about $33,000 per donor, and in the super pac's and collect unlimited amounts of money.

you are seeing every major presidential candidate with a super pac on their side. these are closely sanctions. some of them are more startup operations, so in iowa, for instance, governor rick perry of texas already has a super pac airing tv ads on his behalf trying to introduce or reintroduce himself to iowa voters, and these ads are not coming from the campaign but from the super pac run by allies of the former texas governor. host: there is a chart that appears in the "wall street journal" that breaks down the constraints over the different types of organizations that are accepting campaign donations and essentially running ads. super pac's, these 501(c) four organizations, and -- these 501(c)(4) organizations, they keep the donors private, but only the candidate can directly

fund. can you tell us the difference between a super pac and a 501(c)(4)? what is that? guest: your primary purpose of an election -- as an organization is to influence the election. all candidates, all parties, and all super pac's or under this section of the tax code, and that says look, we are going to directly impact the election. that is why we exist. that is what we're going to do. some of these groups like the super pac's are able to accept unlimited contributions, but then they must disclose all of their donors. your primary purpose is not the influencing of elections. you are allowed to raise unlimited amount of money, but you do not have to disclose your donors 501(c)(4), so these groups --your donors, so these 501(c)(4) groups or

organizations are playing a much larger role in the political landscape in part because of the legal changes brought by a citizen united in that supreme court ruling in other legal cases that have happened, and the 501(c)(4) groups, their primary purpose cannot be politics in terms of directly influencing elections, but they can from time to time run these issue at. -- ads. there has been a active debate over what that threshold is. some say should only be a diminutive amounts, other people say you spend up to 30 30% even 40% on these types of very direct advocacy ads. when they did that come of only disclaimer, the only words that the public really sees about who is behind that group is the name of the group itself, and sometimes it is very difficult to determine who is actually funding those ads. host: you can call in and join the conversation with michael beckel, reporter for the center

of public integrity. republicans can dial in on (202) 748-8001. democrats can call (202) 748-8000. independents -- (202) 748-8002. send us a tweet outwardr twitter handle is @cspanwj. or you can send us an e-mail journal@c-span.org. michael beckel, who are these ads targeted to? guest: these ads are targeted to the voters, who play a critical role in the states like iowa new hampshire. part of the purpose is to mobilize people around the candidates who are running, so you have got a dozen or more candidates on the gop side, and you are trying to break out, you are trying to stand apart from your colleagues who are running. you are trying to beatty person who people -- be the person who people are excited to go caucus for. you are trying to rally people

to your cause, so you want to persuade some of the independents that your ideas are better than the other camp's. host: who are the ads attacking? guest: a lot of attacked hillary clinton. the democratic front runner in a lot of ways. a lot of conservative groups are already testing negative ads. you have got online ads, mailers, tv ads -- there are a lot of mediums that people are using already, and as i said, we hit this $1 million mark, and a number is only going to escalate in the months ahead. host: here is one is able of one of the negative ads target hillary clinton. [video clip] >> growing numbers say she is not honest. >> everything that she is about right now is a turnoff. >> an avalanche of bad stories. >> favorability is falling. >> she is trying to position herself as the champion of everyday americans. >> has not driven herself and her own vehicle in 20 years.

>> a disconnect with ordinary people. >> the end of the line. >> she has to hold her crown while she speaks. >> she is allergic to real people. host: that was one of the attack ads targeting hillary clinton. that is part of the $1 million in campaign ad money that has already been spent so far. we are being joined by michael beckel, of the center for public integrity. is that typical of the type of ads that we are seeing? it is pretty overly negative. guest: exactly ominous music flashy images, people are in this stage -- they have had a lot of voters -- voters out there that a lot of impressions of hillary clinton either as secretary of state or senator of new york or first lady, but there are a lot of new voters in the process, you know. every election brings in new young voters, and every ad you

can do to help persuade people to your camp is going to help drown out whether it is coming from a super pac or a political party or the campaigns themselves. a lot of times the super pac's and the 501(c)(4) groups that are out there these outside groups are often going more negative than the campaigns themselves, so they are a way for allies of a certain candidate to get a negative message out there without it being directly associated with the campaign itself. host: our first caller is barry from fort lauderdale, florida. go ahead. you are on the air. caller: yes, my comment is this -- since citizens united, it seems like we are headed to an oligarchy where the super rich and corporations who write unlimited checks to run all these negative ads, and as goble

said, you tell a lie often enough, and people will believe it. unfortunately, i do not see any good overcoming this unless you overturn citizens united because it is all about the money and the big money and the corporate interests, to spend an unlimited amount of money. people believe it. what is your opinion of that? thank you. guest: as the caller noted the citizens united ruling has really changed the game. the proliferation of super pac's and 501(c)(4) groups have been directly related to the changing landscape will stop outside groups can raise money in unlimited amounts, and the number of ads coming from the nonprofits have increased every election cycle, and they are playing a major role stop --

role. host: remind us what citizens united that. guest: it was a legal decision in 2010, the supreme court ruled 5-4 that corporations could directly find election-related advocacy so rations including nonprofit operations like the 501(c)(4) organizations, they are able to produce ads that say vote for or against a candidate. previously you could not use direct corporate funds or direct labor union funds to produce those types of very direct political ads. and some people do say that this ruling has helped increase competition, that a lot of the campaign-finance rules helped protect incumbents. it is easier for incumbents to raise money that it is for challengers to raise money, so the proliferation of outside groups can potentially help a challenger who will not have the resources otherwise. at the same time it is the

wealthiest donors, both on the left and the right, who are able to use these vehicles to fund their ads. host: we should also mention of the attack ads have also spurred hillary clinton's campaign to establish a website called direct the record in which she attempts to do just that and highlight some of her accomplishments and also rebut some of the negative campaigning against her. our next caller is erin on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: hi. all of this money spent on campaigns is an insult to humanity. the citizens of this country are not being considered or anything. why doesn't someone have the interview with citizens, just the average person out here? doesn't anybody seemed to have common sense enough to know that the mental illness problem is

not being exposed? drugs are still on the streets. host: all right, that is erin from california. how do negative ads play with voters? guest: a lot of voters say they do not like negative ads, but the political polls show that a vote. i talk to voters on the streets who say all of this money in politics, just think of the other ways we could be spending it but we also have the first amendment in this country, which means we have a very rigorous debate. campaigns are not limited to a strict number of weeks or months like they are in some number of countries, so these political ideas get debated sometimes for weeks or months or years on end. we have got more than 500 days until the general election ran now, but we are starting to see these ads and these wars of ideas. it takes a lot of money to run a modern political campaign.

you have to knock on doors, people making phone calls, radio ads, tv ads, a website, and all of these things take money. you have got a lot of political consultants who are crafting the right ways to reach the voters, reach these targeted voters, and sometimes these political consultants also have made pretty good paydays in their line of work. host: the "new york times" and cbs news put together a poll on american views of money in politics. 84% of americans said money has to much influence in politics. 55% of those polled said those -- directly help the people and groups who donated to their campaigns. the survey also showed that many americans believe there is a need for reform. there is 46% of americans who say the current system should be completely rebuilt.

we are talking to michael beckel, reporter for the center of a look integrity. the federal elections commission has had some internal debate about whether or not its rules go far enough in limiting the influence of money in elections. can you tell us a little bit about that? guest: the federal elections commission is the nation's top election regulator. it is a six-member body. three appointees come from the republicans, and three are democratic appointees. there is very intense debate in the fec right now about the direction campaign finance should take. there is a very big ideological split between the liberal-leaning members and the conservative-leaning members. this past week, two of the liberal members brought forward in a pretty unusual move a

petition for rulemaking to their own agency, so they are sitting members of the commission, and they said that we want to put forth this idea and get comments from the public and try to figure out which direction we should take the regulations after the citizens united ruling because the commission itself is not fully address the ways that has changed all of the regulations that are on the books. host: here is the actual petition that they filed in this case. if they cannot agree on a path forward, what does that mean for any potential reform or change? guest: it means that the status quote was the law of the land right now. there are certain bright lines that do exist. if you're running a political campaign, it is a pretty bad idea to take money from a foreign national. that is a thing that has been on the books, and that is a rule

that people do not want to cross, but the proliferation of these outside groups has raised a lot of questions. and how closely these groups work with the official campaigns assuming that is being debated. there is a very complex multi-prong test to determine if communications are court donated or not coordinated. we have seen a very active debate in which we have got the super pac's in the campaigns in trying to figure out how much they can work together. by law, they are prohibited from coordinating their expenditures, but the word coordination is not necessarily mean what you and i and the callers think it means because they are allowed to attend fund-raising gatherings for the super pac's. in some cases, they are allowed to solicit money so long as they are not soliciting unlimited amounts of money if they are a federal officeholder.

while they are prohibited from coordinating their spending, they are not necessarily prohibited from all coordination in their activities. that is one of the areas of disagreement on the fec about what should and should not be allowed in this landscape. host: next up is mark from charleston, west virginia on the independent line. go ahead. what are your thoughts this morning? caller: thank you c-span, for hearing me. host: we hear you, mark. go ahead. caller: anyhow, i hope you will not call me -- cut me off. if ever there were a reason to start calling things in this country what they are instead of these politically correct terms it is not campaign-finance reform, it is greed and bribery reform we are to be talking about, number one. number two, has anybody ever

consider the fact that these corporations -- since they do not have to disclose the donors that these billionaires like the koch brothers can actually use these as tax shelters and save -- and say that they donated all kinds of money to these things when really they came from small donors. they could just say they donated millions of dollars to these things, especially if they are the ones that started the many first place, and then just hide the money overseas. guest: so the 501(c) groups that are active do have certain rules. if you are donating for the direct purpose of influencing an ad or if you get very specific instructions when you donate to one of these 501(c)(4) organizations, the rules do say that the donation needs to be disclosed to the federal election commission. we have seen a practice, though,

that that rarely happens. former new york city mayor michael bloomberg, for instance, has supported a nonprofit that has been politically active and he is one of the rare instances where you do see a multimillion dollar donations coming into one of these nonprofits on an fec filing. that is a pretty rare thing. in terms of the groups that are being active, the nonprofit entities do have certain benefits. they must adhere to whatever their tax exempt purpose is if they have tax exempt status, and that is one of the things that have been debated by the irs in terms of how these groups do or do not adhere to these rules. from time to time we have seen a couple of examples of the irs going after groups that may be politically active, meaning they did not qualify as a tax-exempt status but did advance the social wherefore -- welfare of

the nation, which means they do not qualify as 501(c)(4) organizations. that is pretty rare, too. the tax court of 501(c)(3) organizations, whether that is the red cross or the center for public integrity when he donate that is a taxable donation for you as a donor, but when you donate to a 501(c)(4) host: on the democratic line, stu is the next caller from kansas. good morning to you app. caller: good morning. i have a question about my own particular situation. i was accused of theft by deception. i pleaded not guilty fort

fiscal years. host: is this related to campaign spending? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: at the end of two years i was disgusted by the whole thing and i pleaded guilty -- i'm just wondering if that's one way of getting people to donate money. how do i go about getting to vote again. host: we are a little unclear on how this is related to any donations you made to a lawmaker or politician. caller: questionable. host: we will have to move on unfortunately. don from myrtle beach, south carolina. republican line. caller: morning.

i don't believe we are labeling things correctly. you call something a negative ad -- if it's true, it's an informative at. the only thing you will get from the person running for office is a glory think. i did this and that. you won't get anything about what's behind everything. they are telling you the truth. i find objection to the guy calling it an attack. the reason why you need these ads and why you need outside groups is because the government involvement in so many things today -- they are into everything. it's the only way to fight back. letting people know what's going on. the size of the government is a

big problem that causes that. you talked about inside groups giving money to political action committees. what about the inside groups and government? look at the irs scandal and how they are covering that up inside the government. come on, now. the other is the disclosure. disclosure of who does what. somebody does something wrong and they are never punished. host: don from south carolina. guest: as the caller noted, a lot of these rules have been promulgated by the lawmakers themselves. some people do worry that when the lawmakers are setting the rules, they are benefiting themselves. it's a form of a incumbent protection. when you have outside groups on the right or left to rally around a particular ideological cause, the outside groups are a way to exert influence on the

process. when you look at all of the ads that are being aired, you see positive ads sometimes, you see contrast ads sometimes and you see these negative ads sometimes where these are industry terms in order to differentiate between the ads that are out there. there's not a lot of nuance. when the allegations are true sometimes there's more story than you can fit into a 32nd tv ad. host: here is an ad that ran in iowa. [video clip] >> we don't have a king. >> how does a country that's lost find its way back? start in a place called paint

creek, texas. a farm for named rick perry learned lessons of strength. he became an eagle scout come air force pilot and married a woman he first met when he was eight years old. he took those lessons to the highest office in texas and did what no one thought could be done. help create more than 2 million new jobs, 40% of the country's jobs since 2009. texas had the second-highest high school graduation rate in the country. >> the weakness and incompetence of our government should not be confused with the strength come ingenuity and idealism of the american people. >> america can find its strength again. you just have to look in the right place. host: that was an ad for rick

perry. these types of ads in support of a candidate, how often are outside groups funding this type of campaign? guest: this is one of the first we have seen so far being aired directly to voters in iowa potential caucus goers in iowa. when you are making that first impression come it's nice to be able to introduce yourself on a positive note. these are the people that will be caucusing in seven months. the very first introduction you want to have is something that resonates with voters. you have the music, this record of former governor texas perry in texas. we want to introduce him with those really strong credentials and they have already pumped more than half $1 million in two

ads, positive ads in iowa. they could have deep pockets as we go forward. host: a few comments from twitter -- there's also this question -- guest: legally speaking, the clinton foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization. it doesn't qualify as a political action committee under the law. the waste that donors might approach it are very similar. a lot of lawmakers have charities or favorite charities and one way donors have to

potentially earn favor is to donate to those charitable groups. the clinton foundation has raised a lot of money over the years. it comes under a lot of scrutiny because of all the donors, including the foreign donors. host: our next caller is -- independent line. go ahead. caller: i was reading an article the other day -- this goes back to hillary clinton's campaign. she said she wanted $2.5 billion for her ad campaign. that's more than obama and romney's campaigns combined. how could that possibly work? the biggest campaign ever in history. guest: it's a very big number and time will tell if it's accurate or if it's something

being floated right now. the entire obama machine between the obama campaign, the democratic national committee and the pro-obama super pacs that were active in 2012 spent about $1 billion. if you are talking about almost tripling that, that would be a massive upscaling of what's going on. it might just be a number being floated to scare off potential challengers. one way that incumbents or front runners often try to use the fundraising to their manage is to say our warchest will be this big. if you want to make a serious challenge against us, you need to have comparable resources and a lot of people out there don't have those deep pockets. on the democratic side, you have martin o'malley, lincoln chafee

bernie sanders and potentially jim webb. these are guys who don't necessarily have the same level of campaign apparatus, who aren't going to have the same resources going into the race. as you go forward in the process, it will be a challenge for them to compete or whoever the potential gop nominee is. they are trying to project a message of strength in saying we will have a lot of resources and our disposal. time will tell if that figure is accurate. host: this story in national journal. the story starts four years ago. the story includes these charts that break down the spending by presidential candidates from the 2012 obama campaign.

most of the money was spent on media. $483.8 million spent on media. one of the largest chunks of that media spending was in digital advertising. they project digital advertising continues at the same pace that it did in 28-2012 -- 2008-2012, they could spend over two or $60 billion in digital -- tours six $2 million in digital alone -- $260 million in digital alone. guest: they are increasingly important. a lot of the spending we have seen already has been for online ads or facebook ads. campaigns are trying to go where people are. if you are a potential caucus goer in iowa or a voter in new hampshire but you are not

watching the news every night they are trained to figure out ways they can get their message in front of your eyes. whether that's the facebook feed or twitter or youtube. host: from texas on the independent line, george's our next caller. go ahead. caller: i have a question concerning immigration related to the performance of hillary as secretary of state. a question especially directed to her performance in eastern europe. the conspirators in the state department headed by victoria nuland -- they are trying to

bring america into cold war with russia. they brought leaders billionaires, former corrupt people and they say russia is the problem. the state department is the problem. guest: the foreign-policy issues are being actively debated right now between the republicans and the democrats and within the republican party itself. there's a lot of foreign-policy hawks who are active in the 2016 field. you have folks like rand paul who don't necessarily march to the beat of that same drummer. this is a policy debate we will hear more of in the months ahead. host: next up is adam from berkeley, california on the republican line. caller: hello. i would like to say, i think those that advocate we have less

speech, super pacs saturate the market with their message those -- there are two components that make a message that we have to take into consideration. number one is actual distortions. candidates can sue for defamation if there are sufficient factual distortions. i think that is a sufficient standard to protect the public from distortions. let's say a person said we are going to spend two or $70 billion -- two or $70 billion on -- 200 $70 billion on health care for illegal immigrants.

-- $270 billion. that could warrant a claim of defamation but we could also examine the negative value judgment of therefore he is a bad person because he wants to do bad. even if the person is able to saturate the market with a whole lot of negative value judgments about one particular candidate the voter must take personal responsibility and not just be someone who makes a determination based on how many negative value judgment he perceives. guest: a lot of voters out there think it's important to look at the character of any new president and being able to question the character in question what kind of leader the next resident is going to be

part of this advertising game. in contrast to the other marketplaces that are out there on the democratic political involvement -- imagine if there was one day year that we decided we were going to only drink coke or pepsi. think about the negative ads you would see if it all came down to this one decision on this one day and he was saying he's a fan of negative ads and what's more negative ads in all it takes -- in politics. one of the interesting corollaries coming into this with the proliferation of super pacs finance and nonprofits buying ads, especially as you go down the ticket come in some

places it's been difficult for the candidates themselves to get on the air in some markets because there is a limited amount of used time. there were stations and spen inning off news programs to get all the people who wanted to buy ads on the air. it can be a real challenge, not necessarily persimmon in the presidential race to get on the air, but as you go down the ticket, there are limited windows. host: are the recommendations for how much time should be given to all candidates? guest: many candidates are able to get the most qualified unit rates on tv ads -- they have cheaper prices than nonprofits. there can be other variables at play. it's cheaper to buy ads in august than october.

sometimes the campaign is able to make those strategic choices early and try to plan ahead and other times, they get caught paying expensive rates for ads as you get towards the 11th hour of the election. one of the ideas that some reformers have floated is there should be more free access or cheaper access and more free airtime so that the public could hear more from the candidates and we would not have all the proliferation of ads -- host: how much can an ad in prime time cost? guest: from station to station it's a lot more expensive to reach voters in a new york city than rural montana. in some of these primetime programs you are talking tens of thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars. for a very short window of time. host: next caller is john from

michigan on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i did want to comment related to what the gust said early on -- guest said early on about every major political contributor or candidate was involved with a super pac. bernie sanders does not have a super pac and says he will not have a super pac. there was a comment about negative ads -- reportedly, he has never run a negative ad in his entire life. that's what i heard. i'm interested to hear your response. guest: that is something that i want to fact check and look into. while bernie sanders himself might not sanction a super pac

being active on his behalf, that doesn't stop anybody else from going out there to start a super pac. two years ago, there was a pro bernie sanders and super pac started called "ready for bernie ." they recently changed their name to "bet on bernie 2016." the candidates don't want to condone that type of behavior the way the law is written people can go out there and start these groups. go out with hopes of cashing in on a candidate, whether that's bernie sanders or hillary clinton. i wrote about pro-hillary super pacs that looked nothing more than an online store. the people who started it had a series of financial background problems, they were being sought in a judgment in a case in

california. it goes to show that the regulations as they exist means anybody can go out and start these types of organizations and some candidates like hillary clinton or jeb bush are working much more closely with a super pack than somebody like bernie sanders, but there is nothing on the books that keeps people from going out to start those organizations. host: the last caller for this segment will be taylor on the democratic line from washington. you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. the previous caller raised some pretty important points about super pac rules. something you're guest said earlier about restricting donations from foreign parties -- it's something interesting to think about. while candidates may not be directly able to receive country visions from foreign countries

-- contributions from foreign countries, there often pushing agendas that support china's economy rather than our own. it's an interesting comparison between not being able to legally give campaign contributions and yet, somehow end up benefiting the country other than the one they are elected to represent. guest: thank you for the question and comment. we have seen regulation and rules on the books for decades here. saying u.s. nationals are the people who were allowed to participate when it comes to clinical donations. -- political donations. if you are an american citizen living overseas, you are allowed to donate to a political campaign. we will see candidates going abroad to raise money or turn to organize american citizens abroad, trying to get money from them. in terms of foreign interest

come only u.s. citizens are allowed to donate to the campaigns. foreign companies do have a lot of other vehicles at their disposal to try to influence the government in washington from starting their own organizations to lobby on their behalf to hiring lobbyists. a whole other set of regulations. host: spencer chase michael beckel, thank you for joining us this morning. next, we will be joined by spencer chase to discuss country of origin labeling. ♪ ♪ >> here are some of our featured

programs this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span tonight at 8:00, ruth bader ginsburg on national issues like gay rights race relations in america and the production of a new movie about her life and career. sunday night, a profile interview with presidential candidate ted cruz. on book tv on c-span2 come alive for the annual roosevelt reading festival at the fdr presidential library and museum. christopher o'sullivan, harry hopkins, sheila collins and mary manning. on sunday night at 9:00, the need of a sexual revolution in the middle east. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, where live from

the gettysburg college civil war institute annual summer conference on the civil wars and and aftermath. general grant and appomattox. abraham lincoln and the press. sunday morning, we continue our live coverage beginning in 8:30 with gregory down on the consequences of the civil war. later come at 11:00 am a discussion about treason and loyalty during the civil war with william blair. get our complete schedule at www.c-span.org. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114 congress with color photos of every senator and house member, plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. district maps, a foldout map of

capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it is $13 and nine cents -- $13.95. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined now by spencer chase. he is here to talk about country of origin labeling. thank you for being here. let's start by describing exactly what is a country of origin label. guest: it exists on a variety of agricultural products. as part of a 2008 farm bill. if you go to a grocery store and look at a package of meat there's information about where the animal was born and slaughtered. these labels are on a wide variety of agricultural products. a wide gamut of things. host: are they something

consumers can find easily on the package? guest: the grocery store i go to most often has a sign that says all of the meets are born, raised and slaughtered in the u.s. in some cases, the information is on the label itself. it's a matter of where they go to look for it. a lot don't know this law currently exists. consumers have access to the information. it's whether or not they use it. host: why are they controversial? guest: the controversy derives not from the label itself, the process of producing the meat is where the controversy lies. the wto is in dispute between canada and mexico and the united states. the current country of origin labeling law requires a segregation of animals as they go through processing facilities. if you have one trailer of cattle from the u.s. and the

trailer of cattle from canada the processing facility has to keep those animals separate. it's creating extra cost for these meat producing animal -- 2.1 billion dollars from these countries involved in the trade dispute. host: because there is a requirement and the animals have to have a label, therefore it's causing the producers to have to segregate them in the production process. guest: right. the producers and processors as well. let's say a cap is born in canada and raised in the united states, is that a canadian or u.s. product? the born and raised and slaughtered information is supposed to sell a lot of that to that point. born in canada and raised in the u.s. and slaughtered in the u.s. host: wto is mediating a dispute between u.s.-mexico-canada. where does the ruling stand? guest: currently, the dispute is

in its final stages. it has ruled against the u.s. water times. -- four times. what you've got here is a case of canada and mexico saying these rules are protectionist discriminating against their own products and providing unfavorable treatment in terms of their use -- because of the labels at the actual stores. host: we want to hear from you and hear your thoughts on whether or not you support or oppose these types of labels on our meat products. you can call 202-748-8000 if you support it. if you oppose it, call 202-748-8001. you can also provide comments yet twitter or facebook -- via twitter or facebook or e-mail. we are talking with spencer chase.

you wrote a story about congressional involvement. the house of representatives approved a bill that would repeal country of origin labeling requirements for beef, pork and poultry products sold in the u.s. why is the house trying to get rid of the labels? guest: now that the wto dispute is in the process it sat, all that's left is deciding what retaliation can happen and how much. canada and mexico are combining to say it will be $3.1 billion. 2.4 coming from canada. right now, the house and everyone involved is working to stop the retaliation. nobody wants retaliation. canada and mexico don't. it's a lot of extra work they have to go through.

right now, canada and mexico are pushing to say let's repeal this so we don't have to deal with any retaliation. he saw the house take action a day after the final wto ruling came down. the chairman and ricky member in a democratic member from california came up with a bill that would repeal the beef and poultry requirements. only beef and pork got involved. poultry producers evidently asked to be a part of the rule. he said he was a poultry producer saying they want to do it as well. this bill also includes ground beef. it's only muscle cuts of beef and pork. they got this rule through and it's moving to the senate. the senate is not as gung ho for repeal as the house was. host: the labels that currently

are on muscle cuts of meat, do they meet the requirements or standards of the wto? guest: they do not. that's why they are going through the trade dispute right now. the information was not part of the original farm bill. that was something done by the u.s. after previous rulings. it made it worse. canada's retaliation was about $1 billion. since that ruling, they jumped another $1.4 billion. host: let's get to the phone lines. margie from virginia calling in support of the labeling. caller: i support it because i do want to know where my food comes from. that matters to me. there's another part of this topic that i hope this guest will address. the misleading part of advertisement or of labeling.

i bought fish at a kroger that sold alaskan salmon. obviously, i assumed it was from alaska. when i opened the fish, at the very top of the product, sort of inside the label, it said product of china. i thought -- the country of origin was there, but you could not see until you opened it. it was really misleading advertisement that made me think because it was called alaskan salmon, that i was buying alaskan salmon and not until i could actually open the product could i see that. will any legislation support better labeling of products so we will know their origins? guest: you raise two points there.

the consumer right to know has been a big topic of debate. with that, mike connolly has been contending, saying consumers want to know where their meat comes from. there's a study that said 90% of consumers answer in the affirmative. he was surprised it was not 100%. that's an easy question to answer. when push comes to shove, the labels are not consulted as much as you would think. they look at the meat packaging and how it looks -- addressing the alaskan salmon -- i'm not entirely familiar with that product. what could be happening is the species of the fish is alaskan salmon. maybe it was processed in china. it would be a product of china but could still be alaskan salmon. not entirely sure on that, but

that's a possibility. caller: gary from baltimore maryland in opposition of country of origin labeling. caller: good morning. i love c-span. i think this is like a superficial kind of issue. as much as we are talking about labels, you have people that can afford to eat either way -- can't afford to eat either way. i have concerns about the amount of subsidies that ag gets every year anyway. why can't we produce our own meats and fish and corn and soybeans? we have to go all the way across the world to support other economies. we have people who don't have jobs, we have a food deserts in the united states. guest: i guess i would respond

to that by saying there is a fair amount of agricultural protection in the united states this production in the net states. the big issue is not the production but the retaliation. we have this retaliation from canada and mexico. it's not want to be just agricultural products. they looked at the list of senators and representative's that were not being supportive of repeal, looked a product's that were important to their states or districts and targeted those products. host: here's a story from the cbc -- canada is seeking permission from wto to impose $3 billion a year in tariffs --

guest: i believe communion wafers is also on their. it's a really wide swath. this is a living list. product a could be added and product b could be taken away. host: next up is dorothy calling in support of country of origin labeling. caller: i have a couple of questions. we need labeling. suppose we get sick. how do we know where it came from? one time, i bought some beef.

the beef look so beautiful in the package. something was wrong -- i've been buying be for a long time. it just had bad taste. what if we got sick and cannot find out where it came from? guest: the food safety component is not as big as you might think. all meats go through usda inspection no matter where it's origin. the food safety component, that is an issue. we don't want people getting sick. it all goes through the same usda inspection no matter where it comes from. host: next up is and from florida. opposing country of origin labeling. caller: this directly affects me. i ordered from canada and other

european countries -- there's a program where the standard is 200 parts per million clinton. -- gluten. you did get a benefit from the food labeling. you really can't as an average citizen have any recourse except maybe spending -- sending something back after you've already purchased it. secondly, meat products and all kinds of products coming into the u.s. from other countries -- i wish you would address this -- it's very expensive to live -- he was talking about kellogg and

how they went through millions of dollars trying to get food labeling not be so strenuous in the u.s. it has helped me come up with the average citizen cannot juggle all that. it's too overwhelming. guest: with that supposing that you mention consumer records. your main recourse would be your purchasing dollar. if you get sick from a product don't buy it again. not entirely sure how to address that point. as far as the food safety component you brought up again and the origin question, there is potential for a voluntary pool system to be put in place. -- country of origin labeling system to be put in place that would be similar to the current system. it would be voluntary, which would betray compliant. -- be trade complaint. host: how does the system compared to other countries?

guest: the main issue is the mandatory component. there are other countries that have the voluntary component. the u.s. is forcing their system on the products of other countries. in theory, u.s. consumer is much more inclined to purchase a u.s. product. if a producer in canada is forced to label their products as a product of canada, that would cause different treatment. host: john from oregon calling in support of country of origin labeling. caller: hello. i'm watching the captions here. canada -- i lived there for many years. it had origins on everything. when you go to the grocery store. vegetables, meat whatever. what additives were put into it,

what preservatives and such. it had everything. mad cow disease or whatever -- what is that for? guest: the purpose of the segregation of the live animals is to make sure that there is no cross contamination to make sure what you truly have is a product of the u.s. because it would be easy for one cow to jump into another pen. canada has the labeling on everything, they have a voluntary system. i'm not hurt percent familiar -- 100% familiar with the grocery store. in the u.s., there is mandatory country of origin labeling on fruit, nuts and fish. the bill the house passed would only repeal the provisions for beef and pork and poultry.

host: why is it these specific products are being singled out and targeted? guest: they are the only products involved in the trade dispute. host: no dispute on the labeling of bananas. next up is oregon, calling in opposition of country of origin labeling. caller: this is really my subject. i don't want any fish that is grown in sewers. there are some that's coming into the u.s. that are being -- they are cheaper and people are buying them. i don't want to be poisoned before i have to call it in to say i won't buy it again. i want everything done -- if congress would take as much time taking care of our food and take care of us as they do the trade

we would be better off in this country. people don't want to get sick. they want their own food from their own country. host: barb from oregon. chris from texas calling in support of country of origin labeling. go ahead. caller: thanks to c-span. i've been all over the world, i'm a chicken farmer. so many of the poultry in asia are raised in their own fluids -- they are standing in mud and feces. i don't want to eat any of those chickens. they all get preventative maintenance to keep them from getting sick. the main ingredient is arsenic. i need to know -- i don't want to eat any of them.

we set the standard for the world. our animals are the cleanest and freshest and best raised of all. i need to know if it's on to be something other than ours. i don't want to eat it. host: chris from texas. guest: there is mandatory food safety inspections for everything sold in u.s. grocery stores. it's not so much the food labels that are causing the issue, it's the segregation of the live animals. there's a bit of a product preference. most of the issues are being risen from the actual production process. you bring up the point with the chinese chicken -- i'm not sure how to address that. there is still potential for a voluntary program. there are still ways to guarantee that what you are buying is american product. you can buy straight from the producer as well.

there are ways short of the mandatory labeling. host: what is the response from industry to the idea that these labels might have to be repealed? guest: the response has been a bit mixed, but not as mixed as one would think. a lot of the producers are single potential for retaliation to their products from canada and mexico. they don't want to see that. you have producers who are proud of their product. they put a lot of time and money into it and they want to be able to say this is an american product. the response from industry has been mixed. certain organizations began calling for repeal. you have the national farmers union, they are very gung ho for keeping it. host: this comment from twitter -- next caller is lisa in west palm

beach, florida in opposition of country of origin labeling. go ahead. caller: hi. what's troublesome is this is a convoluted mess. this is indicative of a government that is out of control and too big. like the other caller, i do want to buy my food that is grown in this country. if i see taiwan, china honduras mexico, i don't buy it. i want to buy food that is grown in this country. i want to know, why can't we buy our own food? thank you. guest: you are one of the consumers that reads the meat labels. studies show you are in the minority. the food safety factor is always brought up. another thing that my connelly will bring up is that, if there is such a big push, why aren't there mandatory country

of origin labeling rules for restaurant menus? you could go into a restaurant and buy a stake and you don't know where it comes from whether . host: larry from south dakota. in support of country of origin labeling. caller: i really believe labels is the only way to go. i almost feel like he is working for the non-labeling people. the main part about this, they don't have the vegetables lying there -- in the wintertime, that thing doesn't get grown in the country. it gets grown in another country. our bananas come from wherever. everything in the wintertime comes from some other country. i don't want to mess that up. as far as the meat, look at the

chickens that are being killed. because of what? because they are unsafe. what is really going on, we need that labeling because i don't know if you've had a texas or mexican mesquite eating cow but they don't taste near as good as a canadian one that is fed grain. or an american one fed grain. this is not an issue that is talking about our safety as much as just who wants to make some more money without the people actually knowing what is going on. guest: i don't think people are actively trying to withdraw information from consumers. the main issue is trying to avoid that retaliation. i can assure you, i'm not working for non-labeling advocates i am a journalist. the main issue is nobody wants to have retaliation happen. people who are fans of mandatory

country of origin labeling don't want to see the stick around if it involves retaliation. this is mainly devolved into an issue of what about retaliation. host: here is the wto ruling or the summary of the wto ruling. the country of origin labeling measure is a technical regulation under the agreement and is inconsistent with the obligations. the measure does not fill its legitimate objective of providing consumers with information on origin and therefore violates the tbt agreement. what power does the wto have to enforce its decision that the u.s. labeling is not compliant? guest: they are presiding over the free trade agreement.

between canada and mexico and the united states. in this case, they are upholding rules agreed to in that. the wto is not the governing body or any more. it's the governments of canada and mexico. what's really going to happen is whatever the u.s. does has to be ok with canada and mexico or should they approve the amounts that retaliation will be put in place. host: the wto has already approved canada's root retaliatory amounts? guest: the u.s. filed an appeal. that meeting turned into a notice that the u.s. has filed agreements -- host: you've been talking about canada. what about mexico? guest: mexico is affected by

this but they are being less public. canada is doing a lot more talking. canada is able to be more vocal on things like this. mexico also will be seeking retaliation. canada has provided a list of a wide variety of products they could be reaching for. mexico has not provided an actual list. it would be similar to a trucking dispute in the early 1990's which really targeted california. in the same way canada is going from these legislative districts of lawmakers that are not on their side. host: next up is william from florida calling in support of country of origin labeling. caller: the main reason i'm calling, mr. chase stated that any food brought into the country is inspected by the fda. maybe one 100th of 1% is

inspected. many of our processed foods are getting inspected once every five to years. the callers talking about retaliation from canada and mexico, the united states is the food basket of the world. why should we be worrying about them? if they don't want our products , with sending them to them. we have to do what we have to do. guest: they are our two closest neighbors. the two largest trading partners for the u.s. canada by far and mexico a close second. there's really impact for mac and businesses on this -- on american businesses.

if the wto timeline -- the earliest could be sometime in august or early september. should retaliation happen, it likely won't happen that early. they plan out further in advance. there is a canadian business that sources american business and the products are on the retaliation list, that could be impacting american business right now. they test a sample of the larger body of product, but the 3-5 years i'm not entirely sure about. i was at a poultry production facility earlier this year and i saw a usda inspector working there. they said they are there pretty much every day. that's what i've heard from the usda as well. host: this comment from twitter -- our next caller is from fort lauderdale, florida, calling in support of cool labels.

caller: this is a big part of the problem with doing these trade deals with other countries. we have to take orders from the wto. we are supposed to have the strongest, most powerful country in the world and yet we have to take orders from a public court. -- puppet court. i learned that 85% of our fish is imported and only one or 2% is inspected. we have 1000 of our pets dying from chicken jerky treats from china. the usda did nothing about it. the ceos of the two major pet people took it off their shelves at the end of last year. this whole thing is a mess here. i want to spend money on products that are safe. we have higher country standards in

this country and we have to live by these standards. we pay for these fda organizations to do a job for us. they are getting paid for our tax dollars. host: next up is dwight from manchester, tennessee calling in support of cool labels. caller: i'm in support of it because i believe you should know where your food comes from. it doesn't mean you will not buy from another country. our congressmen have totally failed the american people. just like fast track for nafta. we had a $28 billion surplus with mexico. as of this month, we have a $17 billion deficit with mexico. the representatives in the united states won't stand up. our congress just changed our laws for another country.

us citizens will have to stand up and throw these people out and get people in theire that will do their job for the average citizen. host: dwight from tennessee. guest: the last caller brought up an interesting point in regards to trade agreements. whether or not we should be pursuing these trade agreements as the american economy -- they are not alone. i've heard a lot of argument saying this is what -- here's an instance of host: it happening. does the u.s. have stricter safety standards? guest: i do know the u.s. has production standards that are not in place in other countries. host: sherry from louisiana calling in support of cool labels. what are your thoughts this

morning? caller: just listening to the callers, i think people are very confused about this. they are calling in support of labeling and on the opposed line. it's very confusing for people. i have a couple of questions. does this stop the united states from labeling their food as grown and raised and processed here? or does it just stop the country of origin from other countries? i really don't understand why we just can't -- why can't we just sell our own food where we grow it and let them sell their own food where they grow it? guest: to your point about the labeling of the u.s. products, this ruling, should the language be repealed, that would take away the ability -- that does

leave room for the potential for a voluntary program. the department of agriculture could set up a program where you can tell me you have a born, raised and slaughtered product in the united states and you could voluntarily label that product as such. it would take away the mandatory component. the global economy is too intertwined at this point to do something like only by our own food. host: alicia, go ahead. caller: may i express my condolences to the people in south carolina and my love and blessings to our troops. host: do you have a question about cool labeling or a comment about it? caller: i am for labeling. this has been my song and dance since richard nixon's days.

of course, it got worse with the next guy whoever they worship, those republicans. you should not only be concerned about the food we eat that are not labeled, but also our medication. a lot of our medications are made in other countries. host: we will have to leave it there. mr. chase, we will give you the last word. guest: it will be interesting to watch this process unfold. there's a bit of opposition. it will be adjusting to see how that unfolds in what the senate does. the house is already done their work. we have not seen a statement of administered of policy -- administered of policy.