as congress continues work on trade legislation, howard rosen talks about pa ft aa, a program that revived eight to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of foreign trade. ♪ host: it is the washington journal for june 22 this week. the house will debate a bill looking at the environmental protection agency. specifically looking at rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions for existing power plants. procedural vote planning a look at trade. the president's powers to administer trade deals. if you look in the papers this morning, south carolina upon's confederate flag, subject of many papers. responses from brett presence

of candidates. we will take a look at some of the response from presidential candidates. we want to hear from you, taking a look at the confederate battle flag and what you think of it. do you find it as a symbol of hatred or a symbol of hope or heritage? if you take a look at the south's history, is one perspective. others see it as a symbol of hate. in our first 45 minutes you chance to comment on what you think about it and what it represents. for republicans, (202) 748-8000. for. --(202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independent.

responses from presidential candidates. a new york times right up saying that the capital in south carolina, the confederate flag is a test for gop president hopefuls. it makes the picture of some of the

state reaches a consensus to avert primary dominated by race relation issues. that is in the new york times this morning. it features a story taking a look at responses from presidential candidates. we want to hear from you as far as how you view the confederate flag. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000, democrats. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . for those who live in south carolina, (202) 748-8003. one of the respondents was

presidential candidate lindsey graham on cnn talking about it. here's his response. [video clip] >> is it time to stop flying the confederate flag? >> this is part of who we are. the flag represents -- it has been used by people in a racist way. the problems we have dropped the world are not because of a symbol, but what is in people's hearts. how do you reconstruct america? what do we do in terms of our history. i believe the answer is we move forward in a balanced way that we make sure the compromise in south carolina works here. that we look and see -- >> the compromises to fly the confederate flag. >>that works for you?

>> that is what the state has to agree to do. other places in the country some symbol that does not strike you as quite right. host: that is the response from the graham. mitt romney weighing in on a decision as well in a tweet saying, take down the confederate flag of south carolina capital. too many it is a symbol of racial hatred. response to that tweet from president obama. good point, andmitt. we want to hear from you as to how you view the confederate battle flag. (202) 748-8001 for democrats. (202) 748-8000 four republicans. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . if you're a south carolina resident (202) 748-8003. john is from florida on our independent line. go ahead. caller: a lot of people will

call in and say that his heritage. as you just read, neglected not go up until 1963. it was a -- that flag did not go up until 1953. it was a slap in the face for civil rights. so, that is not a heritage flag. that is a treasonous flag. that flag the united's of america -- all racists use that as their flag to say they are superior. people can pretend and play the heritage game and all that stuff but we really know what that flag exists. white supremacy. no one who calls in, they will say, peter not have a heritage. -- they do not have a heritage. they are going to keep on using that flag because that shows

what side they are on. they are on the racist side of all of these groups. they are on that side and that is what that flag stands for. host: howard from anaheim california. go ahead. caller: i think it is a racist symbol because it symbolizes racism and the rise of the white south. everybody enslaved and they were doing different things to african-americans. i have been to be an african-american. it is a symbol of racism -- i happen to be an african-american . it is a symbol of racism. the ku klux klan even uses it. i don't see how they can think it is not related to racism. host: one of the respondents off of twitter this morning says come on all flags a symbol of oppression to someone? you can weigh in on twitter or

the phone lines on the topic of the south carolina confederate flag or the flag overall as a symbol of hate or heritage area you can post on her facebook page, you can tweet us or give us a call on the phone lines. jamie from michigan. hello. caller: i am coming in about the flag this morning. i grew up in mississippi. everybody down there after what civil rights went through, they started flying the flag on their pickups. everywhere they could. i am ashamed of it. the people in the south, a lot of them are good people. they are not racists but there is a lot of them that are and they don't speak it unless it is with like-minded people. president obama was elected.

that brought it all. the tea partiers started stuff and in my heart they need to come out and denounce what they have been saying, take our country back. nobody needs to take this country back. it is a wonderful country. right now, i am mad. it was senseless, it was hate filled and that boy was raise like that. the children down there, even at a small age say the n word all the time. i left there in the 60's. i have nothing down there. i don't want to ever go back. thank you for listening to me. host: todd is from camden, south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning.

that caller from florida was correct. you look at the history, that flag was not flying. i'm not from here. it was not on the statehouse until the civil rights movement. what they see -- the history of that flag is disgusting. let's be real about this. white people need to be honest with themselves whenever thanksgiving, christmas, saying racist things, they do not speak up and are complicit. when you see these neo-nazis in germany, they have used that flag because they know what it means. the flag needs to go to a museum. secession was a treasonous act.

if people don't believe me, come to south carolina, some of the small towns. host: what has the debate been like? i know you made comments on it. what are others saying? how do they view what is going on in your state as opposed to the rest of everybody watching your state? caller: very divided. a lot of people had folks in the civil war. if the flag comes down it will feel like their relatives are not represented. a lot of other people see the flag, it is really offensive. i think it is offensive to a lot of people. that is all i can say. it needs to be in a museum. that was a treasonous war. host: that is todd from south carolina. we set aside a line for those of you in that state.

(202) 748-8003. mayor joseph riley speaking to cnn. [video clip] >> it sends mixed messages. at worst, for hateful people like roof, it is an affirmation because they have appropriated something as a symbol of hatred. i think it will go to a museum. host: that was the mayor of charleston weighing in. you can have thoughts of your own on this topic. (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . for those of you in south carolina, (202) 748-8003. caleb is from eagle, colorado. go ahead. caller: i want to point out the confederate flag stood for the

southern democrats. the democratic party was. when i was growing up, the flag stood for rebels. i know a lot of white kids that fly it on their trucks in colorado. i do not think any of them were racists, they just wanted to be outlaws and rebels. against the system. that is kind of what it meant when i was growing up. to see this stupid kid that went out and did this flying the confederate flag, i think it should be taken down off the state building. i have a heritage goes back to the south and i have heritage that goes all the way back to the civil war, 1622. they did fight for the south. that is some thing to be ashamed of. they should take the confederate

flag down. for people that say they want to hold onto their heritage, i say the democrat party was wrong then and they are wrong now with their race relations. it is time to move past that. host: leslie is in sacramento, california. caller: thank you. 1856. in the, we had a group of troops -- 1956. in the vietnam -- in vietnam, we had a group of troops -- all the troops complaining about the flag. it is like the american flag -- i gave them until 6000 to take

the flag down. -- 1600 to take the flag down. we gathered them up, took them to the outhouse and burned them. again, when i retired in 1980, there was a big flag flying outside one of the barracks at el toro. i was an officer at the time. some troops had come to me complaining about the flag. i said, no problem. i contacted the major who contacted the general. he had the flag moved. this flag is a symbol of hatred. it is not heritage.

it belongs in a library or a museum. it is a sign of intimidation for a lot of people in this country. thank you for listening to my call. host: a story in the wall street journal taking a look at how presidential candidates are responding to the issue of the flag. also information about a survey in south carolina with south carolina upon winthrop university. some 61% of people in a survey said they wanted the flag to continue to fly at the statehouse. nearly three quarters whites want to keep the flag up. six in 10 blacks want it down. jody off of twitter responds by saying, put the stars and bars in a museum. the respect it deserves. not in your face at the state capitol in south carolina. former arkansas governor mike huckabee, weighing in on the issue, talking on the sunday shows.

here's how he responded when asked about it. [video clip] >> i feel like it is not an issue for a person running for president. the question underlying all of this, we are asking is south carolina a racist state because of the flag that flies on the capitol grounds. as a frequent visitor to south carolina, this is a state that largely white people elected a female governor of indian descent and the first ever african-american united states senator from the south. they have more diverse city the people that they have elected to statewide office in new york connecticut or massachusetts. 4.8 million people in south carolina. i don't think you could say that the presence of one lunatic racist who everybody in this country feels contempt for and no one is defending is somehow evidence of the people of south

carolina. i think we have seen the people of south carolina and their character by what you saw interest in with people of all races, democrats, republicans from every perspective hugging praying. nobody was burning down their community, they were not breaking down windows. they were exhibiting a christian spirit that really is exemplary to the rest of the country. host: mike huckabee's response. you may agree with him or not. over city, california. caller: i would like -- i like everything mike huckabee said. that sounded good in everything but i have a question. southern states, south carolina is not the only state. there were others in the south that were flying that flag over portions of this bars and bars on the state flag for years.

what it represents. flags represent a country, club or whatever it might be. that would be like a school, a jewish school or synagogue and there is a swastika flag flying across the street. it is what the swastika represents. what the german empire of hitler represented during the second world war. that is an insult. i have never understood that argument. i've never understood people defending that. going into a museum, that is great because it talks about the history and can relate to the history. to still fly that flag, i cannot understand the reason behind it. i cannot see it. host: the history of the flag especially in southern states. caller: exactly. that was a representative flag for the confederate states of america during the second world

war. they seceded from the united states. they fought against the united states. it is what it stood for. it stood for slavery separation of the country. i don't think there are too many people in the south that are proud of any kind of ancestry that was defending that flag. i do not think they can still have any pride for that. host: let's hear from a shell in east orange, new jersey. -- from michele in east orange, new jersey. caller: it is a symbol of racial hatred and you know it. anybody who reviews -- who reveres the flag is honoring that. take the flag down area thank you. host: michele weighing in this morning. the phone lines this morning. the supreme court had a case that took up the issue of

confederate flag. this one taking a look at texas license plates to in june they made a decision saying they can block -- states can block the use of confederate flags on license plates saying that states that celts specially license plates -- states that sell specially license plates. -- the first amendment does not bring that the state from rejecting some designs, they say. "states have long used license plates to convey government messages." just as the state cannot force drivers to espouse a particular message, drivers cannot force a state to espouse there's. lewis on our independent line. caller: thank you for allowing me to call. governor haley is of asian

indian descent and she should understand this problem and should speak out. the swastika was an indian symbol of love, peace and celebration. i have indian friends during their festivals with swastikas over their doorsteps. it was appropriated by hitler as a symbol of hate. i think haley should understand. you could ask governor haley which she want the rich flag flown over new delhi -- the british flag flown over new delhi. haley can understand they appropriated the swastika as a symbol of hatred. i'm sure american jews are powerful enough to have that swastika taken down within 30

minutes. thank you for allowing me to call. host: but you from robert. caller: hatred or heritage depends on what you are associated with. a lot of people are connected to the ku klux klan and that is how you get the hatred. the actual flag itself, if you look at it historically, comes from people rebelling against the union and wanting to secede from the union. the business people in the north , by getting cheap con and making the shirts -- cheap cotton and making the shirts were all the factories were they influenced politicians because they knew if the south had free workers come at the time, the cotton gin and other things like that, they needed to cripple the south. the south seceded when they were

trying to take away slavery. the united states turns around and goes -- [indiscernible] the bottom line is, why are we talking about a flag? this all started from a guy who killed my people. a hate crime. all murder is hate. what are we blaming it on whether the flag is flying over south carolina or not? whether or not you can get a gun and how excess of the guns are? the kid had mental problems. wasn't morally mentally grown up enough to realize he was doing something stupid and wrong and hateful. why don't we sit there and put the blame on the kid or the person that did it?

it does not matter whether he is the gun, a bomb, whether the flag was flying, he killed people. he is the one to blame. put blame with the blame is. host: that is robert from south carolina, weighing in. it will take a break for just a second and catch you up on the expected activities of congress this week. think you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: a lot of talk leading up with trade and various paths it has taken over the course of the last few weeks. what is expected on the senate side when it comes to trade? guest: we are expecting the senate will take action on the trade -- the legislation passed in the house last week. senator mcconnell filed closer

on the bill, meaning the senate will vote to take up the bill and have a final vote on it as soon as tuesday. in the hope that all of this could have ago on the president cost desk -- the president's desk. host: what is different from previous approaches? guest: the week prior to that, there was quite a bit of drama when the house rejected the trade promotion authority legislation because of the legislative maneuvering that has been engaged in in order to get around considerations in the senate. to combine the trade promotion authority bill, the overweighted

bill, a program to get assistance to workers typically supported by democrats and not supported by republicans. that was in the senate, brought together with trade promotion authority which is not supported by most democrats in order to get support. in the house, that backfired because democrats said they were going to oppose the trade assistance legislation to derail the trade promotion package. they have gone through a different maneuver, a different strategy to pass the trade promotion authority alone in the house with the understanding and promise among all various parties, whether it is president obama, senator mcconnell, house speaker boehner, there will be an opportunity for democrats and

republicans alike to vote on trade assistance. right now, there are open commitments from the republican leaders in the house and senate as well as president obama that all of this should move in parallel, culminating in the president signing trade promotion and trade assistance bills together at some point at the end of this process. that has given democrats and republicans enough in both houses. it is believed at this point. to get to the president's desk. host: when i read the environmental protection agency is one of the talks of discussion this week. guest: one video -- there has been a great focus in weeks and

months among republicans on some of the rules issued by the epa. in particular, those pertaining to the emissions of coal-fired power plants. there is going to be a vote this week on a bill that would allow states to opt out and not follow the rules that have been issued by the epa. it stays implantation until -- implementation. there is also related

senator mcconnell has been very outspoken. states don't need to follow this rule. they can opt out. the epa has suggested that it's required. this is a legislation response. host: thank you, sir. back to your thoughts on the confederate flag. is it a symbol of hate or heritage? let's hear from carl in texas. caller: good morning. thank you for the chance to speak to they have been -- there have been six flags to fly over texas.

how many other flags do we need to take down? we should move on beyond this flag stuff. it is a symbol of heritage in many ways. they fly the cinco de mayo flag and nobody says nothing about that. the spanish once ruled, the french. i wish more people would look at things for what they really are instead of putting it on. i appreciate you for the chance to speak. i wish people could look at it from different points of view. host: julian is in missouri. hello. caller: thank you for the time to speak. i just had this conversation with somebody yesterday. it's all over facebook.

it was at one point a symbol of heritage. that's no longer the case anymore. like many symbols we have had through time, meanings change. somebody brought up the swastika. in other religions, it's a symbol of well-being and good fortune. at the same time, it's a symbol that has been turned into something. the cross used to be a symbol of death for criminals. it became a symbol of faith and hope and love. you've got to look at what the majority believe the meaning is in current times. yes there was heritage, but it's no longer anymore.

there is a false belief that people are doing this for heritage. at the same time, the real purpose is not taken into account. it was an act of treason. it was an attack on the country we call her home. they were not part of america anymore. people need to realize that. it was a heritage of treason. people are going to have their beliefs and some people will choose to fly the flag. that's their given right. at the same time, they don't have the right to cause riots and cause separatism on the public. just like the kkk gets in

trouble. the black panthers used to get in trouble for their business. it's just a matter of a point of view. host: that was julian. al is in maryland. your next. caller: the flag is historic. it's a stork for the wrong reasons. it's a start for being a symbol of slavery and exclusion it. -- exclusion. it was brought at a time when the south wanted to be -- it was prominent. they had a lot of wealth. they want to go back and live that era again. it's gone. it's something we need to move on from. it's seen as a symbol of oppression by people. when i see the flag, that's what i get a feeling from. a person said that we should

just let it go. it's very insensitive to be that way. i've noticed that we are insensitive to one another when it comes to race. we should be sensitive about that. that's what i feel about it. host: arnold is in north carolina. your next. caller: good morning, pedro. listen the guy who said something about the first amendment, that is true. it's very true. you are entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own fact. that flight was paced -- placed in 1962. that was a rebellion against the new laws of desegregation, the

new civil rights movement. they were rebelling against that. they rebelled against brown versus the board of education. they didn't want anybody to tell them what to do with their schools. that was when they started flying the flag. 1962 not 1862. they need to get their facts straight. mike huckabee, what he said was outrageous. the governor of south carolina the senator that is running for president lindsey graham, they just tip throw -- tiptoe through the tulips. i understand that. let's reverse the situation.

good the white people who call themselves christians say we forgive you? that's true. that's not opinion, that's fact or it -- or it --. host: james clyburn was on "meet the press." >> it's a flag of rebellion. we would not have this discussion if it were the flag of the confederate states of america. when you see the resurrection of a young man, 21 years old wearing a part tied things -- apartheid things on his shirt burning the american flag, glorifying the battle flag. you are creating a climate that

allows this kind of things to happen to. host: we set aside a line for south carolina residents. jim, hello. caller: i am calling in about the heritage. i think it is part of heritage. every race needs to be respected. i think it is a part of history and we will destroy part of history. talk about paul revere or george washington or patrick henry. preserving parts of heritage and history is important. it would be like if we take down the american flag from all of the foreign countries where we have embassies and our united nations and armies. what if we had to take those down? is that not a symbol to them that is in their face and hurts them?

you have to look at it from a lot of different perspectives. what about taking down all the american flags down all over the world because it might he offensive to the other people. those are things to consider. host: in your mind it should stay flying in south carolina? caller: i think it should be part of heritage. host: some people have said that it should be in a museum. what you think about that? caller: i think the way it is right now, i'm not opposed to any form of people having their heritage represented. host: let's hear from another south carolina resident arid this is just in. --. caller: i am a white resident of south carolina. every time i see a bumper

sticker or t-shirts that say inherited not hate, i am astounded by the fact that people don't connect how much of our heritage is one of hatred. for so many centuries, we have not loved our black neighbors as we love ourselves as we are called to. to look the other way from the racist structures that still exist is. careless ann callis -- careless and callous. it creates hatred. it ignores suffering. it belongs in our history books columbus was a great man, we are not teaching the full story of people who resisted the american

failings to be what it claims to be. that should be the main story of history, not nonsense about how great we are. i don't believe the confederate flag should be flying in a public space at all. it is a symbol of a dark. of our history -- a dark time in our history. we have to find a way to see through the difficult things that keep us divided. we need to wake up and come together. host: we heard from jim clyburn let's hear from tim scott on "face the nation." >> for some that represents history. for so many others it represents pain and oppression. i am looking forward to our

state leaders getting together and having a conversation after the funerals about what is the next step. if you look in our history, we had a compromise reached by both sides that thought that was a permanent compromise. we have heard indications that there will be an ongoing conversation, a real debate about next steps. of that willthat will be coming soon after the funerals. >> mitt romney has said it should be taken down. that sort of symbolism is out of step with the justice of jesus christ. the cross and confederate flag cannot coexist. what is your personal stance in that conversation? >> those are powerful words from strong leaders around the country.

i am going to make sure that i am part of that conversation. my position will be clear. host: greg is in florida. caller: good morning. i am a 36 year watcher of c-span and i appreciate you taking my call this morning. the confederate flag is a symbol of defiance. it's a symbol of treason as some people have correctly understood it. it was a union of nations. they chose to leave that union in a rebellion it. if they fired on fort sumter. when they say the flag represents their heritage, that is true. it's synonymous with the not see flag of hitler's germany. it -- your heritage is one of

slavery. that is the awful part of having the confederate flag on display particularly on public grounds in the capital. i think that might huckabee ineligible -- made himself ineligible for a being a presidential candidate. there were no states rights when south carolina withdrew from the union. when people want to defend the display of the confederate flag i think they are being hypocritical. the american flag represents freedom, democracy, openness the right to free speech. why should not the confederate

flag which represents all that was represented in its name during the civil war through today, when they see that people are intimidated by it. i think in the end, it will come down. people are tired on both sides. after the people of south carolina take a deep look at history, they should put it in a museum. host: this is the last call we will take on this topic. today is supreme court decision day. there are decisions coming down on the health care law. that will be the topic of our next discussion. we will talk about the ruling -- possible ruling against the obama administration and the effect it could have on health

care in the united states. people are at risk of losing health care depending on this decision. later on, we will explain the trade adjustment assistance program and its role in the trade pact. that is washington journal. >> like many of us, first families take vacation time. like presidents and first ladies, but good read can be the perfect companion. what utter book than one that peers inside the personal life of every first lady in american history? "first ladies" is inspiring

stories of fast and women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. it is a great summertime read it. you can buy it through your favorite store. >> tonight joe barton on the recent fcc regulations and privacy in cyber security. >> whose information is it? is it automatically in the public domain week as i choose to use a mobile app? the way these things work, they go into the cloud and all of that. can i use it and still have a reasonable explanation -- expectation of privacy. that changes the way you

regulate and the way you legislate. if you take the position that i am by act foregoing my individual right to privacy that is a different issue. >> tonight at 8:00 on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: he is the executive director. good morning. the supreme court is soon to make a decision on subsidies for those who get health care from the government. what could happen if the supreme court sides with the plaintiffs in this case? guest: in word -- one word, chaos.

millions of people will lose health insurance. there are 6.4 million people in 34 states receiving subsidies. if the supreme court sides with the plaintiffs, they will use -- lose them. people will not be able to afford health-care coverage. their lives will be in jeopardy. what will also happen, when those subsidies are withdrawn the people who are most likely to decide not to get coverage are younger, healthier people. you are going to have sicker older people finding some way to get insurance. when you have a pool it's composed of older and less healthy people, guess what happens to premiums? we are going to see what people call a death spiral. some of the supreme court

justices called a death spiral. in each year, more younger and healthier people drop out. the premiums will escalate. some have estimated that the increase in premiums will be 47%. it's going to mean for everybody, the health-insurance insurance market will be totally chaotic. host: people might have some avenues of recourse. where can people turn for subsidies? caller: they will have to beg or steel. it's going to be really hard. for most people the premium subsidies are very substantial. it means that there would be an increase of over $3000 on average read in some states it

would be more than that. for a lot of people, they will be unable to in ford -- afford health insurance. the affordable care act says people who have pre-existing conditions, they can no longer be in's -- discriminated against. those protections will stay. these people who have those protections might not be able to afford health insurance coverage. it's going to be a hardship for people. a lot of people will be at great risk. host: what is the role of congress? guest: congress could fix this. there is a bill that could be passed in moments. i must say that those who have encouraged the bringing of this

lawsuit, they have a special responsibility. they tend to be republicans who opposed the affordable care act. what we have seen in terms of proposals offered by republican members of congress is they don't really replace what exists today. a lot of people who are uninsured today or lose a job they won't be able to get subsidies under these proposals. the best that could happen is those who are getting subsidies might be able to keep them. here is the key thing. each of these proposals holds these partial fixes. those changes are not going to be signed by the president. for republicans who have encouraged this lawsuit they

are probably going to want to say to their constituents, we want to protect you. they will shed tears about people losing coverage. the proposals so far that we have seen, they do not appear to get the job done or they hold these partial fixes hostage in a way that will never happen. host: we are going to talk about those fixes. we are going to talk about the supreme court. if you have questions for our guest, you can call the line. but about the audio proposed by some that congress could pass a short-term subsidy.

guest: anything that leads it to the states, many are not going to opt into it. that is true for states that are led by republican governors who are running for president they won't think that is a helpful way for them to win of the republican nomination. i am not very hopeful about what would happen in texas or louisiana or florida or wisconsin. if the supreme court rules with the plaintiffs, i think were going to see lots of people who are just going to be left out in the cold. in texas, there are 800,000 people getting subsidies. i don't see a formula by which they would get those subsidies restored. in florida, 1.3 million people are getting the subsidies. we have not seen the governor or the house in the state

legislature say they are willing to do something to restore the subsidies. some states may restore the subsidies. tensile vein yet delaware -- pennsylvania delaware, arkansas are thinking about running the marketplaces. it will be unclear how the states will come in and how many will not. host: calls from you, let's start with barry in michigan. you are on. good morning. caller: i am curious when they talk about these subsidies. if they make this unconstitutional for the health care, does that mean all subsidies are unconditional? anybody? if that's not the case, how will they pick and choose what is

constitutional for this person or not that person? i don't understand how this is going to work. guest: let me respond to his comment. constitutionality is not at issue. what is at issue is whether the affordable care act allows us subsidies to be provided for all 50 states. in 34 states the state runs the marketplace. does the statute allows subsidies to be provided? it doesn't have any implications generally with respect to subsidies for other programs.

as a former law school dean, i think this lawsuit is specious. you have to look at the entire statute. if you look at the entire statute, you have to conclude that the lawsuit is specious. the statute says that in all states, people can apply for the subsidies. why would people have the right to apply for subsidies in 34 spates if they will always be turned down? that doesn't make any sense. the statute says that the federal government should report to the department of treasury who is getting subsidies, how much they are. why would the federal marketpl ace report this if they are supposed to be withdrawn? the statute says eligibility is based on income.

people could be eligible for subsidies. none of these things make sense. i think the lawsuit is specious. we have to take this lawsuit seriously. for justices decided to hear this case. they did it under extraordinary circumstances. there were two courts of appeals. they had already scheduled oral arguments on the exact same issue. the court leapfrogged those two circuit courts to hear this case. there were four justices who wanted to hear this case. host: margaret is from florida.

you're next. it good morning. caller: i am so glad i tuned in. i find it interesting that you said anything with a straight face. you mentioned sarcastically about the house and shedding tears. when this was slammed through without a republican vote i think it's interesting following justice roberts we walked all over and talked about how stupid the public is. you used to be the dean of a law school and suddenly this is a specious law case. how many people were against this monstrosity. you can be against this without

having something alternative that they should have set up. i would remind you of the people who lost their coverage, who lost the insurance and the good things they had. i would remind you of the people who will not be covered by this monstrosity. our president says last week something very sarcastic about our supreme court. now we are to talk about this today. i think everybody should talk about gruber. as you smile and smirk and act disrespectfully, they represent many people who were against this act. host: i get the impression guest: i get the impression margaret does not like the affordable care act.

i would remind margaret and others of the great progress that has occurred as the result of the affordable care act. we have seen more than one out of three people with previously uninsured coverage, more than 16 million people gaining coverage, we have made significant progress, i think we are going to see the court uphold the provision of the second, and i think it will continue to make progress after 16 million people getting coverage, many more well. host: steve is next from florida. caller: thanks for taking my call, you call this affordable care act when it has a $200 deductible. a doctor wants to run all kinds of tests on me. i have to pay $10,000 at the end of the year. now, they don't cover medical or

dental or eyeglasses. what good is this affordable? why can't they just throw us all on medicare? thank you. guest: steve raised some important issues. i very much agree with him on it. the affordable care act does not cover people over 18 years of age with dental care, it does not include eye care. those are things i hope would be changed sometime in the future. right now, neither dental care or i care is included. -- eye care is included. i hope we do much more in enabling people to get coverage without high deductibles. that is the next agenda item and many efforts are being made to include a variety of key services for drugs, primary

care, that would be allowed to be provided in advance of the deductible. there is no question, we still have a lot to do to make the care more affordable. we have taken great strides in making sure it is affordable for the first time. host: were the subsidies always intended to be given for the health care program? or with the state have to take them over? guest: the subsidies we are talking about our permanent and are provided on a sliding scale, what we mean is that the lower your income, and the greater need, the larger subsidies. the federal government picks up 100% of the cost, that is a permanent provision. host: from new hampshire, dan. good morning. guest: not only is the lawsuit specious, another example of the right wing claw reaching out.

my main statement is that the states are all republican states and the ones with two previous calls, from florida they hate the law. what i would like to see happen is let the insurance are gets in these states collapse so they put pressure on the legislature to set up an exchange. as far as the 31 million that lady is talking about, that is because a 44 states did not expand medicaid. that is my comment, thank you. host: he raised a number of issues, first he raised the question about whether the plaintiffs in this case are appropriately plaintiffs. i think he was referring to the lead claimant.

there was a rather long article in the new york times that interviewed mr. king. he is eligible for veterans benefits, so it makes no difference how the court rules he will be in good shape. there is a question as to whether some of the plaintiffs have standing. dan is also right that one of the reasons we have a significant number of people uninsured despite the tremendous progress that has been made over 60 million people gaining coverage, is you have -- 16 million people gaining coverage, is you have 22 states that have not implemented the expansion. the poorest of the poor are not getting protection. this includes it states throughout the way up to virginia. that has been a significant part of the problem. despite that, we are going to continue to make progress. host: it could be an option though. guest: it is an option, and some of the states, i have hopes that

they will decide to implement the medicaid expansion. we've had 10 states so far with republican governors who have decided to implement the medicaid expansion. these governors said they don't want the affordable care act but would love to see it repealed but it exists and i will make sure that people in my state receive a benefit. host: they get federal assistance? guest: well with the medicaid expansion, right now that is 100% paid for by the federal government through 2016. it is 100% paid for by the federal government. 2017, it is 95%. the state picks up 5%. then it goes down, but it never goes below 90-10. host: from nashville, tennessee grant joins us. caller: good morning, there is no option for socialists and i am one of those medicaid persons

who is not covered in tennessee. you forgot the answer to the question, but he put it a different way. why can't they lower the age of medicare or why can't they put the people who cannot get medicaid on medicare? guest: that is a good question, i failed to answer steve's question. they keep reminding me. -- thank you for reminding me. it is possible from a legal standpoint that we could change the medicare law and make it eligible for people under 65 years of age. from a political standpoint, i think that will be difficult. there are a number of people who wanted what many call a single-payer health care system, and that is what you are talking about. there were precious few votes and the congress for such a single-payer system. it could be done, but politically it is difficult. host: the new york times wrote

in terms of the subsidies being lost says that large for-profit insurance companies benefited from the law with subsidies enabling millions of new customers to sign up for employer-based coverage stalling. as the market -- this could be a possible growth engine. in your experience is that what is going on? guest: that is accurate, we have seen a reduction. it has not been huge of,m but we have seen an increase in the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance. that is the dominant way people have health coverage. there is been a reduction over the last few years. insurance companies understand that a marketplace that is likely to grow, is also the marketplace that allows individual coverage. that is what the affordable care act allows and with the subsidies, it makes it a whole lot more affordable for people to gain coverage. host: is that reduction due to

what the affordable care act did when it comes to the insurance companies? guest: no, this reduction occurred way before the if a affordable care act happen. costs of insurance have risen substantially, some employers stopped coverage others kept it that they charged more for premiums and the dr.'s and other out-of-pocket costs. increasingly, and players are feeling burdened by the cost of health care and to players are diminishing their commitment, by and large, in small increments with each year. as a result we are seeing more people now interested in the individual market place. host: here's victor from maryland. caller: hi, i have a question for you. is this affordable health care -- if it is so good, why is

obama and his democrats, wire they exempt? -- why are they exempt? guest: we have seen people in government, whether it is the president or numbers of congress hitting subsidies -- getting subsidies as part of their federal employment. this affordable care act, which provides opportunities for people to get coverage in the individual market, is mainly for people who do not get coverage in the workplace. whether it is the president or members of congress, they have been getting coverage in the workplace. the affordable care act really is there as a safety measure as more and more people need coverage outside of employment. host: chesterfield, new hampshire, this is ron. guest: good morning, welcome. he hit the nail on the head, the

hypocrisy of the republican party is laughable. most of the senators and most of these congressmen are millionaires. that they receive subsidies and have tried 50 or 60 times now to do away with subsidies that will help the poor, sick, and elderly , it is ridiculous. the have boxee is laughable. -- the hypocrisy is laughable. all of the hypocritical things the republicans are doing drive me nuts. they are so self-righteous but cannot look in the mirror. the affordable care act, i think every republican senator and congressman should lose their subsidies and their free health care. they don't need it, they can afford it. other people could use help. guest: it will be interesting if

the court rules against it, which i don't think could happen -- would happen, then it would be a question of whether these members of congress who encouraged his lawsuit are going to bemoan the fact that their constituents are losing coverage. will they actually take affect to continue getting them the subsidies? i think the jury is out on that question. so far, i cannot say i am terribly encouraged by those that i have seen. it will clearly not become the law of the land. host: someone was on our program talking about the same topic and taking a look at what might happen in the supreme court and weighing in on what might happen if the supreme court does decide to hear his response. >> if the court rules for king, in eight hours resident obama

will say you can fix this, just change a few things in the statute and everybody that has received a subsidy will be secure. it will send a strong and direct message and will be one that will be heard. then the republican-controlled congress will respond in a way that is not quite as certain. there are basically three different points of view among republicans, one is that this is the moment that will allow them to repeal, and hopefully lopez -- replace, the affordable care act. some say it goes too far as a means of taking the law apart so why don't we just ask for a lot of changes in exchange for those three words? and also there are those that say let's pass a temporary fix and after the election we will have the ability to go back and do it the way it should be done and like it to be done. host: the former secretary said a message would be heard but the

responses on short, he seemed up the about it. -- upbeat about it. guest: i have to complement the former secretary, here is a key health care leader in the republican party and very responsible. i don't think we know yet how congress is going to respond. what we have seen is not encouraging. this can be fixed, and easily. there is a will to do it. i think right now, the three groups that secretary leavitt was talking about, so far it seems likely that members of congress are not going to want to change and allow this fix to happen without undertaking a real slashing of the affordable care act. the president will not sign it. if we don't get any accommodation and congress, the question raised the floor in the new york times article is that this will be dragged out state

by state and i think maybe half the states or more might come in and start running exchanges but the other states like texas or florida where there are huge number's of people getting coverage and the subsidies those people would be left out in the cold. host: talking about the supreme court as it considers the subsidies. francis from new york, hello. caller: a couple of questions, i have heard the german say that the government is paying for this. according to our laws, the people are the government. the majority of the people don't like this law. i am a 60-year-old man living in a gated community and i have to pay for maternity care? not only for myself, but for other 60-year-old males?

i don't understand how the government can step in and, this is like them saying no more gas engine cars, you have to buy electric. how can they dictate what we want to buy? guest: what francis is raising certainly the subsidies are paid for with tax dollars. there is no question, that's how it is financed. what it does, is for the first time it makes health coverage affordable for many millions of people. i think that is a positive thing. francis may disagree with that i think it is very positive. it is true that one of the things the government did with respect to the affordable care act is it provided more standardized plans. it plans to make sure that substandard plans would no longer be the way people get coverage. much of what people used to have , for those that had health coverage, some of us call swiss

cheese insurance policy. it had a hole in nutrition. the whole idea was to establish and ultimately we also want to make sure that women are not discriminated against when they get insurance. that is why, as part of that standard, we have maternity coverage. host: from springfield, virginia, here is my. -- mike. caller: thank you for taking my call. most of them have laws, they have id. they are charged -- what can we do about that? host: hold on my, hang on the line. could you repeat that? caller: what i said was

immigrants. they are not supposed to go through central insurance. most of them came and were given good numbers. they pay their taxes. some of them also have ids. if they pay taxes, at the end of the year, they should have insurance, i know you are supposed to go into the marketplace for insurance, so what are they going to do? guest: so, he is right, those people that are undocumented they cannot get coverage in the marketplace. those people who are immigrants that are documented cannot going to the marketplace. they also can't if they are poor get medicaid coverage. mike raised a very tough

question. if undocumented immigrants cannot get coverage through the marketplaces, what can they do to get health coverage? it means that for those who are undocumented if they have a job, perhaps they will be able to get coverage in the workplace because an employer may be providing it. they can go to community health centers. community health centers are in communities across the country and they provide health coverage for people who cannot get it otherwise. so that is a recourse for undocumented immigrants. they can at least go to primary care from a community health center. california is beginning to do something interesting last week california adopted a measure that allows children under 18 years of age who are undocumented to start getting coverage in california. that is a step in the direction that i think mike is looking

for. until that happens nationwide, and it is not clear that it will the best choice is for people to go to a community health center or if they have an emergency, go to the emergency room. host: if the court decides for the plaintiff, what recourse does the president have in resolving this? guest: i think the president is going to say what he already has, that is that this is an easy fix. he will probably produce a bill that shows in one page how you can get this fixed. he is smart and realistic. i think he recognizes that the republicans in congress cannot pass that one page bill. what the president and administration will do is work with the state that are considering expanding marketplaces and try to help them so that they can get to this quickly. time is of the essence because starting november 1, there will

be a new open enrollment. under the affordable care act. those states that are seriously considering setting up marketplaces will need help quickly and the administration will have to try and help. host: no executive action or recourse? guest: the president cannot wave a magic wand with an executive order that has all 34 states extending coverage. what he can do is help the states by making sure the procedures the states need to go through in order to set up a marketplace, for example, the most difficult thing is setting up a website. as you know, the administration had great difficulties in the early. of the affordable care act. -- early period of the affordable care act. possibly, they might be able to use the healthcare.gov website.

those are the kinds of things that would make it easier for estate -- a state. caller: medicaid expansion means an increase to the taxpayers in that particular state, eventually. if it is covered by government subsidies, that also is an increase to american taxpayers because we are the government. this is a whole can of worms that obama opened from day worm when he pushed -- day one when he shoved it down congress's throat with nancy pelosi when she said you must pass the bill so you can read what is in it. guest: brenda is of course right about the fact that medicaid is paid for with tax dollars, no question about it. florida is interesting.

the governor and the house in florida have rejected the medicaid expansion. today, florida would be able to expand the program with 100% funding from the federal government paid for by taxpayers across the country. florida today has a medicaid program which has been operational for close to 50 years. florida, currently with its medicaid program, gets $.60 out of the dollar from the federal government. florida has decided to do that. now they are being offered 100 cents on the dollar for expansion and the governor is saying no. i don't understand, it seems like a no-brainer. there are so many things the state gets out of this in addition to being able to get federal dollars coming in and set of just going to california or new york or kentucky. they now get those federal dollars. in addition, states often pay for what we call uncompensated

care, when somebody is uninsured and goes to a public hospital and it picks up some of those costs. perhaps, even more importantly in every state, we have seen reports and analysis about what it means in terms of jobs. that impacts the health care factor. florida would benefit very significantly by expanding medicaid. host: if they decide for the plaintiff? what is the likelihood that subsidies would end immediately? guest: i don't know what the answer to that is, there has been a lot of speculation. justice alito who seems to be siding with the plaintiffs, suggests there should be something like a six-month delay. it is not clear what the court will say. there are a good number of people saying we will need some

time so we can figure out what to do and get congress and the states to the opportunity to work this out. the answer is so far unknown. caller: hi, there are three points i would like to make. first of all, those three words were intentional. all you have to do is listen and you know that they were intentional. blame obama for this. secondly, billions of people lost their insurance and they were forced onto the registries. some had to receive medicaid when they were paid zero four their health insurance. their employers were paying it. the third point is that deductibles are so high for some people that they cannot afford to go to the doctor anymore and you will in the future sea

depths result -- see deaths result. guest: i want to take her last point first, she talked about high deductibles and she is right, too many people have high deductibles. we at families usa support the affordable care act but issued a report a month ago that said even though we made tremendous progress in getting people insured, over one out of four people who had year-round insurance could not get necessary care because of out-of-pocket costs when they needed it. often it is deductibles. there are a variety of things we hope would be done in the future to deal with this problem. brenda is right, a lot of people sometimes feel it is unaffordable to get the care they need. one thing that can be done is that we can exempt more services like primary care from the deductible.

if you want to get a checkup from the doctor, you can get that and don't have to pay the deductible. we are hoping that more such critical services are made available. host: who covers the cost? guest: it is picked up by the insurance company because they will have to pay the primary care physician. the other thing is we can increase the protections that people have when they have coverage, such that right now for those people who are poor, those below 250% of poverty they have a cap on how much they have to pay out-of-pocket in a year. we can improve those protections. host: jerry is from pennsylvania talking to ron pollack of families usa. caller: yes, i have a few questions and comments. first of all, when nancy pelosi

said you have to pass this to see what is in it or you have to pass it to see what's in it, i am glad that the republicans didn't sign that because i don't think any of you people try anything before we read it. and we have bloomberg telling us how busy we are that they have to lie to us to pass this bill. the we have president obama taking billions out of medicare to pay for this. then we have billions of dollars to put this into place. and people are not getting affordable care. that is a joke. if this health care is so wonderful, i would love to see all of the senators and congress , i would love to see them all pay for it and to have the same

insurance we have. they should have to live by the laws they pass. they give. -- thank you. guest: she also raises a number of points. one thing i think is porton to understand -- is important to understand we have seen surveys of people dissipating as a commonwealth foundation, family foundation, what we find is that the people that are participating are very happy with the coverage they are receiving. they feel it is something they don't want taken away. the other thing is that it is true that if you look at public opinion surveys, there is a mixture in view on whether the affordable care act is good or bad and slightly more are opposed to it than favorite. -- favor it. when you look at two other sets of questions, it is a different

story. when you asked the public if they want the program to be repealed or stay in place or improve, there is only a minority that say they want to see it repealed. it is clear that the affordable care act is something that the american public would like to see stay in place. host: eventually, how you deal with sustainability and costs and expenses? guest: one of the things that is a lesser-known stories of the affordable care act is that in the last few years since the affordable care act past, we have seen a slowing down of health care costs. i don't think anyone, even people like myself who support the affordable care act, say the affordable care act is totally responsible. heart of it was clearly the economy has slowed down but clearly the affordable care act has had a beneficial effect.

what we saw before it was passed was a skyrocketing cost. that's why employers were dropping coverage and we are seeing a deceleration and cost. so far, the record is good. caller: good morning c-span. host: you're on charles. caller: i'm talking about that obama care and i have heard a lot of republicans say they want to repeal it but obamacare has been doing really good for people i know, even my wife has it. she only has to pay $10 a month. they won't raise the minimum wage. obama, one of the good perks we had, he is trying to make things better. a lot of people, they have some much money, but they don't think about the poor people.

i hope the supreme court, the court of the land prevails for people like me. these people have had insurance all their life. they could afford it. some people can't afford it because they have to go to the hospital and don't have insurance and they give you a prescription and send you right out. all of the republican colors need to sit down. look at all the poor people in this country, we have a big problem right here and right now and we have to take care of the people here because poor people count two. -- too. you will have a blessed day today, anytime i know the supreme court is going to go along with obama, he is a good president. thelicans are be ashamed of themselves.

they didn't but for him but i wish everybody has a good day. guest: charles makes a good point but i want to add onto that. there is no question the affordable care act has helped lower income people and families. medicaid has been a key instrument in doing that. charles talked about his wife getting coverage and paying a pretty small premium. there is no question that for those people who really need help the most, they are getting the most help. in the marketplace, the subsidies are provided on a sliding scale. the thing i want to add on to what charles is saying, this is not just for people -- poor people. some of the people getting subsidies are middle income people. some of the subsidies go up to forge a percent of the federal poverty level. of course, the higher income you

go on that scale, you are going to get less help. this really helps middle-class people and increasingly, middle-class people are finding health insurance has been unaffordable and need help. yes, it is helping the poor but it is also helping others who are working, cannot get coverage through the workplace, cannot afford health insurance, and the subsidies are making them affordable. host: let's take a call from one more viewer, jerry from new york. caller: think you for taking my call. i have a perception for my ophthalmologist. the aca is in my deal has, the steel house. my purpose in calling as an independent is to comment on the dialogue that has gone back and forth. to make the short, the bill was passed by a reconciliation something that is a backdoor

manipulation rather than an up or down vote, i happen to be neither for or against the aca but that is a point that is often missed. there is a significant difference between medicare and medicaid. medicaid, and law, it is important when court decisions is not a payback of a payment of tax dollars as a benefit otherwise unearned. there are technical realities to medicare, block box and the like, that have it coming out of taxes essentially paid for by people to whom it returns by the state. medicaid as distinct from medicare is like the aca in many parts which is a chimeric of two -- chimera of two. pardon the intended pun, as it sees fit. that is a reason that medicare is not a third rail necessarily politically perhaps but

medicare is law and it will be very hard to manipulate other than perhaps by changing the retirement age but not the entitlement versus medicaid. what happens in these discussions is each party has its perspectives. so mr. pollack when asked about mammograms, a man in a gated community asked about maternity leave. the point of the caller which is built into the aca, which has been come to be known as a group or ask -- gruber-esque backdoor. the supreme court found you being the person who does not need this health service, in order to pay for someone who does. i truly would not call it subterfuge but expedients that

tends to make people on both sides, republicans and democrats , otherwise upset and revert to partisanship. host: i have to cut you off there because we are running short on time. guest: he opened up, jerry mentioned about reconciliation. it is important to understand that there were votes in the senate that passed the affordable care act and it got 60 votes out of 100. ultimately, it passed on this process of reconciliation, but at that point it was 59 votes. this past with a substantial -- passed with a substantial majority. it is not fair to call it subterfuge. i am going straight to the court right after here. we have a number of people who are coming into town who are getting the subsidies who will

talk about their own situation and how they would be affected, depending on how the court rules. caller:host: ron pollack of families usa joining us here to talk about what happens with the portable care act and subsidies thank you for joining us. coming up we will hear from howard rose. he will explain what the trade adjustment assistance program is an that provides aid to u.s. workers that lost their job. you may remember it became a big part of the discussion over giving theire president authority over trade deals. ♪

>> the new congressional directory as a handy guide to the 114th congress with colorful photos of every senator and house member, plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. also, district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill, and a look at congressional committees, the president's, federal agencies. order your copy today, it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling to the c-span online store at c-span.org. >> tonight on the communicators cochair of the congressional privacy caucus, joe biden on the recent fcc regulation rules and the issues of privacy. >> you have the basic principle whose information is it. is it automatically in the public domain because i choose to use a mobile app?

to know the way these things work, to go into the cloud and all that, can't i use it and still have a reasonable exp ectation of privacy? it is personal, that changes the way you regulate and the way you legislate. if you take the position that by act of being a part of and participating, by using the app i am forgoing my individual right to privacy. that is a different issue in its entirety. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. >> washington journal continues. host: on mondays we air a segment called your monday where we look at an initiative for not only what they cost what they do today, we will take a look at a

program that deals specifically in the world of trade. trade adjustment assistance. joining us is howard rose, he is with the trade adjustment assistance coalition. he is their executive director. tell us a little bit about the program. it is a long title but technically, what do you do? guest: there is a lot of discussion about trade and some of the basic fundamentals. trade can help us through exports and foreign investment. it can create jobs. at the same time, increasing imports and outsourcing overseas can cost of jobs. the policy discussion tends to focus on the net which is a difference between the jobs you create and lose, but it is very rare that person who loses a job takes that new job that is created so it is an adjustment that takes place. understanding that adjustment is incredible historically, president kennedy in 1963 when the united states was running a

trade surplus and trade was a small part of our economy, he said that the person that bears that price for the adjustment should not have to pay the full cost. the federal government should help and trade adjustment assistance was created in 1963. it went through a lot of changes over time, it is coming up every time we have a discussion on trade dislocation, but the thing we need to understand is that even though on net, trade might help the economy people will pay a big price so what this does is it provides them some assistance. it basically tops off the regular unemployment insurance that people get. unemployment insurance is for six months, after trade adjustment, you can get up to two years of the same unemployment insurance if you enrolled in training. that training must be serious it must be vocational, to change your skills for your job. if you are unemployment for six months, you don't get that

training. the major part is extended income maintenance and training but there are other parts. health care tax credits a special program to help people find jobs at lower levels, but that is primarily what it is. it seems to me those assistance packages or programs exist already and other forms of the federal government. host:guest: first of all, it is not going to exist in this way. it is for six months, you don't get serious training, you can only get training for writing a resume or your interview or something like that. this is one of the few programs for civilians, the military does a lot of these kinds of things. but for civilians, it is one of the programs that does extensive change in shifting job industries. but many make it clear another thing that gets lost is you cannot double dip.

you can't get into this program and take from another. that has been cleared up, so if you're in this program you cannot take other programs. host: how do i qualify? guest: that is difficult because unfortunately in the united states, we tend to be very suspect about these kinds of programs. we make it very hard for people to come and be eligible. under this program you must show that imports increase and there was a decrease in employment. and the increase in imports is attributed to this decrease and implement. traditionally -- in employment. traditionally, for most of us, the program was primarily for manufacturing. those are the people that are involved in things being traded. what we see over time is that

shifted to service work. that is a bit harder to measure. we can watch a steel company and imports are going up, and we can save maybe it's due to this. anchors, insurance companies, it is harder under this service but they are just as hurt as the guy from the steel industry. there is no challenge, no question, but it is only something under debate. host: you said it started in 1960 two and expanded by president clinton in 1993, president bush in 2002, and yet we saw this very program become a sticking point as those in congress are debating trade and what powers to give the president. guest: i would say that unfortunately, this program and others like it become bargaining chips. this is where i want to make my own point. we look at other countries people say look at the german

economy, why can't we be like it? they have these kinds of worker training programs with vocational training, apprenticeship programs. they put them on the books and they do them. we do them reluctantly. we see them in substance -- some sense as a handout. many other countries don't. that is a problem. we make it hard for people to get in, we over evaluate. these programs can't solve the problems of the labor market. any give you an example, we know that over the last 30 years wages in this country have been stagnating or falling. taking an evaluation of this program or any program, and saying this person took a job at a wage lower than their previous weight, the program cannot correct the problems that are going on in the labor market, it can only help people going through. host: howard rosen here to talk

about this program and its role in the federal government, if you want to talk about it, host: four republicans perhaps you are benefiting from the trade adjustment assistance program and we set aside a special line for you to tell us about this program. 202-748-8003. you will call those numbers and that number specifically if you qualify, tell us about the coalition and your relation. guest: i was, on behalf of the senate finance committee in 2002 i as an economist had done research on this location. it was large at the end of the 1990's i levi strauss. we went out and talked to the workers who are losing their job

and found out what they really need as opposed to what the program was doing. it really started at zero and said if you are a creative program what would it look like. modernization, some things were passed, i would say half of the comprehensive programs were passed and others were implemented over the next decade. i mentioned before that the program was traditionally for manufacturing workers. i also mentioned that one of the triggers is an increase in imports. what about u.s. companies that closer. and ship its production overseas? we don't see that as an important but it hurts those workers. that shift in production, we added that as criteria and added service workers as criteria. we have limited those over the

last decade and what is going on now is in 2011, the program was expanded to service workers. we are talking in terms but to put it into context, service workers are 80% of the economy that has the potential of doubling the program. -- service workers are 18% of the economy. host: doesn't matter how old i am or how much i made before? what my current status is as being married or with the family? guest: that is a great question because if i could create my own program, it will be flexible enough to meet your needs and not be the cause of your job loss. getting back to the points here, we really don't like these programs in the united states. if we could make a program that would fit your needs and is flexible enough but not one-size-fits-all, the answer to your question is that age

doesn't matter. one of the provisions implemented in the last decade is that you if you are over a certain age you may be eligible for retirement as opposed to training. then we created another stipulation, different names, alternatives, wage insurance what it says is that if you are over the age of 50 and except a job that pays less than your previous job, which will be highly likely, instead of going through a program of two years and receiving income benefits and training, take that money and we will give you an offset to the lower wage for that two-year. -- two year period. over two years, your which will increase and your new employer will train you and we know that on-the-job training is all is more effective than classroom training.

to my chagrin, i say that this program's enrollment has been very small. i don't think we have promoted it enough. this is up to the states to make sure that people know this is available. it is a new thinking in the way we do things. host: our first call is from laura in new york. you're on with howard rosen of the trade adjustment assistance coalition. caller: hello, i would just point out that this trade adjustment program, while it sounds nice, does not address the main problems with the upcoming trade agreements, the tpp and transatlantic partnership. the main issue with those is that both of those create an enforcement vehicle, and

enforcement structure that people are calling the tribunal because it's a super constitution along with other constitutional court that only corporations can go to. the other signing nations trying to do business in the u.s., they are the only ones who can take their disagreements with our laws, whether it be federal or all the way down to the tiny localities. it is not a law of conforming, in other words general to most of the countries that have signed it. those that were ahead in trying to making wages more fair or protect our environment for the help of our citizens -- health of our citizens. guest: i am not going to debate

the relevance or the justification of trade policy and totals, you will have to invite me for another program to do that. what i will say is regardless of your position on the authority or your position on the transpacific partnership or any other agreement, the points that i made stand. we know that exports and investment creates jobs, but outsourcing hurts people. the key difference tween that and that -- between that and say, new york and california, the key difference here is it is a result of public policy that we are opening up our borders to this constitution. we have already made an agreement that the constitution within the united states, we have created an unemployed

maturity, regulations, all that, at an international level, only regulate trade overseas, that is a public policy decision being made. it is not coming at the vote of the worker. the concept is that person has no control of losing their jobs so the government the federal government, which is pursuing the trade agreement because it believes it is better off for everyone, should have responsibility to hurt the minority who are affected. caller: i think your guest is being a little myopic and narrow about the topic because i don't think you can just look at any trade deal and say the government is going to, what they are saying as we are going to put this through, it is great for americans but by the way when you lose your job, we can get you trained. i think everybody needs to step back. it does directly come from the person who casts a vote for

representatives. if you look at the relevant party, hello? -- republican party, hello? i haven't finished my comments. here is a party that has blocked the president on every single thing. in fact, they have called him un-american and now they are going to support a trade deal? you have to wonder right after the bat. it is good for big business, so it is much bigger than just the low and job training making up the difference in your pay so they can get cheap labor overseas which is all this is about, it is not about taxes. it is about cheap labor. host: thank you for talking about the larger issues, that's what we are trying to cover. i think you know -- guest: you think you know might

trade policies up -- position on trade policies. i am in empiricist, so i look at numbers. as you know, the house and the senate both voted in favor of trade promotion authority. in the house, they voted against adjustment assistance. my point is that if you like it or not the question now is does the federal government and society have an obligation to those people who might be adversely affected by that decision? in the past, you use to argue that assistance, maybe we won't move forward with trade regulation. the vote in the congress are just the opposite right now. what i want to make clear is that we are at a real risk right now of losing, a routing fundamental concept in our trade policy which is if you pursue

liberalization, you have responsibility for those people who will pay that price. this week, we are going to see the answer to that. if that remains a key part of our policy or not. host: if you are on twitter asks if the taa is mostly welfare? guest: again, you call it welfare. i don't know that person but i'm sure they don't mean that in a positive sense. it is not a handout, people have to be in training in order to get the income assistance. this is something we talk about in washington, we never put numbers to these things. every policymaker talks about the importance of training, these aren't not my numbers these of the budget numbers. if you look at the amount of federal money being spent on training programs all training

programs, state adjustment systems, all of them. in any term that you want, in real terms, based on the number of people in the labor market, and the number of people unemployed, whatever number you want to use, it has been declining. we are spending less on these things the more people talk about it. i am not saying this is perfect we don't want to lose the baby with the bathwater. we don't want to lose the concept of helping these people. host: millions in federal funds allocated, how much is projected to be spent for the life of the program? guest: because of the year that you pick, a lot of money, a half

a million dollars, 500 million was going to community colleges. the program, the training and money, it was capped at 550. congress is considering capping it so there is another case where they are talking about lowering the amount of money available. host: define job-training program. guest: we break it into two parts, i recall job assistance and training which would be resume writing, interview skills. we should not think they aren't important. we're talking about people that maybe dropped out of high school or college where they do not have to go through this process and maybe there in manufacturing

jobs and don't how to present themselves and skills. training that is relating to getting a job. maybe you have certain skills and you need to change skills. host: so if i worked with my hand like a train on a computer, that is job-training. guest: i would call that vocational training. caller: good morning.

to areas with lower income. and when this gentleman was talking about improving employment, why don't we follow the german model? the germans can ship lower skilled jobs to china and mexico and around the world, but they still remain a high standard in developing technical training for their workers. you hear republicans -- but you never hear anybody talk about germany. republicans are all in favor of sending a job to mexico for cheap labor. where they nine favor of improving the work skill of the americans. >> i can't agree with you more. you have raised two point. one is the importance of our investment. globalization is not just an issue of exports and imports anymore, it is also investment.

what we actually learn, is in terms of the impact on jobs, the investment component tends to be more important than the exports and imports. the effect of the outsourcing tends to affect more people than the fact that we import and export and so in 2000 to the criteria for eligibility for this program were changed to include for those people that were heard. this gets into a very technical -- it was restricted to just those countries with whom we have trade agreements. it was done to control it. it was expanded to all countries. that is one of the debates going on this week in the new bill to take it back. the second point i want to make

-- the second is actually very interesting. if you look at any public opinion polls done on globalization and trade, the journalism tends to misrepresent these polls. the question that is asked is -- one is -- what is your position on globalization? what is your position on globalization if the united states helps those people who are adversely affected? on the first question, you get about 50-50. on the second question, overwhelming support embracing globalization the government agrees to help those persons adversely affected. i'm not suggesting there's only one way to do that. the american people have spoken. they feel it is important to help those. i think it's an important point that this gentleman makes.

pedro echevarria: a viewer on twitter wants to know if the training programs help find jobs where he lives or if relocation is required. guest: we have an infrastructure of one-stop shops. these are places within your community, you should contact the state department of labor. they should be close proximity to anyone. regardless if you're getting unemployment assistance, anyone is able to go into these offices and if they want to take classes, seminars, or get help looking for jobs they can do that. this is done at the local level. realizing that the new jobs may not be at the same place where the jobs that are being terminated our under this

program there is a program to provide assistance to that worker to move and take a job in another place. we have two wage earners in the family comes so is very difficult for one person who loses a job. that is a bigger question. trade adjustment assistance does provide a small amount of money about $1000, for people to move. this only exists under trade adjustment assistance. you cannot get this under unemployment. pedro echevarria: oldsmar maryland. hello. caller: i wanted to know why all the workers that worked overseas in iraq, afghanistan, as contractors -- there is nothing set up to them to come back to draw unemployment or get another job because that is across the

board. that is considered trade. howard rosen: if i understand your question correctly, it's a little bit outside of my area. these are probably people who were contractors for the military during our operation in iraq iran -- iraq and afghanistan. the department of defense has very extensive programs to help workers, specifically people in the military. i'm not familiar if the extent that assistance to their contractors. i have to say, though, the defense department programs are so expect -- extensive that we learn from their programs and bring that over to the civilian side. i don't know that is covered, or if that is extended to

consultants. let me use this as a segue to go back to trade adjustment assistance. to give you an example of how we understood the changes in the labor market and tried to implement these things into the program. what we found, let's say in a car plant. they outsource the custodial people, the people in the cafeteria. they are no longer formally employed by ford. if that plant closes, those workers are not getting assistance. kind of like what this gentleman from baltimore was suggesting. the changes suggested that we call these people secondary workers, meaning they are affected because the primary workers losing their job and they would also be afforded assistance under this program. there is another case where we learn along the way, it is not a perfect program, we are constantly learning. pedro echevarria: is there a

time limit to how much assistance i can receive? howard rosen: there is a time limit. i don't want to get into the actual -- the weeks are being debated and change. you get the first six months of unemployment insurance and then you can get up to another two years of training. some of that may be because you need remedial training. that means basic math and science. that kind of thing. it is between two and two and a half years. what needs to be made clear is the amount that you receive is the same as your unemployment insurance amount. let me make sure that people understand. currently is running on average in the united states at $317 a week. you're not going to get rich on that. you will get by. some states pay more, some

states pay less. i'm giving you the average. it is $317. that only replaces about one third of the average wage right now. more importantly, which i think people don't understand in this country, only one third of the unemployed are eligible for unemployment insurance. because they don't work in jobs that are covered by unemployment insurance. that is another case where we think we are being so generous with all this assistance, when in fact if you look at the numbers, we really are not. that helps me understand why there is this frustration in the economy right now. the question of how come you are doing so well? pedro echevarria: if you are off twitter is asking how can employeer prove loss of a job. howard rosen: it is not direct result, as i said. this is done through a petition process.

they need to show three things. increase in imports, that is the easiest case. and the increase in imports had to contribute importantly. and it had to be one of the factors but does not necessarily have to be the most important factor. in the case of a shift in production, this is harder. the u.s. company has to show a decline in employment and has to show that it is producing the same product overseas. this is a problem because what if a u.s. company closes its doors here, goes overseas, and starts creating another product. theoretically that product we may start importing and that will hurt -- but how do we help those people that are hurt by that initial outsourcing? so this is not a perfect thing. the basic answer to the persons question is, ideally we would be going to a universal program that was flexible enough that

helps people based on their need and not their cause of job separation. we are just not there. pedro echevarria: that is howard rosen you are hearing from. bill is on next. caller: good morning. i have a split question. does the cbo score this type of agreement in legislation not in terms of dollars and and dollars out but in terms of potential jobs lost or jobs gained? the second part is, do you coordinate at all with the export import bank in terms of deals and potential job years required? howard rosen: there is a requirement. it is not the congressional budget office. it is the international trade commission. there is a requirement -- and it

is under the trade promotion authority that is being debated right now. i think it is either 90 days or so before an agreement is brought before congress for approval for vote up and down that the international trade commission has two do an analysis of potential job losses and gains. having said that, let me just say that the point i made at the outset is people tend to focus on the net number. and so if it is positive, they say it is a job gain. but they really need to look at the gross on both sides. how many people are going to gain, how many people are going to lose and what are we going to do about those people who will be hurt by that agreement. so the requirement is there. i have to say on the xm bank i'm not sure i understand your question. xm bank is financing for u.s. companies that export abroad or for companies that import.

there is a requirement in the program, when the program is being authorized, or studies to be done on what is the job effect of the program. but not every loan that is being done. i think i'm wrong. on the import loans, i think there is a requirement to come up with, if there is a potential for job displacement. the analysis i think is done by the bank itself. pedro echevarria: bob is in massachusetts. go ahead. caller: my question for you is why is it so important for these countries to have no label of origin on their packaging? why do they need to hide where their stuff is coming from? howard rosen: the argument is that the reason we enter into trade agreements is for standardization.

your point i think is a valid point. people will argue that the reason we need to enter into trade agreements is to enforce countries to put those labels on their products. i think what you are asking for is legitimate. we should know where we are buying things. should also know -- we should also know if something is made with child labor or people that are getting underpaid or human rights abuses. i am all for making all that information very transparent. in fact, i would argue just like we have our trade coffee, i can buy coffee and know that it did not affect someone. why can't when i buy this shirt know that when it was produced -- why can't i know that this was a fair trade shirt ech? that is a bigger issue. i totally agree with you. but the argument is that is why we enter into trade agreements to try to establish and enforce those standards.

pedro echevarria: in maryland you are next. caller: sir, you have indicated that trade adjustment assistance programs have been around since 1962. how were they paid for from 1962 up until this current trade assistance program? howard rosen: great question. this was very surprising to me as the researcher. in 1962, when the program was first created, there was a section in the law that said that the program should be financed through import tariffs. through the taxes we collect on product suite import from abroad. that part of the program was never implemented. because the treasury department doesn't like trust funds. they don't like segregating funds that government receives and then earmarking them for certain things. that is why we are having a debate right now on the highway trust bill.

that is the basic concept. so what has happened is the history of trade adjustment assistance has been financed through general revenue. but let me make is very clear because it is a very interesting point. currently, import tariffs alone, that means the taxes on imports alone, are running at $19 billion a year. we are currently spending something like half $1 billion on this program. if only we could finance this thing out of import tariffs. i'm not suggesting that the program should be that large. but i am suggesting that that would be something we should pursue. pedro echevarria: let's try one more call. rodney from florida. you are the last call. good morning. caller: hello. it was very interesting when i was listening about coffee. to me, trade is when a country don't have a certain thing i

trade you for coffee because you have gold. i trade you for cotton, when cotton was being traded, i traded you can't for something that you don't have. that is trade. the trade we have now is a labor thing where it drives down the price of labor. so it is not really trade to me. howard rosen: great question. you must have been sitting in my economics classes when i was studying 30 years ago, because that is certainly the way it was being presented at that time. as you mentioned, globalization has become much more complicated. just to get some support to your point, the amount that economists call intra-industry trade -- the percent of our trade that is in the same industry, meaning we export cars, we import cars. that share has been increasing over time. so there is much more

complementarity of our trade than substitutes. that is what is happening in globalization. that takes it to the next question which is what do we do about it. that is a trade question. regardless of where you stand on trade agreements or fast-track trade promotion authority, the fact that people are paying a price so that all of us can benefit from cheaper prices, better products more choice in products we have to ask ourselves, do we have a responsibility to help those people? and if so how do we do it? trade adjustment assistance has been developed to do that. it is not perfect. it needs to be fixed. it needs to remain to be a central part of our trade policy. howard rosen: if funding runs out in september, had he think i was will resolve this? howard rosen: well, i don't read the tea leaves.

i have been studying this program for 35 years and this is the most anxious i have been because we really run a risk right now of eroding support for this notion. in the past, we always come up with fixes. i'm not so concerned about the appropriations and the money. what i'm more concerned about are those provisions that expired back in 2013, the provisions for service workers or the shifts in production to all countries. that really needs to be addressed. that is what congress is looking at this week. pedro echevarria: howard rosen with the trade adjustment assistance coalition. mr. rosen, thank you. they're looking at the supreme court, especially those cases that are still pending. gay marriage and health care among the bigger cases waiting

-- at least many people are waiting to see how the supreme court is going to decide. in our last 45 minutes, we would like to hear from you is -- it may be these cases, it may be other cases. what supreme court case are you watching? here's i you can call us. for republicans, (202) 748-8001 for democrats, (202) 748-8000 for independents, (202) 748-8002 . ♪ >> tonight on the communicators. cochair of the congressional privacy caucus texas republican rep senate of joe barton on the recent fcc regulation roles and the issues with privacy and cyber security. >> you have the basic principle

whose information is that? is that automatically in the public domain because i choose to use a mobile app? and we know the way these things work, they go into the cloud and all that? or can i use it and still have a reasonable expectation of personal privacy? i take the view that it is personal. that changes the way you regulate and the way you legislate. if you take the position that i am i act of being a part of -- i am participating, by using the app, i am forgoing my individual right to privacy, that is a different issue. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span two. >> washington journal continues.

pedro echevarria: a view of the supreme court on this decision day. very few decision days left before the end of the session. amongst the cases to be decided cases concerning gay marriage, subsidies for health care. people especially members of the media, are waiting on this decision day to see what results might come down. no early indication given on what cases will be decided. the media are reacting to it. in our last 45 minutes, we want to get your response to cases you are particularly paying attention to. maybe there are other cases you are interested in. here's how you can call. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to tweak your thoughts, you can do that @cspan

wj. if you want to post on our facebook page, you can do so at facebook.com/cspan. marcus schmidt writing, with the supreme court ruling on gay marriage just days away, advocates and opponents of marriage equality are bracing for the impact of a history making decision that could redefine marriage which since the founding of the republic has always between one man and one woman. same-sex marriage is already legal and 37 states including virginia. it goes on to talk about virginia's experiences with that. you may bee paying attention to that for other reasons. here are the numbers one more time. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. greg is up first on the

republican line. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say that the case that i am watching the closest right now is the affordable care act. as far as the gay marriage goes, i have to say -- i don't know why my fellow republicans -- that case is so overblown. how much of our population in this country are actually gave or lesbian? i don't know. it's not very many. i do care if gay people get married. it doesn't affect me. let them do what they want to do. the cases just so unimportant to me and gets so much coverage. i think the important care act has much more effect affect on our overall society. we should also be paying much closer attention to it. pedro echevarria: are you affected directly by getting subsidies are getting a planter and exchange? why are you looking at it specifically? caller: i'm not affected directly by a i receive health care coverage through my employer. but i have family members who are actually, some of which are

not so well off. there is problems with the plan. but i think overall, we need to fix the problems with the plan because people just need help coverage in this country. even though i have health coverage through my employer, it is still quite expensive. there is a lot of holes in the coverage. it is not working out well for the american people. i wish some of my republican friends would come to the realization that maybe this is not the right way to go, but we need to try and fix it. pedro echevarria: let's hear from mike in florida. caller: good morning. pedro echevarria: go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you today? pedro echevarria: fine thanks. caller: i am most interested in the king v. burwell. in florida, we have 1.3 million

that will actually potentially lose health insurance coverage if it is struck down. pedro echevarria: so as far as paying attention to the court, do you just keep a television on? do you hit websites? what do you use to keep you in touch? caller: obviously in addition to c-span, i am moderating the scotus blog as well. pedro echevarria: the scotus blog is at scotus blog.com. no real early indication of what comes down. the scotus blog will give you a live blog as information comes out. peter from stamford connecticut. republican line. caller: good morning. it is a pleasure to watch c-span. it is my primary source of information. i am concerned about the gay marriage. in this country we have based so

much duress oferisiveness. this little issue about gay marriage -- i am hoping that the supreme court will say, decide quickly one way or the other. but i am hoping that the decision will be one that will not create even more in this country. we don't need it. i have gay members in my family. i'm not talking about recently i am talking about 30 or 40 years ago. nobody in my family ever said a darn thing. and we are conservative republicans. we just sat there and said, that is their life. and we have recent people who have come forward and said that they were gay and we just believe that that is their life. the magic word here is marriage.

[sighs] i think if a person wants to get married, let them be. biblically speaking -- [sighs] -- if the supreme court rules in favor of gyaays getting married, what is the big deal? is only one word. that's how i feel. i believe it is just one small element that could divide our country just a little bit. right now, little bit is added to a lot. of the other problems. we don't need it. pedro echevarria: thank you peter. let's hear from peter in grand rapids, michigan. where asking people about what supreme court case there watching. peter, hello.

caller: yes, hello. how are you doing? i have an opinion that marriage is not something that is necessary for everyone to know about it. it is kind of like gay people. if they want to get married what are they just make it a private thing? not to be in public. or maybe like become a thing in the country. why should not be like any marriage? we see people to get married in the church never been brought to public media. so that everybody can see it. there are people getting married which is maybe lesbian or gay people. nobody see that. what i see here is they make it a private thing, should be better for the country.

so young kids aren't told that this is a very good thing to be practicing. this is not good for the country. pedro echevarria: that was peter. david in north carolina. what are you watching for the most? caller: the gay marriage. he does i don't think the contract i entered into with my wife should be changed. they need their own definition of their civil union. pedro echevarria: once you hear a decision, what is your reaction? what do think will happen? once a decision comes down, then what? caller: i guess i will get my marriage on old. annulled. it is not the contract i was entered into. pedro echevarria: that is david

in north carolina. politico is reporting that president obama did not mince words in discussing race in a recent interview, going as far as to use the n-word in talking about america's complex racial history in speaking with marc maron in a podcast. the legacy of slavery, jim crow, discrimination, every institution of our lives casts a long shadow. we are not cured of it. it is not just a matter of being polite to say the n-word in public. that is not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. it's not about overt discrimination. you cannot erase everything that happened 300 years prior. the supreme court is our focus today. we are asking folks at home to tells us what case you are watching for the most. karen in new york, democrat line. hi. caller: i'm interested in king

v. burwell. pedro echevarria: the health care subsidy case. caller: yes. i currently get my health insurance through the new york state exchange and i am very grateful that in this day there is not the kind of employment security there once was. the idea that one has to get one's health insurance through an employer -- is that an idea whose time has passed? i don't understand how the states that don't have their own exchanges, for example on c-span i heard that louisiana governor said that if the supreme court rules against the subsidies in states that don't have their own exchanges, that he does not plan to create an exchange for louisiana. how can he get away with that? or any governors or states who say that? i don't understand how the

substantial portion of their population who needs it -- how can they politically get away with that? and say the supreme court does rule against those states -- why wouldn't they feel tremendous pressure to create their own state exchanges? i have not heard it in the media. explained. pedro echevarria: that is karen from new york. in virginia, you are next. go ahead. caller: oh yes. i am watching the courts in texas about the gay and lesbian marriage. because first of all the word marriage means based on the bible. that is where the word came from and it is based on men and women being married. if two men or two women decide to marry then they can never be married. they can be civil union. you can call them any other thing you want to call them.

but they cannot be married. if the supreme court goes against thegod's law to marry these people, this country will be in so much judgment. it will be just really really horrible bubble happened to this country. so i pray that americans will wake up and stop thinking that it is ok -- that man called in and let them goet married. it goes against nature. it is not a small matter. i really hope and pray that they will stop that. i'm also watching the court that is talking about whenmonsanto. and these people who refuse to put a label on the food to let us know what we are eating. if it is genetically modified, why wouldn't they label it?

that is not telling us that that food should not be eaten by humans. pedro echevarria: there is a story in the washington times this morning looking at the relationship between the president and the house minority leader nancy pelosi. you may remember last week after she came to the floor in opposition to trade efforts by the president here's the headline of a story: obama pelosi mend fences at fundraiser. mr. obama and mrs. pelosi made a show of mending fences at a fundraiser at the home of tom stier overlooking the golden gate bridge. it was their first meeting since mrs. pelosi turned against the president last week by leading the opposition that temporarily derailed crucial trade legislation. the president could not resist tossing in a barbed toward mrs. pelosi. it is not like i agree with my democratic caucus on everything, but on 98% of things there

moving toward the right direction. obama sees executive opportunities such as granting deportation amnesty to illegal immigrants. jim is up next from connecticut. go ahead please. caller: i am very disappointed in this country and in their attitude towards two things. uh.. one is the affordable care act. also, i am very disappointed on the marriage. what have we got to do with marriage? if we could just get rid of all religion in this world this world would be a much better place. a much better place. pedro echevarria: darrell from west virginia. hello. caller: i just don't understand -- as far as gay marriage goes. i have people that i know that

agree with that. i'm not saying i don't agree with that. i do understand why the federal government has to get involved in everything. the way i look at it to the states. if someone doesn't agree with a certain state, they can move next door to another state. i just don't understand why the federal government has to get so big and has to be involved in everything. in people's private decisions. if they blink at everything, then where do we go from there? you can't get away from it, you can leave if you are for it or against it. i think the federal government gets involved in way too many things and they don't need to. pedro echevarria: which supreme court case are you watching? (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents.

somebody mentioned genetically modified food. what are you watching? give us a call. we will take your calls up until 10:00. the topic of nato is up for discussion. according to this headline in the washington post, tossing the cold war playbook. as nato forces continue a slew of large-scale military exercises that included amphibious operations and airborne drops across eastern europe and the baltics, the defense secretary will spend the next week in the region pushing the alliance to ditch the cold war playbook these exercises are ripped from. carter told reporters it is not like in the old days. we are looking at a nato response that is much more mobile and agile.

washington, d.c., go ahead. caller: i am watching before the care act case and i'm watching the gay marriage case. pedro echevarria: why are those two cases of interest to you ? caller: i have a granddaughter who is my dependent who will have to leave my insurance as of october and get some of her own. she will be 26. she has just finished college. as far as the gay marriage is concerned, i think we should let people who love each other get married. i don't think us heterosexuals has done very well for the institution of marriage, so maybe they can do better. i want someone to show me where the word marriage is even in the bible. i have never seen the word marriage in the bible. pedro echevarria: someone off of

twitter adds this. the aca will have a direct effect on the greatest number of personal lives. that is off of twitter. we have been showing you what is happening at the court this morning as people gear up and wait for a decision to come down. other decisions may come as well. gerald in fort worth, texas on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think that one of the things that is most misleading is that somehow having health insurance equals having health care. that has been deep misrepresentation from the start. the truth is i have never lived in a community where those who could not afford insurance or couldn't afford doctors were not taken care of. the second thing is, we need to be able to understand that the law is the law.

if they write a poor law, that law needs to be fixed. you can say that they meant to say one thing and ended up saying another. but if words are important as they keep reminding us that they are, then let's get the words right so that the law at least accomplishes that which it was supposed to accomplish. thank you. pedro echevarria: sarasota, florida. here is roger. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of words i would like to say about the gay marriage issue. i am a 74-year-old gay man. i am a conservative republican, believe it or not. i have lived my life very comfortably, very quietly. i have had what amounted to two marriages, both of which ended with the death of my partner. i considered myself married in the sense that we shared a

household, we took care of each other, we shared expenses, we took responsibility for each other. and enjoyed sharing all aspects of life together. not that we didn't have arguments on occasion. but, you know, i don't understand why this has to be such a public issue. i find it embarrassing myself. i am fortunate to have enough money to live comfortably in retirement. which may not be the case for everybody. but the only injustice i can see with the status quo is that i was unable to inherit my partner's social security. i took care of him. he was an invalid with cancer for 10 years. i felt that i certainly earned the respect -- should have urge respect enough to get his social security, which is larger than mine. for having done that.

i did not turn my back on him. i took care of him. i made sure he got all the help he needed. but i don't like the idea of making this a big public hullabaloo. i think it is embarrassing. i think it may be counterproductive. that is really all i have to say about it. if you have any questions i would be glad to answer them. pedro echevarria: we will be going on to our next collar. -- collar. aller. states are challenging -- to use a drug for lethal injections. it does not effectively prevent severe pain. derek in silver spring, maryland. you're up next. go ahead. caller: yes. i think it would be a tragedy if the supreme court were to overturn the voice and the vote

of millions of americans who have voted on this issue in every state. in all of these states were there has been a vote. it really changes the way government is run in our country. if you look at it not just from a religious perspective but from a social perspective and how we run our government. voters went to the ballot box on this issue. they have voiced their opinion. legislative environments have voted on this issue. we are saying the judicial branch can now come in and overturn all of those votes can veto the voice of so many americans. i think that is a tragedy for our society and our constitution. pedro echevarria: the texas department of housing and community affairs versus the inclusive communities project. they are suing the texas department over its practice of issuing tax credits for low income housing.

the department disproportionately approved more tax credit applications for housing and minority neighborhoods than affluent white suburbs. the inclusive community's project argues that its decision resulted in racial segregation. the justices already hearing most of these cases. they are making deliberations on them already. decisions as they come. they come as they come. today is a decision day. dan in pennsylvania. democrats line. caller: good morning. the two cases i am very interested in is the gay marriage and the affordable care act. i know the discussion has been -- from a conservative point of view, it is overreach by government. into private lives. first, gay marriage. it doesn't affect me and my wife if to gay people want to get married. it is a civil right.

it infringes upon -- the discussion of the aca comes up, people say you shouldn't force me to have insurance. you know what, if you don't have insurance, i pay the bill when you go to the hospital. they say there has been all kinds of surveys and background and they say that 10% of my insurance bill goes to pay people who don't have insurance. one more issue where the gentleman said it is stepping on the voters rights. people vote on issues when they vote to deny gay rights -- some things are not up for a vote. some of those southern states. probably the civil rights amendment would not have passed way back when.

in fact, they may not even pass today. the idea is there are certain inalienable rights that i should not be able to deny people and the vote should not deny people that write. so i appreciate your time. i am a c-span junkie. this is the first time i have ever called. pedro echevarria: thank you for calling. in major cases, c-span will receive the audio from these cases and put pictures of people who are speaking to it. you can see the oral arguments on c-span.org. the washington post highlights the latest in a federal corruption charges against senator bob menendez of new jersey. it was on tuesday that the senator continued his defense against 14 counts of political

corruption with his lawyers arguing to a federal judge in newark that his trial set to begin in november should be moved to washington. that is to allow, they argue for him to continue carrying out his senatorial duties. it did not convince the judge. he ruled that the trial would not be better off in d.c.. menendez has remained an active player in d.c. despite the trial. he has refused to skulk in the shadows and continues to help manage the iran bill on the senate floor. he has also recently flexed his muscles on closely watched trade legislation. trait is also going to be part of the senate's deliberation on tuesday.

vote sick place starting on tuesday. tony in indianapolis. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. the case i am watching is the obamacare case. i feel we should not have to be forced to buy something that i don't need. if my money is going toward things like abortion and stuff like that, i just don't think that is right. there is a better way to do it. we should start from scratch and do something better for everybody. i can understand people needing insurance, but i think there is a better way to do it. on the gay marriage -- it does not affect me.

i think if they want to get married, that is fine. i don't have a problem with that. i think someone that has a civil union and the and don't get the benefits -- that is wrong. pedro echevarria: so if gay and subsidies were not part of the core of this issue, would you be paying attention to the supreme court? caller: yes. i do every year. pedro echevarria: regardless of the cases? caller: yes i do. this year it is more intense for me, but i do watch the supreme court. pedro echevarria: what drives your interest in the court? caller: i don't know. i just like people atmosphere of it. i have been there. it is just a way of our democracy.

it is something more americans should get involved in. pedro echevarria: you're seeing pictures of people who are waiting, whether they are members of the media or people interested in specific cases or general bystanders. there are just waiting outside the court for information to come out. c-span bringing to you those five pictures. anthony in michigan. you are next up. caller: hello. my name is anthony burnett. thank you for giving me the opportunity to be on your show this morning. i'm calling on behalf of our justice system. i think we have to do a better job as american citizens about making sure we put people in our federal state and city to do a better association and communicate with citizens. i have a case number that the judge keeps hearing.

that is on behalf of my mother marilyn burnett. she was murdered. this court system tried to make me take a settlement of 40,000 ar. i refused it. i respect and i enjoyed the law system. when we have cases of corruption, we have to step up and say that is enough of that no matter what color we are. we all have the same blood. we must make sure our justice system is fair to each and every one of us. thank you and god bless you guys for giving the citizens here in america the ability to speak up peacefully. pedro echevarria: guy from indianapolis. good morning.

caller: i just wanted to say the supreme court cases that are up for deliberation. particularly the same gender marriage question. under contract law, any adult can enter into contracts. so technically speaking, you could have any number of people in a relationship under the contract. it doesn't have to be between two people. it could be between more than two people. i think what you have to look at is what is good for the country. in terms of behavior, legality, economics and so forth. so in terms of marriage as defined in scripture, you are talking about what the lord decided was the best way to do it in his great design.

that was between a man and a woman. this is what he has decided. i heard the previous comments that we shouldn't have religion. to me, religion is basically what you believe and there are people that have different beliefs so you have to have some kind of common core and the government can provide it. a common way of operating. if that makes any sense to you. pedro echevarria: that was five from indianapolis. a weeks ago we heard about the hack that took place at the office of personnel management. federal employee information was breached as part of that hack. representative elijah cummings of maryland once to question two contractors hired to perform background checks on john kaneb seeking positions that require security clearance. he is thing the issues of

contract folder abilities underscored by the fact that the contractor was hacked last year. he says those hacks show they did not adequately monitor and audit the contractors. we need to reassess our overreliance on contractors for conducting core government functions like granting security clearance, according to the congressman. we will hear from john from illinois. democrats line. we are asking people about the supreme court cases they are most interested in. caller: i am interested in both the aca case and the gay marriage cases. i have a couple of comments. there was a gentleman who referred to how many legislatures have passed

restrictions on gay marriage. he felt the voters had spoken and if the courts overruled these what a tragedy would be for the constitution among other things. this person just clearly doesn't understand the role of the courts. i think it is interesting and especially in light of the aca decision i guarantee that the aca when the supreme court ruled that i was constitutional, he would have been much happier if they had ruled it was unconstitutional. so in other words when the court overrules something that legislatures or the congress does that he doesn't like, then they are doing their job. when they overruled something that legislatures or congress does that he does like like a restriction on gay marriage then it is a tragedy for our constitution. their job is to look at something like this the same way as they would look at something that says that if mississippi legislature had passed a law that says that blacks cannot be

doctors for white patients. it is their job to look at it and say, the legislator representing the majority of the people passed this law, but we are here to tell you you cannot make that law. that is their job. one other comment. that person about one man and one woman in the bible. throughout most of christianity, including most of the bible marriages were polygamist. beyond that, even going through the middle ages when christianity was not polygam ous, marriage was primarily arranged in the upper classes for political purposes. most people had mistresses publicly throughout most of the middle ages. marriage for love between one man and one woman is fairly recent. but they like to look at it -- they point to their religion as of has been this way for thousands of years. that is not the case. marriage as we know it now that they refer to as christian

marriage in the united states is a very recent phenomenon. pedro echevarria: let's hear from jason in hyattsville, maryland. caller: good morning. that was a smart guy before there. i have forgotten the name of this case and i don't think there is a ruling coming out it today, but it is the money being considered free speech and related to elections and but that has done. that is the case i am interested in. that is just so a sensibly look set just buying elections. and political grasp. it is a real shame when they say the next presidential election make -- $1 billion might be spent on that. that is so much money, whether it is invested in equities and can be making jobs and doing something productive for society. or going to social programs and helping people in that way. either of those extremes, that

would be money so much better allocated for a good purpose. pedro echevarria: billy is up next from miami, florida. billy, are there cases you are watching? caller: i am watching the gay marriage. pedro echevarria: why are you paying attention to that case? caller: i have been with the same partner -- the first was 23 until he died. now 14 years. he is with the government. i am with the government. what is it that straight people have the interest of what goes on in my bedroom? is what goes on in their bedroom so boring that -- and if i had a right that they did not have, they would be out marching in the street, saying how can you do this. but, great show. i know the supreme court will come through and do the right thing. pedro echevarria: that is the last call we will take on this topic.

as the court releases information, take -- stay close to c-span. there is your last live shot at the supreme court. that is it for our program today. ♪