and instability in chinese markets and how it all impacts american investors. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. the talks continue today in brussels as european finance ministers attempt to keep greece in the eurozone. new questions on whether the greek government can keep its budget promises and when the senate meets, lawmakers will resume debate and what is being called every child achieves act that would re-thousand the 2002 law no child left behind law. the house also in session this week with a series of votes. it is sunday morning, july 12. the president heading to

philadelphia tuesday to address the naacp convention. on thursday, he will be the first sitting president to visit a federal prison. he'll tour the el rino federal correctional facility outside of oklahoma city and discuss changes. we want to begin with this "wall street journal" headline. new hud rules. the government can withhold moneys from communities that fail to address segregation issues. we want to get your calls as to whether or not you support or oppose this idea. for those who supported -- we want to begin with this sunday morning editorial from "the new york times." here is what it says. " thene end of federally financed

ghettos." the supreme court issued an important ruling what it reminded state and federal government that the fair housing law bars them from spending federal housing money in racial segregation -- host: tell us what you think

about these new housing rules put in place by hud. laura kusisto is following this for "the wall street journal." thank you very much for being with us. laura: no problem at all. host: let's talk about these rules. as the editorial stood, there is an editorial in "the wall street journal." this is saying, not in my neighborhood. "the new york times" points out this is the intent of the law put in place in 1968. what is going on here? laura: yeah, i think there is certainly a strong argument to be made that this is not quite as big a change as it feels like. it is more highlighting and clarifying rules in things that cities were always supposed to be doing. the big change is just that they were supposed to be reviewing whether or not they were abiding by the law anyway. now they just have to submit it to hud. also they should have more

clarity of what hud when expect of them. so i think we could see a change just because of the way this draws out what they are supposed to be doing but it is nothing new. host: you point out these communities will have to provide historical data to basically analyze the segregation pattern. how will they do that? laura: well, i think that is going to be something we are going to have more clarity on in the coming days because hud is going to provide them with data. it should be interesting because anybody anywhere will be able to go ont oo a computer and look very visually at these patterns of segregation in different neighborhoods around the country. so, it will be real interesting. hud should start rolling it out so we can all go on and look and see what this is actually -- what does it mean. host: how much money is at stake? laura: well, you know, it is interesting. possibly not as much as people say.

these are community development grants. they are very viable because they react they are flexible. but in reality, westchester has been fighting with hud on this principle for a number of years. and i think over the course of that time -- they have lost. $20 million it is not going completely remake these communities but it's certainly a very viable money that could be lost if communities do not comply. host: another part of your story is that a number of the committee has said the law are difficult to follow. how does this sharpen the rules and regulations? laura: so, what hud had been saying to communities as they had to do an analysis of impediments, and analysis of obstacles to integration in their community. but didn't give much more direction.

now this will basically give them a formula, a form they need to fill out and check certain boxes. look for very specific types of segregation. it will be much easier for them to know what does it mean? attorneys i've spoken with have said that that could be helpful because these sorts of patterns can leave them vulnerable to lawsuits. they are hoping if they can be more clear theyv've done this analysis, they might be more protected. host: the headline at the top of the program "the end of federally financed ghetto's." i want to get to westchester county. this is a piece in your paper by jason riley. he writes for the manhattan institute. it says that, what the administration is trying to do is tell bill and hillary clinton who can be their neighbors. one point is that in effect the

federal government is forcing wealthy westchester municipalities to import low income minorities. your criticism? laura: well, i -- [stammers] what it is doing. they are forcing westchester to look at their zoning, and look at whether they are zoning by preventing larger multifamily buildings is preventing poor people from living in those neighborhoods. i guess it is not quite as direct. they are not going to go and say to someone who is a poor minority, you must move here. but they are asking places to facilitate and make it easier for those people to move there which, of course, if you lived in a community that has a single-family character for a long time, that can feel like a radical change. host: laura kusisto on the housing and economic beat for "the wall street journal."

thank you for being with us.. we want to get to your calls and comments you can send us a treat. mike says, "so will local governments have to approve home sales to see if the population is acceptable for that area or lose federal money?" we begin with nathan from pennsylvania. we are dividing our phone lines for those who support or oppose this idea. good morning. you oppose it. why? nathan: i wanted to say first of all that if people wanted to desegregate, if they said that diversity was so wonderful, they would practice it spontaneously and naturally. they would go and live in black neighborhoods if they were white liberals. live as minorities and mexican enclaves. they would put their kids in schools with blacks. i have a tendency to attack the

seven are lately with the confederate flag. i lived in the south for many years. what -- when i got down there from a pennsylvania dutch segregated region of pennsylvania where there was not a blackface for 200 years i realize that blacks and whites lived together in the south. when it came time for the spring court to for-- the supreme court to force busing up north white people began to riot in boston. where does chris matthews live? chevy chase, maryland. one of the whitest places west of iceland. where did the clintons live? where does your average political guy average "washington post" reporter live?

they cluster in white neighborhoods. when they start living in the hood i'll start believing them that diversity -- thank you. host: thank you for the call from pennsylvania outside of philadelphia. "the national journal" has more details on this rewrite of a law put in place 47 years ago. th headlinee -- will hud actually desegregate poor communities? every five years, cities that received funding from the deposing of her -- t department of housing andh urban developing came upe for review but it was not clear what they needed to demonstrate in order to receive more money. now these rules will open the data to local leaders and cities so they can better understand segregation and their communities and cities that receive funding from hud and don't live up to the expectations risk losing out on billions of dollars hud distributes each and every year. stories online at national

journal.com. we got to art who opposes this from georgia. caller: i would say in general that desegregation type of issues, maybe they were needed for a while in different types of areas but to for ce it on people today is a little bit ridiculous. first of all, most people tend to live among their own races in general. such as mostly whites are mostly blacks are mostly koreans. other than being slightly in the mixture. the other thing is, it is going to depend on what school or what you can afford. what i don't believe in and never have is allowing to give blacks primarily this is where it has come from, let them score higher or require to score lower

on a test than whites or give them money to to get into help them versus me, when we both have the same opportunity to be able to work for that. this is where it comes -- another thing obama can push their he cannot through anywhere else. he has made a debacle and embarrassment of our countrya. nwhere was he when the young lady -- got shot in san francisco? host: that is a different topic. going back to what the plan is what the administration says is if we are going to provide federal dollars to communities we want to make sure those dollars are going to an area that will spur diversity within the community. caller: diversity. there is diversity. if a particular issue arises, we could do with that accordingly. but i don't understand if a

person can afford to live in a certain neighborhood that's mixed or white or black neighborhood, what is the problem? why are still giving states money to do this? for what reason? that does not make any sense to me anymore. host: thank you for the call. we go next to tina in little rock, arkansas. caller: good morning. i reside in little rock, arkansas. i do not agree with the general and, because i am on subsidized housing. i am a working single mother. i send to my son to private school. and i do live in a low income neighborhood. i pay rent. i pay $400 a month in rent. it is not like i'm living for free. they help me., you understand? so i believe that, i mean,

people should be treated fairly. i'm not asking for someone to support me. someone, i just need a little help until i can get on my feet. i am also in school. so, i don't agree with him. i do tnot agree with him at all. and i'll look for a decent place to stay i a-- in an area. you find a nice area. and then your income has to be a certain amount. you have to make a certain amount. it's just like a catch-22 because sometimes they do have areas in a really nice place. then you have to make a certain amount of money so that pushes you out. host: ok. tina -- your final point? caller: my final point is that i

do agree with whatever they are talking about the policies of putting people in a better area. in a better area. giving them a choice to be in a better area. for their children. our kids -- have to go to these raggedy schools. get an insufficient education. and other this other stuff. why should everybody get everything and some people do not get anything? there is enough for everybody. that is what i feel. host: thanks for the call. john in north carolina sent us this tweet. "when will people say enough? no wonder trump is getting traction." donald trump is making news. inside "the washington post." we take our country back.

"time" magazine reporting on a speech in phoenix. donald trump outdoes itself, casting himself more than a billionaire real estate magnate donald trump yesterday speaking for what he called the silent majority of americans who are frustrated with the direction of the country rather than the -- he appeared energized by the push back his candidacy has received from the republican party after suggesting that many who entered into the u.s. illegally are racist. in a rally speech to the crowd of thousands in phoenix, donald trump striking a potent combination of populist and protectionist polities designed to tap into the undercurrent of unease within american society. you can read the full story or line -- online. the white house plan to diversify wealthy neighborhoods. your reaction. brenda south carolina. why do you oppose it? caller: i'd like to see, i live

in trusting, south carolina. and we had the flag the problem with the flag. the shooting. my family was one of the ones in the shooting. we have 250,000 mexicans that live here. on yesterday, the -- they showed me a lot of respect and so did the blacks. i went to garrett high school. every civil person that knew we went to garrett -- it was always all white. we had to catch the bus. nobody took us to school. so what we're trying to do in our state, we did everybody apologize in the family to the g uy dylann. dylann has been trying to do church. we are trying to get along. as far as them knowing anything

about us coming from a poor neighborhood, the caller we all are not poor. we have our businesses. we play the lottery to help out people that need money for finances. and it goes towards hud housing. barack obama -- this is the -- we've had a black president. george bush has built schools in his latter years. i did i one-on-one talk with him. i did not see any prejudice between him. he was doing a wonderful job when he was there. hillary has been doing wonderful things. donald trump is not prejudiced. he is trying to help you. we are working very hard in charleston. and we are trying to work with walmart.

if you really need a job and you do not have the finances for school, you can talk to darius rucker. we can help you out with a place to live. host: thanks for the call. we appreciate your adding your voice to the conversation on the white house plan to diversify wealthy neighborhoods. the fear facottor. congress sees threats everywhere but nobody wants to make the hard choices about defense dollars. a piece on the chair of the house committee. "time" magazine, who is afraid of elizabeth warren? she's hounding obama and paving the way for bernie sanders. how she will shape the 2016 race. doing justice to justice thomas. writing about associate justice appointed by george herbert walker bush in 1991. kathleen is joining us from chestnut hill, massachusetts. you.

support this white house plan. why? caller: i live in an extremely wealthy neighborhood. chestnut hill is part of brookline, mass, where jfk was born. we receive cdbg grants from hud. community block grants. they tried to renovate an old firehouse to give housing to some disabled and homeless people. and the snobs just came out and squashed it. there was some litigation. i'm not sure what the outcome was. but it -- it was sad because we could have diversified more. host: what was there public argument? caller: and they took the old firehouse and divided it into, for towwo or thre wealthy

families. ehost: what did they say in opposing this idea? caller: we have a black mayor in newton. you know, i just think there is a lot of snobbery. i'm a liberal and i love living in a liberal community. but these elements of, i hate to admit that the gentleman that called i do not think we have much issues with race as we do with poverty and that people who do not look like them. disabled. you know, because we are very very educated affluent area. lots of millionaires. a few billionaires. we are very liberal. this one thing. the project was called engine six. there was litigation. i honestly do not know how it turned up.

i have lived in this area since the early 1980's. i was really disappointed in my community, that we do a lot of talking about inclusion. and on the surface, i think that was very telling. host: racism, that was the motivating factor. caller: that is an exception. just not held -- chestnut hills, beverly hills. host: a couple weeks ago we set down with the hud secretary. he outlined the parameters of these new rules. here's a portion. [video clip] >> there was groundbreaking researcher published by a researcher out of harvard that showed that when families moved to places of higher opportunity, that especially young people have better educational and better economic outcomes. so, for us that means that we

want to see communities essentially spread their vouchers out and allow folks to get into these areas of higher opportunity. one of the things we're looking at doing now is reworking how we set the amount of the voucher so that families can get into areas that might cost more but are areas of higher opportunity, where the schools are better. access to better jobs, better transportation opportunities. it really is a matter of striking a balance between disaggregating poverty but not forgetting about somebody's most distressed neighborhoods. host: that was the hud secretary, who joined us on "newsmakers." the headline from " washington post." the obama administration unveiling implants plans for

targeting segregation, including a look at chicago. you will see comparison from the 1960's through the 1980's and today. how the chicago neighborhoods have changed becoming much more diversified but also much more separated between black and white. a full story is available online at washington post.com. gary from frederick, maryland is next. caller: good morning. i would like to point out that i live and around washington, d.c. ultra liberals all live in the swankiest of neighborhoods. you listen you should understand that people in the c-span staff live in potomac bethesda, all the beautiful outline communities. if this idea is so good, i would ask you, why won't you put a for sale sign on your potomac home and move into southeast d.c.? just go ahead and move in. you don't do it? why?

because it is not a good argument. you choose to live behind communities with high walls. donald trump equal success. he has hit a nerve and accord with america. it seems like people like sharpton, obama, julian castro from hud, and yourself, you are all talk but you do not want to live in those type neighborhoods. you all want to ram that down people's throat and together, integration. that happens naturally. you do not try to force that down anyone's throat. host: i'm trying to be clear -- caller: you send your kids to bed schools. -- bad schools. host: he hung up. thank you for the comment. we do not live in potomac but appreciate your opinions. we will go to randy in maryland. good morning. caller: so, i have a very

personal experience with this. i am a teacher in prince george's county maryland. i purchased my home through hud. and i just want to put this out there because it is such a great program. it is called the good neighbors next door. and it is a program for teachers, for cops, firefighters emt's, and the idea is to move responsible and upstanding professionals into revitalization areas. so instead of trying to move people into wealthy areas i do not think that is going to fix anything. the real issue is what are we going to do about these communities that are collapsing, are buckling under its own weight? and instead of trying to break

up pockets of wealth in communities, why not try to do more programs where you're offering incentives to young college students to mov into these neighborhoodse? i got my house for 50% off market value. i had to live in my house for three years. after which time, i can sell it for the normal price. it is called the good neighbor next-door program. host: how long have you lived in this neighborhood? caller: i'm coming up on my third year. i plan to sell my house and see what i can do from there. i'm so tired of people thinking that if you move to a white neighborhood, things are going to fix themselves. you can have a white neighborhood of a bunch of hillbillies and it can be as bad as a community an ethnic community. host: let me jump in.

when you move, if you do move, where will you move? caller: i will continue teaching. i like my community. my neighbors leave me alone. i might be the only white guy for a mile in any direction. but nobody seems to be bothered by it. i think, i don't support this initiative to break up wealthy communities. i do not think that is going to solve any problems. maybe a handful of people will benefit from being able to live in affluent communities, but what about all those other communities that are suffering? host: thanks for the call from hyattsville. setlla sa-- stella says "the president is lowering the standards of all our lives. what is a wealthy neighborhood in who is he to decide anyway?" many of you weighing in on our facebook page. this is from michael who says "he is out to destroy the white

middle-class and weaken voting districts that opposes party. nothing but a dictatorial move by the progressives to gain more congressional seats." and from ted -- "not in any politicians neighborhoods will this happen." sharon "it will never happen in his neighborhood." send your comments on facebook.com/cspan. you oppose why? caller: i oppose and i agree with those e-mails you read. my husband and i worked very hard to work into this suburbs to get a good home, good education for our children. i never, ever got a handout. no one offered me nothing. now, i do not think this is fair. i really don't. obama is forcing us, forcing everything. he puts up a racial divide in this country. it is disgusting. this is just another method to his madness.

health care, everything he does. i opposed this. i do not think it is right. i do not think it is right for white people, who work hard, and then this is going to happen. host: thank you very much for the call. vicky is next from saint augustine, florida. your view on all of this this morning to? caller: i'm calling because i used to own a condo in a neighborhood. the government required section eight housing, i'm sure you know what that is. it works well. the people who moved in did not maintain their units, but at least we had diverse the in the neighborhood. what i would like to see is if this works -- it did not work with blessing, way back when i was in high school. i remember in south

boston, they firebombed john kerry these house. the point was, move the wealthy. that is not going to happen. host: thank you for the call. a couple of headlines from "washington post," focusing on politics as marco rubio tries to broaden his approach. he is still struggling, as he lags behind jeb bush and scott walker in the polls. also, a piece on why bernie sanders is generating crowds ample numbers in iowa and new hampshire. hillary clinton to reveal a strategy to lift the middle class. a speech happening tomorrow morning.

the speech will build on the president's work, but also a slight joab. on monday, she will unveil an economic agenda and plan to lift up families. 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning on c-span. scott walker, who today will sign wisconsin's budget, this headline from "milwaukee wisconsin journal sentinel." this is a two-year plan of freezes taxes across wisconsin, as well as tuition at the state universities. it leaves for the future a lasting solution for state road funding. walker will make officials while just outside of the lucky we will have live coverage of his remarks getting underway at around 6:15 eastern time.

all of our coverage, you can follow any time on c-span.org. nathaniel from florida, good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to, and say that i really oppose this. the only reason is because listening to most colors, i grew up in a very poor rural neighborhood. i went to school, worked hard, went to college, got educated and live in sort of a middle-class neighborhood now. a very diverse neighborhood.

i have very diverse neighbors and they are really great people. i do not think you can force anybody to stay next-door to anybody and live in the same community. the problem with that -- you can see the problem with that by listening, i was just listening to some of the hatred. there is a serious racial problem in america. it is really really bad. not just homophobia, so many different things. people do not want to be forced for somebody of another race let alone another gender, two men, or two women for that

matter. people, they just want their privacy and to make the decisions about who lives next door to them. they should have that right. it is unfortunate. this is the type of country that we live in now. i think people need to get used to that. it is set. -- sad. host: tell me about the neighborhood where you live now. what is it like? caller: it is beautiful. host: is a diverse? caller: yes. jewish, white, black hispanic and everybody gets along. we come out, socialize. everybody gets along. it is great. we could be a model for the country, but that does not mean

the country looks like that. host: thank you for the call. smiley has missed tweet -- republicans think shaming the poor will get people out of poverty, though figure. how is this playing out around the country? from "quad city times," new housing rules aim at decent creating -- desegregating neighborhoods. this was all part of the fair housing act, put in place by president johnson as part of the civil rights act of 1968. it was prohibited -- a prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of drawings on basis of race,

color, and the city. it is also designed to promote fair housing choices, foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination. let me go back to this editorial from "the new york times," which points out that critics are already saying this is an example of overreach by the federal government, but really it is the basis of what the fair housing law was supposed to do in 1968, but these laws were ignored over the years, and the tragedy is this has left the country more divided than it would have been. disagree or agree with that? let's go to dwayne. we lost the call. let's go to gilbert and told the, oklahoma. you oppose it, why? caller: because i have lived there. let me tell you, i am a black person. that is the first thing i want

to be understood. in my neighborhood, it was a nice neighborhood. everything was going fine until about seven or eight years, and then someone sitting up in the ivory tower decided to send comanche children from public housing to our schools. what has happened to my neighborhood -- dresden, germany did not suffer as much are suffering here. what these people are reading, i cannot define it. for me, what i think it is is they have become dependent and not surviving. when i grew up, i lived in a community, an all-black community. the neighbors were looking out

for each other, for the children . now, my neighbors' son has broken into my house three times. one time, i came into the house and my lawnmower was gone. it has changed the school. i would not send anything, not a puppy, to the schools here. host: when you make the description of just a, germany we can all envision the pictures they came out after world war ii. describe -- when you say that reference in your neighborhood is that what it looks like today? how so? caller: i can give you an example. the next thing is section eight. these people move and and tear

up these homes, and then move out. over here -- i would not send any child under the age of 30 to the park over here where we live. you would not dare drive even close. they have filled the north side with all of these public housing. the worst thing is that the young girls draw in these people. it is horrible. you certainly would not let a child go out after dark. thank you. host: thanks for the call. from the opinion pages, first from "the washington post," the president wants to reengineer your neighborhood. from townhall, this is a headline that the new housing rules put the federal government in your neighborhood, literally.

michael is joining us from pennsylvania. caller: thank you for c-span, think you for taking my call. it is a good discussion this morning. i came from an upper scale white community, and i live now in a mix community -- mixed community. it was culture shock for me at the beginning. i have learned some things from my experience. i think there are good black neighbors and bad white neighbors, and vice versa. to be forced into doing something like this is ridiculous. it is top-down government, it is dictatorial. if there are so interested in helping blacks, why doesn't the president get behind school choice which would give these people -- it would give blacks and opportunity to get an education, and for the parents

and pad students to move into better school districts. that would be more of a freedom type thing, and much more uplifting. it would educate some of these blacks -- not just blacks, but whites also to have better schools and better opportunities. that is my comment. host: thank you from pennsylvania. holy and castro -- julian castro sent a tweet after the fair housing action. jim has this week, you want to see division, go ahead and put some section eight housing in a wealthy neighborhood. we will go next to greg in new york, good morning.

caller: thank you for taking my call, i appreciate it. the way i look at it is there are different ranges of prices of homes for people who work for that goal. people work very hard to get into certain neighborhoods because of better schools, and whatnot. these neighborhoods, these people, they are white, black, chinese, all different types but they work very hard to get into those neighborhoods. those neighborhoods mean something to those people. when you take something like public housing and put it into a neighborhood, and these people do not have any skin in the game , they do not realize the cost of what it is to get there and how hard it is to stay there. they do not have the appreciation for those neighborhoods. the best thing to do, which i

believe, is to take neighborhoods -- they tried to do this in chicago at one point -- take neighborhoods and put good, active people who are in the lower class in newer neighborhoods -- you know, where they build newer homes and support businesses, and everything else. what happened was when these people got in there they were forced -- if a mother came in their and have like two people who woere gang members and their family, they were forced to stay with the parents. it brought down everything they were trying to achieve because these people were good people, they wanted better schools, they wanted to do the right thing and the government said, no, you

cannot do that you cannot separate good people from bad people. when they do that, it destroys the whole workings of everything inside the structure. that is what you do when you try to just throw people into the neighborhood where they have not worked, they don't know how hard it is to get there, and then they are in beers of the people who live there because they still have nicer homes. host: if you hear the housing secretary, basically what he is saying is this all make a more level playing field. this will help these neighborhoods spur economic growth and diversity that they are calling for. caller: no. it's not for diversity. it is for the work ethic in this country. people have to understand that if you want to get somewhere in

life, you have to work hard in school harder in your job. if you have children, you may need to get a second or third job to pay for the kids to go to school. host: let me play the kid. if you are working hard, you can't move into the neighborhood you want because the housing is so extensive, but if there is low income housing that would allow you to do that and put your kids a better schools, that is basically what the department is saying. caller: it is only one area that you put in low income housing that is a better area today and has less crime than anywhere in the united states. if you can mention those areas where people have not moved out because there have been problems from putting lower income housing in those areas, then tell me. maybe you have examples. this has been done for i don't

know how many years, and it has never achieved its purpose. the purpose is not getting these people a better education in their own area to move up, it has been, these people have problems and nobody is addressing the problems. nobody is sitting with them after school to teach the mass and social skills. no one is doing that with these people. if you address those problems inside their own neighborhood, then these people can achieve a higher level. host: thank you for the call. another viewer agreeing with you saying with this tweet, i think they should be considered about economic development, not mixing

neighborhoods. word late last week that governor john kasich of ohio has raised $11.5 million. also news that the rubio campaign has raised millions of dollars. john kasich, scheduled to announce his can see on july to a second. tomorrow, scott walker making official just outside of milwaukee. the last call on this issue is just in from wichita falls texas. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you get the last word. caller: great. a good person to give it. basically my comment in opposition is i am all for using grant money to try to improve

the port areas by improving schools, parks, lightweight, grocery stores. that makes sense to me. what i have difficulty agreeing with is this economic growth that we are somehow going to spur in these already affluent areas by adding low income housing. by being an affluent area, i can pretty much guarantee you that they have a lot of economic growth. they probably have starbucks on every corner and home depot and lowe's across the street from each other. i do not see how economic growth will come from putting low income people in affluent areas. host: thank you for the call from texas. and all of you for your calls

and comments. the conversation continues on our facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. coming up, patrick tucker will be joining us from defense one to discuss the major outage that happen at the nyse, and some of the technical fallouts from the office of technical management. later, our sunday roundtable focusing on the rewrite of the no child left behind law. first, c-span's "newsmakers" program this week features steve israel. the house this week taking up the debate on the confederate flag. here is how the democrats intend to respond. [video clip] >> what we can do is what we did this past week. imagine that almost as they are lowering the republican fight in

south carolina, republicans make an attempt to raise the confederate flag over our national parks. why do they do that? because it is their ideology but also so they could attract enough republicans to pass a bill. the only way they could get support is by the votes of -- buy the votes of tea party republicans with a last-minute amendment. what did we do? we stopped it. we went to the floor, fox them on it, and at the end of the day not only withdraw the a mimic but the entire bill. this is an example of how the house republicans cannot govern or manage. their ideology gets in the way of everything they do. as a result, we do not have an interior appropriations bill, we

do not have a highway's bill and we're headed towards another shot down, another fiscal collapse. we will do what democrats do. we will fight them until they learn to govern efficiently and properly. >> do you think the confederate five will play it a role in the 2016 campaign? is is going to be an issue that you think democrats can fund raise off? how big of an issue do you think this will be? >> i do not think we should fund raise off of this is issue. this issue reflects a sick principles and values. if the republicans, especially the ones in the house, are going to insist on raising the confederate five when ever they can and whenever they can, we

will object to that with all the tools we have. host: just a portion of our "newsmakers" program. steve israel is the guests. he is the chair of the policy and communications commu committee. patrick tucker's technology editor for defense one. good morning. thank you for being with us. let's talk first about the office of personnel management and the cyberattack. your headline saying that china is the leading suspect in the hack. let's go through some numbers. 19.7 million people impacted. 1.8 million non-applicants also impacted. a total of about 21.5 million

current and former employees. guest: and employees. people who applied for any sort of clearance including top-secret clearance. host: including fingerprints? guest: including fingerprints. that is a tremendous breach. i've been talking to people about what that really means and who might have been behind it. different people in the administration, and around the town, will tell you different things about attribution. members of congress and the senate will be a little more local and say, we understand, it was probably china. the nsa will say, do not assume attribution to be china. the director of national intelligence said a couple weeks ago that china is the leading

suspect. at the same time, that has not been something that -- the minister should this point has formally declared, which i think is interesting. the next question becomes -- is the person or entity that took the information going to do a? are they compiling an anonymous database of people who have applied or positions within the government. it could be used in the future. it might not be used at all. host: the director has claimed that they were making great steps to make sure this has been prevented. is she a scapegoat or issued to blame? guest: i think that in many

ways, because she is the person where the buck stops, you have to say, why did you not take steps to encrypt data on the database sooner. why is there not a better program in place to analyze malware that exists in real time. that is one of the failures. there country spent close to $1 billion on an intruder inspection system. different people respond to different levels of urgency there are around them. this was not a priority for government. host: based on what you have been able to report on, how was th easy was it? guest: at this point, they're thinking you had to have some sort of nationstate support to develop malware at this level of

sophistication. einstein three, which is the system that opm was using to detect intrusions failed. what the malware did is it basically mimicked rail traffic in real-time. it was sophisticated. host: why would china want this information? guest: there are lots of things they could do with it. i talked to a former cia director and he said that a lot of information could be used in a lot of different ways to reach out to intelligence professionals, and in many ways, look more familiar to them to kind of scam them. the real value of this might be for what is called social

ingenuity. learning about different people who operate within the levels of government, and convincing them that you might be a trusted entity when you reach out them through e-mail, messaging, or perhaps in real life. perhaps you know where someone went to school, you might know pets names. that was one of the things that the cia person told me. of course, that is only what you would use for in nationstate that has a very specific idea in mind. at the point which this becomes b part of a broader scheme, then you are stealing identity. at some point, the stolen data

becomes more detectable online. obviously, it becomes a little easier -- if it is merely filling out a database, then we are not exactly sure how or when this information would be used. host: patrick tucker will be with us until the bottom of the hour. we welcome your phone calls. we do have a line set aside if you are a current or former government employee. the number to call is (202) 745-8002. otherwise, we are divided the lines regionally. for those of you in the eastern or central time zones, (202) 748-8000. for the mountain and coast (202) 748-8001. here is what james komi had to say about the hack and how widespread it is. , it is in a norm and a huge amount of data that is personal and sensitive to federal

employees, former federal employees, people who applied for federal appointment was available to the adversary. we have to assume that it was looked at. we are talking of millions of millions of people affected by this. the challenge is -- i'm sure the adversary has my for now. it lists every place i have lived since i was 18, every foreign travel i have taken, all of my family, their addresses. it is not just my family that is affected. i have siblings, five kids. all of that is in there. the numbers quickly go far beyond the number of federal employees. it is a very very big number. it is a huge deal. host: an admission from the director. patrick tucker? guest: something that has been

really interesting about the director he appeared before the senate intelligence committee and was pulled into a question about the scandal by mark warner . his original intent of being at that committee hearing was to argue against the use of encryption and different steps that different commercial companies have taken to safeguard information in transit from companies and their devices, and the clients. apple, google, facebook, they now offer those services. what he was there to argue against is the allowance of that. he says that user encryption gets in the way of law enforcement investigation of groups like i ssis.

at the same time, user data is not encrypted on the database. they are not the same issue, but they are related. what this shows is we have not begun to think about all this for ways that we interact with this to elegy, and that is true on the consumer level, and also at some of the highest levels of government. host: could the president have been impacted? guest: if he filled out one of these forms, yes. it is not impossible to assume that he has filled one out. the president is not going to be subject to identity theft or fraud. people sort of knows who barack obama is. he is guarded enough that i do not think it will have any personal effect on him.

the real roman foldable topics is that the -- travel is listed. those people show up on these forms too, and in terms of national security, is the biggest problem. host: harold is up next from florida. caller: i would just like to point out that i am independent, taxpayer and 65. there seems to be a problem with is the administration in particular that all we do is apologize and this happens again, again, and again. several people said to be more concerned on a day-to-day basis.

i will take the response of the air. guest: i think that is certainly a feeling that is felt by letters from people who are watching this play out, thinking of the ramifications. it is clear now that there are couple of things that could have been done to make this information more safe. the thing about personal data as it is entered into any computer system, no matter your political party, there is one ability everywhere. if data is collected, it will be used. if it is used, it becomes warbled. that is something that independence, democrats, republicans -- it affects pretty much everyone.

it is the way information moves and the 21st century. host: caf au lait has this point -- catherine has this point. of course, that was not the case in lower manhattan. guest: you have this enormous grounding of the u.s. grounding fleet. long enough to cause serious alarm. three hours after that, the u.s. stock is strange essentially closing down for more than two hours. it alarmed a lot of people. it is not that the stock exchange does not have backups. in many ways, one of the best diagnostic forensic pieces i have read about this said that a software developer rushed to put

software into these complex systems, put it over -- you are dealing with a lot of legacy software, and software for which the source code is a mistreat. it is technological band-aids to systems that are vital. they run continuously at high rates of speed without any understanding of what they can sustain. you can teach redundancy and resiliency so that in an event of an outage, you are prepared. that continues to operate here. at the same time, we demand more from the source of systems --

this sort of systems. host: a quick follow-up from monty, is there a 100% secure cyberspace, hackers tools seem to be evolving at a high speed. guest: that is something that the director was upset about. if there are, they want us to portray a larger cyberspace. we have agencies that are almost dedicated to eventually crack in itt. having said that, there are tools that you can use to communicate much more safely and anonymously. one was developed by the navy to allow people to communicate

while remaining anonymous. this has become a tool used by dissidents and journalists, but also bright child pornographers, criminals, really anybody can use it. many people in the technology community argue that tools like that help to keep the internet safer because it prevents future hackers. it also, i think the director would say totally secure internet innovation. host: our guest is patrick tucker. chris is a federal employee who lives in ssi, maryland. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i'm hoping the guest can and let the audience on some information that was in the "wall street journal" last month that part of this problem is federal

employees from behind the firewall being able to go to their personal gmail or yahoo! imo accounts -- e-mail accounts. "the wall street journal" article basically said that the government tried, several years ago, to eliminate this. the federal union went to court and the court ruled in favor so that people like me would continue to have access to personal gmail accounts. that is how i understand article. i wondering -- i'm wondering if your guests can clarify or enlighten us in that area of discussion. host: thank you. guest: i have not read that particular article, but this is an ongoing concern in ensuring information security across

networks. it speaks to sort of the way we use technology now. you skip between different you know accounts. you may have devices. youthe 10 tatian to not move from one account that you know a specific for that device to another one, that 10 tatian is too great. i think it is completely understandable that that happens with people with dedicated devices. i know i am surrounded by devices and i'm checking all of my accounts all the time on all of them. i'm not sure what the conclusion the op-ed writer reached.

devices like the recent apple phone are so important because that is what allows somebody with a device with a personal account and federal accounting use all that in the same place. that would be the argument in favor. we are not exactly sure what the vector was on this particular attack. it was discovered long after it began, long after the malware was in the system. again, we have not even been able to know really who or what entity was behind this. knowing exactly what federal employee did what to open the floodgates, i think that will be a mystery for a little while longer. host: you can follow patrick tucker at defenseone.com. richard is joining us from suggested -- is joining us from

massachusetts. caller: on the seafront like a show, there was a reporter -- on a show, there was a reporter, and hopefully he will write about it saying that there are businesses that do not have cyber qualities that the federal government has. also, on the board of these people were several generals. my question would be -- i hope that you people look into the real situation, and not to use people as scapegoats just to satisfy your ego. host: thank you. we'll get response. guest: this problem will persist

, and it has persisted before. in terms of the effect that larger businesses have on nationwide cyber security, this remains a debate between obama administration. many people say what would be best would be to have a mandate that different companies report different malware intrusions to the government, and then the government can from dhs, share the information much more broadly. right now, there are opportunities to do it voluntarily, that mandate does not exist. there is a lot of discussion between big businesses and government about exactly how to pursue, as a nation, better cyber security. businesses would prefer that the government provide cyber security as a service to really all businesses, and particularly those associated with

infrastructure. the government says that is unrealistic unless we can figure out some of these issues. if you are a company and reportedly breached, and you do not have liability protection, you potentially face a big selloff. it will not be good for the bottom line. host: let me follow up. you talked about united airlines earlier. what happened? why did that result in the airline shutting down operations for several hours? guest: what we are hearing is it was a router issue. it is not one associated with how you would book a reservation online. that was my original thesis. you can gain the system for affai fares. you can run different searches on different airlines and discover fuel surcharges, and

different fares. what we know is one single router, connected to the reservation system triggered human responses. there was nothing wrong with the planes or nothing wrong mechanically. the reservation system outage caused them to say, we cannot verify people showing up on the gate are not on a no-fly list, we cannot verify. they alerted the faa, and the faa stopped it. the idea that a single router is the culprit is kind of comical, but it is not the same tim -- it is the fact that it happened the same time as the outage on wall street. host: you think it is a

coincidence? guest: here is the thing. this particular one, at this point in time, appears to be a coincidence. that is what we are hearing. the online reservation system is a vector of an attack because as i mentioned, you can use it to gain fares. that will be a continual concern . at some point, if you break it in any particular way, you trigger human response, which is that entire airline is routed for the time being. i think in many ways the same is true for the new york stock exchange. you can gain it and all the high velocity trading out rhythms for short-term gain. this is something that wall street firms engage in legally and there are ways to do it

illegally. in many ways, it has been claimed on the 2012 stock market flash crash -- 2010 stock market flash crash. both of these things really show that these systems, that we all use a lot, they are going to be the subject of continual low-level intrusion attempts, no matter what we do. there are ways to manipulate them to make sure going into them for short-term monetary gain. it is to be expected. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. our guest is patrick tucker of defense one. we are focusing on cyber threats and vulnerabilities of u.s. technology. you can get more information online. don is joining us from

scandinavia, wisconsin, a federal employee. current or former? caller: for mer. i was in the washington, d.c. area when i was with the government. host: go ahead with your question. caller: mr. tucker, it is more of a comment. it is the way the government works. right now the mission has not been to go out there and find the most co competent people. they look to diversify the workforce, so they have to have so many people of different ethnic backgrounds, or male and female -- the government keeps a quote account -- quota count on these things. i kind of watch this a little bit on some of c-span's former

coverage. there was a lady who just resigned. i do not remember the numbers. there was one who was the cio. you would have no context to interview, but the way she answered the questions, it is obvious that she was over her head. they had another young lady, by think she was a contractor. you can tell, the way she qualified the answers to her questions, she knew what she was talking about, but she was not the person making the decision. host: you are talking about catherine archuleta, correct? caller: she is the one who resigned. but, there was a person who resigned -- i don't remember. guest: that sounds familiar. i know in her comments, catherine archuleta has said she has full confidence of the cio

. the name escapes me at the moment. i cannot speak to whether or not a government focus on diversity has any role to play in this. i do not think it does. i certainly know that in the private sector you find ceos who are over their head on a regular basis. this was preventable but the best thing that hindsight gives us is how it was preventable. this was a concerted effort by some nationstate to create an incredibly sophisticated piece of malware for a specific purpose. on the one hand, we should be expecting that. on the other hand, if we had protected this from this particular hack, then you have to assume that data collected will get out.

on the one hand, while the feelings of frustration directed at opium are legitimate, there's something legitimate about them there are a lot of gaps in the way that office communicated with people. the fact that just last week catherine archuleta was saying -- or even just a few days ago, that she did not say she would resign and then she did resign. the growing number of the numbers -- to go from 4 million people affected to 21.5. in many ways, perhaps you can play the thing -- resolve the whole thing with communication. if you start with the idea that at least 21.5 million people were affected on day one, i

think political events would have played out differently. host: another federal employee on the line. the morning. caller: i wanted to make in general,. i'm looking at a letter that i received i presume all federal employees received. my concern is that, of course in this letter, that all affected individuals, whether involved or not will have insurance and access to full identity restoration provided until 2017. i've read that and thought, that means that after that day, if something were to happen, we are essentially on our own? what is also interesting in the letter is that pretty much any issues of liability is a matter

of coverage by this letter or essentially, nothing of the letter is construed to mean that the government is accepting liability. in the essay concerning. all i can do is hold my breath and keep my fingers crossed. it is very disheartening to know that they are looking out for us up to $1 million through two dozen 17, but what happens if something were to occur with individuals information after that date? host: when did you get the letter? caller: i guess i got this may be one month or so ago. it allows you to go online to establish that you want protection. the letter also says that if you do not, you automatically have the coverage.

i went in, made a password, and allows me to periodically check if there have been changes to my account. it is very disheartening. it makes you angry. i am like, really? there are people on the street who probably do a better job of protecting our information. you have these high-end hackers -- i say the government ought to pull them in to get them to figure out ways to protect our information. it is very disheartening. very scary. guest: i think that is a really valid frustration felt by a lot of people. you provide some insurance because that is what you have decided you can afford, because that is the level of risk demanded -- i do not know what

the legal ramifications for opm. you can imagine a class-action lawsuit and damages resulting from this. it is hard to say. i think, at the same time, the question of how to protect personal information is put on a form, really one of startling things about this case is if you gave opm any information, it is out there with everything else. more broadly speaking, how to protect information in the world that we now live in where we are creating more information on this exponentially by the day. it is not one that we deal with in an honest way. the goal becomes to decrease and destroy the value of information almost at the moment that it is taken.

one of the things that maybe the government is doing now is go through the data they know were copied and reduce it to cryptographic hashhing. as it makes its way onto parts of the dark web -- it becomes limited as a stolen item. of course, you cannot change or association, your past, or your social security number, but you can change your password, and what e-mail you use. those are all good steps to take . it is certainly worth looking at your friends' habits to make

sure that your information is not being used to imitate an identity online. of four chile, this is just a fact of life now for 20 he won .5 million people. host: let's go to the torilla in -- victoria in virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to piggyback on the left caller's question. i am a small business owner exclusively my clientele is the government. we have our own data and employees data in these databases in order to gain clearance to work for the government. i was interested to hear that federal employees may have gotten a letter telling them how to check credit reports and have coverage for liability. my business has not been communicated with at all.

i guess my question to follow up on that is to you have any idea given on my exposure and liability coverage to my employees. guest: the website on this is continually being updated. i imagine more notifications will go out. i also cannot tell you whether or not you will receive one. if you have filled out some of the term forms online, there are different -- one being for top-secret clearance with the most information on it, but there are different ones. it is reasonable to expect that your business was in some way affected. if you filled out any form, i think you should assume at this

point that you have been compromised in some way. and you take cautions to limit the damage done by that exposure. host: our next caller is a federal employee. lori, good morning. caller: my only comment is that i believe that opmd director archuleta resign. i'm sorry, i do not think that is an appropriate response. i see she should be facing criminal charges. really overseeing this disaster and then throwing up and answer saying, you know what, i will go home. i think we really need to look at some criminal charges for her. guest: guest: i think at some point there will be lawsuits because

there will be damages. the question of whether or not the extent of her blame, her negligence, and the size of this challenge, this is something even i cannot keep in perspective well. the value stored was incredibly valuable. there were a lot of different things that could have been done to protect it. encrypting data on the database, even though some say that would not have made as large a difference here because it was a socially engineered intrusion that is free basic cybersecurity 101 -- pretty basic cybersecurity 101. it is impossible to know internal conversations at o.p.m. it is impossible to know what sort of support they were realizing from these efforts in particular. i am somewhat hesitant to lay the full blame on director

archuleta, although she did resign. the size of this task is monumental. it is something that is going to be placed on the shoulders of the next opm director. it is not going to get smaller. host: patrick tucker, thank you for stopping by. if they want to follow you on twitter, how can they do so? guest: @deskpat. host: next we will focus on the no child left behind law now coming under criticism. it has been eight years since they reauthorized. our roundtable will be looking at the rewrite. later, michael regan will join us to discuss the latest on the debt crisis in greece. negotiations continuing in brussels. also, the chinese markets and how this might impact your own investments. you are watching and listening to c-span's "washington journal" on this sunday morning, july 12.

we are back in a moment. guest:[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the author on trends and technology, the millennial generation, and how political parties are fine for this crucial voting bloc. >> the east to be folks were focused on television, so political advertising became heavily the technology has changed.

now if you walk into a room a 60-year-olds, they are looking at their phones. for those in the political world who want to understand what the future will look like. whatever the latest game is, candy crush may be fading in popularity, that there is always something new popping up. finding ways to get your message in front of people where they are paying attention is important. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> next weekend two major political events from iowa. we are the only place you can watch or listen to these events in their entirety. friday night, we will be live in cedar rapids for the hall of fame dinner. it will mark the first time all five democratic presidential candidates share the same stage.

all day saturday, we will be live for the family leadership summit where nine leading republican president candidates are scheduled to speak. c-span's "road to the white house" 2016, we take you there. >> book tv is television for serious readers. join us next saturday starting at 11:00 eastern for our all-day live coverage of the harlem book fair, the flagship african american literary event featuring the historian and journalist. on sunday, august 2 the author and code pink cofounder. saturday, september 5, we are live for the national book festival celebrating its 15th year. followed on sunday by our life index program with former second lady and senior fellow at the

american enterprise institute, lynne cheney. that is a view of the upcoming live programs on c-span two's2's book tv. "washington journal" continues. host: the rewrite on the no child left behind law we want to welcome nina rees, the author of the key legislation. now president and c.e.o. the national alliance for public charter schools, which is what? guest: we are the national advocacy arm of the charter school movement. we do most of our work at the federal level to boost the level of funding. we also do a lot of work at the state level. we have 43 states with charter school laws. we are active in the seven states that don't have laws but also active in states that have weak laws to make sure we are creating a climate where climate schools can thrive. host: we also have the vice president for the alliance for

excellent education. guest: we are a national organization based in d.c. we use research to develop policy recommendations and translate those into legislative, regulatory recommendations on capitol hill. we focus mainly on secondary schools. host: would have one line if you are a teacher, educator administrator. let's go back to 2002. here is when president bush signed into law the no child left behind act. president bush: the first way to solve a problem is to diagnose it. this bill says every child can learn. we want to know early before it is too late, whether a child has a problem learning. i understand taking tests are not fun. too bad. [laughter] president bush: we need to know

whether children have got the basic education. host: a lot of applause. you were part of the legislation. the last eight years, it has not been reauthorized by congress. a lot of questions to the point of the president's remark about taking a test. that is the most effective way to determine if a child is exceeding or not. guest: absolutely. one of the greatest attributes is the annual testing in reading and math and now in elementary middle school, and science -- high school in science. these provisions will stay in place in the house version of the bill passed last week and the senate legislation introduced. despite the angst around testing, what gets measured gets done. to the extent students are taking more and better tests, we have more -- better information about what it takes to raise achievement and close the achievement gap.

host: critics say teachers are teaching for the test, not to teach. guest: i think a number of high-quality public schools and public charter schools and even private schools, those teachers will know that subjects well. their teaching to the test every day. the challenge before us is better teacher training to make sure teachers understand the content well enough to have it appear you are not teaching to the test and encouraging learning. guest: we need tests that are worth teaching to. tests under the no child left behind law are largely measuring low-level skills. what we need are tests that are now being put in place in most states that measure the skills needed for the 21st century economy. the need for annual data, we need to know how well our kids are doing.

so that is why the annual testing is important. it is also important to understand the angst around tests, the degree it comes at the result of too much testing the federal law does not require that much testing. when you were in school, how many did you take in a year? the federal law requires a test in math, english once a year for grades three through eight. was in high school. and one test in science in elementary, middle school, and high school. we need to differentiate what is required by the fed and what is layered on top at the state and local level. host: let's get to phone calls. sissy is an educator from baltimore. your take on this? caller: i am a retired special educator from baltimore city. i want to say the children have

already said one test or three tests do not define who we actually are. the children are bombarded by test after test. all they do in the beginning of the year starting in september is teach children how to take a test. the curriculum is way off. nobody is learning anything. the teachers are under tremendous stress because there are penalties if you do not comply. the bottom line to all of this is the destruction of the public school system. i want to ask one question. what kind of country do we want to have if we do not have an educated populace? that is the danger of the whole thing.

the public school system should be improved. it cannot be done by testing. it has got to be done by highly qualified teachers, a rigorous curriculum, attention to all children's needs, particularly these children failing in math, the arts, physical education. all of these things particularly arts and music, are being taken away. host: thank you. i will get a response. phillip lovell. guest: i think the color is saying we have too much testing. equally important is a comprehensive approach to education. it needs to be made up of more than tests. the number one factor in how well a kid will perform is how well their teacher is able to teach.

that is obviously a critical issue. hopefully, the new law will help to support that. the reality is in order to improve the nation's schools we need a lot of things to happen at the same time. we need to support teachers. need higher quality curriculum. tests are part of the picture but not the complete picture. host: this is the headline as congress is getting ready to get rid of the no child left behind, changing in the senate version two the every child achieves act. the bill would end the need for states to get waivers for no child left behind. it would require states to create their own accountability systems. provide grants to help states and districts for schools. maintain standardized testing but end the federal accountability. provide resources to support teachers and educators and

incentivizing the adoption of standards. basically, getting more to state and local school districts. guest: one point the caller made is the consequences to testing. one area where no child left behind failed perhaps is by being too prescriptive on what would happen if a school is not making adequate yearly progress. you have too many schools that have failed to reach the bars they needed to reach. this notion you will use the test to label a teacher as a poor performing teacher or a school as a poor performing school has had a a greater backlash. host: you wrote this essay saying don't throw the testing out with the bathwater. guest: exactly. as a parent, i value the fact at the end of the year i get a report card that tells me how well my child is doing and how well the teacher taught her the basic skills in math and reading. i think you want to have that as an element.

but you don't want it to be the only element that determines the quality of your school and teacher. guest: when no child left behind past, it put a lot of weight in the federal camp around not just the tests but what happens as a result of the tests. if kids do not meet goals for two years in a row, the federal law prescribes a fairly rigid regimen of corrective actions that would take place. from tutoring to public school choice corrective action restructuring. i think the challenge we now have is the pendulum has swung the other direction of being very loose on what the feds require, to the point of having limited safeguards for low income kids and students of color. the challenge will be whether congress can come up with a middle road approach that provides states and extracts --

districts the flexibility they need to improve schools while also making sure something happens when schools are low performing. right now, there are over 1000 high schools where 1/3 the kids to not graduate on time. something should be done when the schools continue to have this graduation rate. the senate bill is up in the air. the house bill is even more up in the air. host: the article by our guest nina rees, saying don't protesting out with the bathwater. if no child left behind is changed, testing should remain. good morning. caller: amen to the first caller. she said something very poignant and to the point. charter schools come to fruition only because the majority of the state funding is taken from the

trust fund or pocket money of where the money goes for the public schools. unfortunately, the majority of these major tests everybody takes, especially the new part test that costs a lot of money. local municipalities and states are burdened with paying for that because the federal government has sewed up most of their pockets for money. host: thank you. guest: on the funding for assessment it is important to understand when no child left behind was written and those tests became required, the federal government does pony up cash to cover the costs to the tune of $400 million a year. that is not to say it coveralls -- covers all of the cost. that is to say this is not an unfunded mandate. guest: on the charter school question new jersey is one of

the melrose -- most robust charter school area of the country. we firmly believe charter schools are public schools and funds should follow students to the school that best meets their needs and demands of the families. i think shifting the cost so we are more focused on were children under -- are going is important. charter schools receive only $.70 of every one dollar that follows kids to the traditional system. right now, you are getting more bang for the buck if you send your child to a charter school because the remaining amount stays in public schools. host: the effort is being led by lamar alexander, the chair of the education committee. the senate will continue debate this week on legislation. here is what he said last week on the senate floor. lamar alexander: this has been a

good day. i appreciate the senators coming to the floor. it has been interesting to hear. some senators have different opinions on some issues, but there is a consensus that runs through this debate. it runs through the democratic side as well as the republican side. we have a consensus about the need to fix no child left behind and a consensus about how to do it. host: legislation did pass in the house. what can we expect in the senate? guest: i think we will see a senate vote that is much more bipartisan. the vote in the house was not just party line. it was razor thin, the bare minimum needed to pass the bill. when the bill was brought up in the house the first time, they had to take it off the floor because they did not have the votes to pass it. on the senate side, they took a bipartisan approach. the bill is not perfect. i think it is far from perfect. but it will get a much larger vote. host: there are differences

between the bills. guest: the house bill leaves basically everything up to states. it includes the provision talking about allowing funds some portability. others refer to it in other terms. the white house is clear they feel it takes money away from poor kids and gives it to more affluence schools. that is one of the major reasons the white house threatened her house bill. the senate bill does not include that provision. when senator alexander tried to include that in the bill, the amendment failed. the senate bill provides a slightly more specific accountability structure. but it is still very much up to states what schools will be identified for improvement and what they will have to do. that will be a major sticking point this week. host: based on the closeness of the house vote and the

differences between the house and senate bill, will be reauthorized? guest: we hope so. it has been quite some time since we have had the show bipartisanship in the senate. the bill in the senate passed committee without opposition. the fact you have senator alexander, a former secretary of education, banding with senator patty murray who has a track matter -- track record of being able to negotiate deals is a positive momentum behind us. we think it will hopefully pass the senate and go to the president before the end of the year before the next year which is an election year. as you mentioned earlier the law has not been reauthorized in eight years. 42 states have waivers from the u.s. department of education. they are doing things differently because the requirements were too difficult for them to abide by. their will continue to be a lot of debate around testing and

accountability at a time when we need to have a greater focus on meeting the needs of poor students. i think this congress is poised to pass it. hopefully, they can come to the table to rectify differences. host: nina rees is the president and c.e.o. of the national alliance for public schools. phillip lovell is the vice president of the alliance for excellent education. jean is next on the independent line. caller: i want to talk about something i have not heard enough said, that is about achievement in students being the focus of the discussion. i am a former school board member. i saw this widely in my time in educational policymaking and thinking. students never become the center of the discussion. it is all about the adults. there are 230,000 students in new jersey referred to special education for language-based learning issues. 80% are dyslexics.

if you expand those statistics nationally, you can see a large problem. that his language-based learning. dyslexia is for most of those problems. these statistics are just those that fail enough to be labeled into special education. these are students already two years behind or more. there are many more children that struggle and never get referred for special education. this is the basis for the lack of achievement, student dropouts, and failures even post secondary, those that do graduate. why is none of the discussion about these kids that never learn to read? our teachers are not trained to educate dyslexic students in college preparation. they are not given professional development. except now in some states, including new jersey, some laws have been passed to for schools to do this. but why are educators especially the leaders, the

department of education personnel, why are they not training teachers to teach kids to read? host: thank you for pushing that issue on the table. and will get a response. -- we will get a response. guest: reading first goal was to empower and offer funding to states for them to identify reading disabilities early on and come up with prescriptive methods of teaching readings. of course, the program is no longer around. but i agree that identifying learning disabilities early and coming up with good professional development or other types of school services can meet the needs of those students as early as possible, it is the best way to adjust -- address the achievement gap. this can be addressed at a early age, but they have to be detected at the right time. guest: there is federal support for this. it is not as well-known.

there is now -- there was a program called striving leaders comprehensively literacy program. it was funded for the last five years. it only received about $169. only six states benefited. in the senate, senator murray has made sure there is an emphasis on reading. it is called the learn act. in the fns genius of our friends in congress, it eliminated the striving leaders funding, the federal government's sole source of funding for literacy. they eliminated it. the pending bills in the house and senate, we hope that changes. an important point on this is we need to identify early entry early, but we also need to

remember reading cap in the hat is different from reading catcher in the right. we need to support literacy throughout their time in school. host: from connecticut, when is next -- gwen is next. caller: i am a parent of color in connecticut. i am listening to the reauthorization. we are talking about high-quality charters. we have to think about accountability across the board. every school, whether charter or traditional or magnet, needs to be high standard. every school needs to be held accountable for student-centered planning. -- learning. charters are just part of the solution. also cool's are not created equal, just like charters -- all

schools are not created equal just like charters. i am looking at the language past where states have all this autonomy. i agree local districts need to have autonomy. i do believe states should have autonomy. with the problem becomes what happens with the schools -- when the schools leadership, and educators are not held accountable for the roles they play. host: a viewer tweeted with this saying it allows for kids access to more affluent schools and watch the achievement gap narrow. guest: charter schools are held accountable to the same tests. there are not different standards for charter schools. one of the things we have been trying to do with our friends in connecticut and other places is make sure we are raising the bar

on charter schools by making sure we are closing the poorest performing schools and replicating the successful ones. i agree with the caller. i think giving access to low income families to schools that are more socioeconomically diverse is one way to make sure we are addressing the achievement gap. guest: i want to make sure you know you are well represented in the senate when it comes to accountability for low income kids. senator chris murphy, when the committee was discussing the law, he offered an amendment and had to withdraw it because he did not have the votes to pass it. would his amendment would have done is make sure when students of color and low income kids when kids who have been traditionally underserved, when they do not meet state set goals, something happens. it is not rocket science. it is common sense.

hopefully, we will have some policy passed on the senate floor this week to move us in that direction. host: you can join the conversation on twitter. james saying i hated essay questions, but i realize there critical to determine if a child has a grasp of the language. here is more from the house debate this past week. the democratic congressman from colorado. [video clip] >> there is not a lot more to say with regards to the positive provisions of the bill. what i want to talk about one of the biggest shortcomings getting accountability right. we can all agree no child left behind did not get accountability right. but the answer is to move forward and make accountability work, not to take a step backwards, which is what this bill does, by having this guiding principles defining targets and accountability. is this bill were to become law states would not be required to set performance targets based on student proficiency or

graduation rates. the bill does not define low performing schools, nor does it established parameters for intervention when we know a school is not working. one of the most compelling things we can do here in washington is equipped local superintendents with the toolbox they need to help turn around persistently failing schools. this bill fails to do that. host: the debate in the house last week. it narrowly passed and goes to the senate this week. charlotte is next from florida on the democrats line. caller: i'm calling, a long time advocate with regard to education and community involvement. so, here in florida, we have 2.7 million children in our public k-12. we have opportunity voucher scholarships, that is what they have been called, for around

61,000 children. so, that kind of gives you low income minority population of about 59%. so we are looking at a 60-40 percentage of low income minority children to the public structure. and i keep hearing the word "accountability," rather than "achievement." and also the word "assessment" being brought forward. i think that we have parents who understand this. this is a ground swell of parent understanding that is coming forward of not shaming and blaming the game of school grading of our children. host: you want to respond? guest: well, i don't know what the question was, but the caller

is from a state that has had a lot of experience with accountability. when governor bush was the governor of florida, put in place a whole host of reforms focused on reading accountability choice and he put together something a lot of other states have adopted. as a result, the achievement levels because of these accountability levels, the student achievement levels of low income students and minority students in florida has risen over time. the other thing that governor bush put in place, which we are great -- grateful for, is a robust research data system. one of the reasons we like the annual testing provisions of no child left behind is that it empowers states to be able to look at see what works and what doesn't and then make sure resources are allocated to those things that actually work.

guest: i think a major point that the caller is making is that we need to do something besides shaming and blaming our schools, and i agree. we need to identify and support. i think within the senate bill, we have made some progress on the support and. -- end. it is on the identify end where there are some issues. speaking of florida, when you look at the details of that system and other systems throughout the country, whether or not those systems are truly transparent i think comes into question. a number of kids -- the proficiency rates are in the 60's. there are 50 high schools in a -- florida who had a's, but a third of the kids are not graduating. so we need to make sure that these systems are truly transparent so we are

identifying the right schools. host: gallup has done a recent survey on how many americans here education and the responsibility or wall of the federal government. it is available online at gallup.com. they prefer local school boards over federal government by a rate of 56% to 15%. stevensville, maryland. good morning. the republican line. caller: good morning. i believe the content of the test is important, not english american history, critical thinking science, is being important. kids aren't being taught how to read cursive writing, so one day there will be no one left that can read the original founding document. i think also that there is too much emphasis placed on sex at, homosexuality -- ed homosexuality, transgender

information. this sharing with the children is not necessary, that can be done in the home. and that is where the federal government needs to step out. it leads me to believe that there is some sort of an obsession with making sure that children get the central education -- sexual education. thank you. host: thank you for the call. guest: the first comment that the caller is making is really important -- as we were discussing at the top of the hour -- the need for higher quality assessment. a very well reputable recent organization, the rand organization, did an analysis and found that very few of them along the lines of 2% of the reading tests, for example measured higher-order skills. i completely agree that we need to make sure that we have high-quality assessments.

that assessments are the only thing driving education. and that there are federal resources, as another caller had said earlier, federal resources to help cover the costs of those things. host: let's go to to reset -- to reset next in new york. caller: good morning. the original intent of the elementary and secondary education act was to equalize educational opportunity and achievement. what we understand that, then we need to look at what is going on now. measuring what we already know about academic performance at have no for a long time, academic performance is directly related to socioeconomic status, combined wealth ratio. graduation rate is at all-time high. no one is mentioning that. public schools now, because of the testing, are narrowing their curriculum to the detriment of a well-rounded education that includes critical thinking.

not only in math and english-language arts and science, but also in social studies, which seems to be getting short shifted, music, and art that make for a well-rounded education. when we talk about accountability, there are many different ways we can measure how well a child is doing. we do get report cuts. we got report cuts are in i was in school. we know the kids -- how the kids are doing from the teacher's perspective. other measures could include portfolio work, which shows what a student does over the course of the year. in terms of charter schools, it is important to remember that charter schools can reject anyone that they like. and when you look at the statistics, the number of special education students and number of english-language learners are significantly below. and when you look at the consumer are excepted, they tend to be of the higher achieving. host: tracy, a number of issues on the table. guest: charter schools are

public schools. i cannot turn students away. if they have more students -- there are some charter schools that are perhaps not accepting students. we need to know which target schools those are so we can have a conversation with them, but they are public schools and the had to accept all students. and because they had to cater to the needs of families, most of the family to have attracted over the years have been low income families and minority families. they happen to because and treated primarily in low income communities around the country. some states actually require that first and foremost, they meet the needs of low income students will be located in those areas. i take issue with the caller's assessment of charter schools. in terms of the other questions around socioeconomics, i agree and i think one of the best ways to assure that we get the socioeconomic diversity or that

it allows students to actually achieve at high standards is to give them a good education. make sure that they not just graduate from high school, but that they also go to college. this is one area where our high-end dv -- achieving -- high achieving charter schools -- they are now tracking not only whether students are going to college, but making sure that their students are graduating from college and moving into the workforce. i think ultimately to end the cycle of poverty, education is definitely one of the key components. a lot of charter schools have demonstrated that with a good, solid days of education, you can move the students out of poverty. host: nina rees and phillip lovell let's get a call from delaware. an educator. good morning. good morning, are you with us? lost the call so let's go to

mitchell, from tennessee. caller: hello? host: go ahead, mitchell. caller: however you this morning? host: we are fine, thank you. caller: -- [indiscernible] when you don't know the lord, how are you going to go ahead and learn how to read and do what the lord says. prayers were taken out of school, guns and drugs were put in to schools. children need to learn how to read the lord and follow christ. host: thank you, michel. guest: i want to respond to the previous caller's ideas. you are right. the nation has finally hit a graduation rate above 80% and that should be celebrated. but we also need to remember that the graduation rate is now

81%. that means one out of five kids don't graduate on time. imagine if one out of five cell phones didn't work. or if one out of five times people go to starbucks, they are out of coffee. there would be a national uproar. the fact that one out of kids is not graduating is not getting the attention that it deserves. there are 1235 high schools across the country that a third of kids don't graduate on time. that is crazy. there is no way to be able to sustain america's leadership and global economy if we are not able to graduate our kids. so hopefully the house and senate bills will have a stronger emphasis on the low graduation rates. host: and the low graduation rate is primarily where? guest: it is across the country, but concentrated in a handful of

states. vermont, new hampshire, for example. other states have more. new york, california, arizona. so they are spread across the -- but interestingly, this is a solvable problem. these high schools only represent 6% of the nation's high schools. right now, the house and the senate bills, they just leave it open to chance. whether or not the schools are going to receive the attention that they need in the community. senator warren offered an amendment that would ensure the schools are identified and included the accountability system. that they are provided support. we hope that some policy like this is included in the senate bill. host: nick is joining us from tennessee. good morning. caller: ok. can you hear me? host: we sure can. caller: look, i work in a facility where we give out

samples of food just to demonstrate. when my father immigrated to this country your germs can take your as far as -- yesterday, i asked a little boy what he likes about school. he said, sports, math, and he gets a free lunch. get the federal government out of our lives. let us educate our children. hillary clinton said it takes a village to raise a child. what she really means is parents and relatives are too stupid and incompetent to raise their children. they keep pushing and pushing. we didn't even have to government. we did find -- didn't have kindergarten. we have a 10th amendment to the constitution. we are on the road to tyranny and part of it is for the

federal government to control our children more and more. host: thank you for the call. we get the essence of your comment. that really goes to the core debate we saw in the house. guest: there are different point of view on this issue when, in 1965, lyndon b. johnson put into place the education act, his goal was to close the achievement gap. over time, one of the things we noticed that as they put more and more money into the program and by trusting states and localities, student achievement wasn't necessarily going up. i would say most communities, it is probably fine to trust their localities. but in some communities, because the electorate is not active, the individuals making decisions about schools are not necessarily invested in the high-performance of the school. i think it is extremely important for the federal government to have a strong role in addressing these issues and empowering, quite frankly,

families to exercise options and have some sort of voice and a discussion because otherwise you are ignoring the voice of the students and you won't necessarily know the impact of your reforms until the student has dropped out of school and it is too late. host: and this from our viewer, saying, get back to the basics. is it about passing students were educating? college is not for everyone. guest: i believe that every student should have the opportunity to go to college. whether or not the child and their family decides to go to college is up to them. but the decision whether or not they should go in should not be the cousin and i prepared. that is why some states have adopted standards that will prepare students for college and careers. and that is the goal of the house and senate bill, to make sure kids are ready for post secondary education and the workforce. enter what is the appropriate

federal world, i think that is -- roe, i think that is the -- role i think that is the thing we have to get right. no child left behind went to far. it was too prescriptive and required very sanctions. unless we have some safeguards provisions that lbj had in mind and has really been the basis of the act, it will not be filled. this law is a civil rights law. it needs to have civil rights protections in it. right now, the house bill and the senate bill will fall short in this regard. there will likely be an amendment on the floor this week to help to restore some of the provisions, the accountability provisions, to make sure if groups of students are falling off track, that something is done about it. that is it. that is with the federal law needs to say.

it doesn't need to say, here is what you need to do. but it needs to make sure that the parents deserve to be the guarantee that if their children and not performing, if the children are consistently falling off track, that something is going to be done about that they deserve it. host: fillable level is with the alliance for excellence in education. nina rees is the president and ceo of the national alliance for public target schools. to both of you, thank you very much for joining us on this sunday morning. the talks continue in brussels over whether or not greece will remain in the euro zone. the very latest from michael regan, joining us from "bloomberg news." also some uncertainty in the markets this past week. we are back in a moment.

>> next weekend on c-span's road to the white house two major political event from iowa. and the only place you can watch relisten to these events in their entirety. friday night, we will be live for that democratic party hall of fame dinner. it will mark the first time that all five democratic presidential candidates share the same state. and all day saturday, we will be live in ames for the family leadership summit, where nine leading republican candidates are scheduled to speak. on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. c-span's road to the white house 2016. we take you there. >> booktv is television for serious readers. join us next saturday starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern for our all-day live coverage of the harlem book fair, the nation's flagship african-american literary event.

with author talks and panel discussions. on sunday, august 2, author lydia benjamin on in depth saturday, september 5, we are live from the capital for the national book festival, celebrating its 15th year. followed on sunday by our live in-depth program with former second lady and senior fellow mrs. cheney. those are a few of the upcoming let programs on c-span's book tv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from new york is michael reagan. good morning thanks much for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: the front page of the "washington post -- time is running out -- "washington

post," time is running out for greece. at -- and focusing on what primarily is what going to happen with greece. saying that without a deal, it is feared that greece could crash out of the euro. what do you expect to happen? guest: as you mentioned, at the moment, it appears that the two sides have moved further apart over the weekend. the larger group of the european union that was set to meet has called off that meeting. so it is now the finance ministers of the 19 nations that use the euro currency at a meeting today. there is come out of germany suggestions think floated that greece be basically given a timeout for calling it from the euro currency for at least five years. something germany's finance minister had suggested. and it sounds, from all the reports i'm reading, it's out

like angela merkel is at least open to the suggestion. so that is a bit of an inflection point where the leader of germany is coming round to the idea that greece be removed, at least on the record. she hasn't strongly backed that idea too much in the past, but it appears this weekend she is moving towards considering that idea. which is obviously a big deal. this is -- has forever been the debate, whether or not greece would be better off in europe would be better off if greece were to leave the monetary union. it is looking like these will be some crucial negotiations coming up. host: the bbc reporting that it is very rare for the european union's to cancel its annual meetings. guest: that is true. and one of the things that is important to note is that you need unanimous support from the european union, a unanimous vote, to basically getting -- kick the country out of the euro. this would have to be incumbent on greece agreeing that this is

the best solution for them. it is not clear from their side whether they will agree to that. their goal, the goal of the leader of greece, has been to stay in the euro. the public polls in greece all suggest that the majority of people really want to keep using your euro. they just do not want to meet these austerity demands from the rest of europe. so it is sort of a wait-and-see approach right now to see what greases response to this is and see if they, in fact, would be open to the suggestion of voluntarily leaving the euro for five years or longer. host: as these negotiations continue at this hour in brussels, and as you indicated earlier, not only is germany calling to what some is referring to a timeout, but to the "guardian" is reporting that simmons -- finland is basically rejecting any additional funding for greece. guest: and that is another development. some of the file -- smaller nations, like finland, coming

onto the side of germany. there sort of a hard-line position. again, it really looks like the sides have moved further apart this weekend. and that has been sort of the ebb and flow of these negotiations all along. last week, obviously, you know when greece held its referendum to basically rechecked the european -- the latest offer from the creditors, you know, it really through the whole prospects of what was going to happen into turmoil and uncertainty. there is a lot of optimism that built up over the week. greece named a new finance minister. their previous finance minister was very combative and fairy you know, there was a lot of animosity between especially germany and their previous finance minister. they brought in a new guy who, you know seemed to be easier to get along with. there was a lot of optimism that they would be able to reach a deal, but now it does appear

like we are back to square one with the two sides are just as far apart as they have ever been. host: writing from athens, and this photograph from inside "time," greece attempts the fate. if greece does move out of the eurozone and goes back to its former currency, what does that mean for the country? guest: for its economy, there is a sense that it couldn't get much worse. this economy has contracted by about 25% in the past five or six years. and the idea is if -- currencies are a very powerful tool for a government to use to, you know, sort of be the control, the hot and cold spaghetti on the economy -- faucet on the economy. and -- when you are on a shared kearny -- currency -- and when you are on a shared currency, you are not be able -- you are not able to print money to revive growth.

in the short term, if they leave the euro, it could be a very difficult situation for them. their economy has almost granted to a halt right now. the stock market has been closed. it is unclear how they will be able to revive all those things without a deal from europe that injects more capital into their banking system. in the short term, and exit from the eurozone would be even more careless and more difficult, especially if it started in a very contentious way with europe and not stepping up to help in some way. the latest proposal, or not necessarily a proposal, just an idea being floated out of germany is that they be sort of a quitter native removal from the euro currency -- a coordinated removal from the euro currency, where there is assistance given to them to help their economy stop bleeding in the meantime. however, in the long-term, the idea is that if greece were to revert to a different currency, it would be very good for their economy. sort of counterintuitive, but a

weaker currency can be good for a domestic economy because it makes your goods and services a lot cheaper comparatively to the countries with a stronger currency. greece, one of the biggest industries is tourism. if greece were to shift to a new currency that weekends substantially compared to the euro and the dollar, to uni, that makes greece all of a sudden make look like -- make a very appealable destination. so that is the argument for why they may want to leave the euro. and then they would be in control of their own currency. they could print more of it as they needed to boost inflation and basically pay salaries. they're having a hard time paying. they are rationing salaries right now. -- pensions right now. it is a very perilous situation and it is very unclear how it can all be resolved in the short term without some sort of all of branch from europe.

and not in all of branch, but a money branch, basically. a big injection of capital to basically help them meet their payrolls in the near future. host: michael reagan is joining us from new york. also a columnist for "bloomberg news." our phone lines are open. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. you can also send us a tweet at @cspanwj. let's go to danny in atlanta, georgia. caller: good morning. i want to get your opinion. this is more of a social project, not a monetary project. germany wants to see itself as the leader of europe and they are using the euro as their project to gain more power of europe and to unify. i just want to get your opinion on that. guest: that is a criticism you will hear a lot. basically, the problem with this

monetary union is -- this is the first time it has really ever been tried on such a large scale with so many globally important economies involved. and a lot of people believe that it is an untenable situation unless you have a closer sort of quite a nation of the government. more control over all the economies from brussels and control over spending and pensions and taxes and things like that. basically the european solution to this has been for greece to cut spending, raise taxes. basically get its budget, the government budget to produce a surplus to get it out of the sustainable -- unsustainable situation. as you shrink a government like that, it also drags her entire economy down. -- your entire economy down. your data shrinking -- economy is shaking while you debt is

growing larger or staying the same. in some ways, the euro monetary union was a big experiment. how do you balance a very strong economy like germany with a very weak economy like greece without further crippling that economy? it is a tough situation. there is not anything in history that you can look back on and say this is the playbook, this is the model how we sold these issues before. a lot of improv being done right now to try and with this out. host: greece is a nation of about 5 million. roughly about the size of connecticut. here is greece by the numbers. it's outstanding debt, about $263 billion. about half, 44%, of residence live below the poverty line. the labor force participation is just above the 50% mark at 53%. and in march of this past year the unemployment rate, 25.6%.

will has this question for you -- why did the eu wait for greece to hit bottom before doing anything? guest: well, i'm not sure if that is totally accurate. they have been back and forth with greece for five or six years now. it really relates to the fact that, you know, greece originally did submit to many of the demands from the creditors in the european union and the international monetary fund in order to secure this bailout financing. the problem from the perspective , they would tell you that well, we do a lot of what everyone asks and it is just not working. our economy is now worse than it ever was. now is not the time in our economy to be cutting pensions and to be raising taxes. so, this is sort of the culmination of a very long five or six your process that they have already been bailed out they have already restructure

their debt once. and all the former programs, it hasn't enabled them to sort of reignite that economic growth in order to get them on a more stable footing going forward. so it has been a very long process and this is sort of the climax of it. one of many climaxes over the years, but this is appearing to be perhaps the ultimate climax of the whole tension between the two. host: abc news as blocking -- blogging from brussels. a deal is possible, if everyone wants one. guest: [laughter] well, yeah, it is interesting. all of the headlines that come out from these situations, there has been a lot of false starts, a lot of agreement. it is important to take every bit of news that comes out of europe with a bit of a grain of salt because, you know, minds change very quickly over there and the negotiating situation

can improve and deteriorate headline to headline. i think by the end of today and hopefully in europe, we will have a home -- better idea of how close the two sides are. but right now, it is a lot of back-and-forth and i would handicap it that it is very unlikely we will know by the end of the weekend. host: we will talk about china in just a moment, but let's go to nick in atlanta. good morning. caller: good morning. how with the euro fair as a global reserve currency? guest: well, a lot of people -- and if you look at the way the euro has reacted to some of the new stories that come out, there is a contingent of people who believe the euro would actually get stronger if greece were to exit. the monetary union were not have this burden of grease on it anymore. but in the short-term, it is

very hard to say. it obviously could cause volatility, up or down. again, this is an unprecedented situation where you have a monetary union of this magnitude and even more unprecedented is one leaving. trying to model what happens after index it by greece is almost an impossible thing to do. people obviously are still trying to do it and the general you know, idea is that obviously stock markets would take it pretty bad in europe. the markets of some of the more indebted countries in europe spain, italy portugal, ireland countries that not so long ago people were worried were going to go the route greece went. the idea is generally that those markets would suffer to some degree. but the european central bank has a $1 trillion euro program -- one trillion euro program in

place to buy up the bonds of any country that looks like they need support and keep those bond yields down. and that is the most it -- important thing really, the bond market in europe. as bond prices go down, obviously, the interest rate on them, the yield, goes up. so if spain or italy were to go back up to 6% or 7% -- they are all in the neighborhood of 2% or 3% now -- if they were to go back up, that would make it a lot more difficult for a government to fund the deficit and could exacerbate any sort of issues they are having with the deficit. so the european bank has this program in place to sort of try -- basically they put it in place to try and soak the economies, try to get growth going at a better rate. now it looks like if there is more volatility in bond markets this week, that type of program is not going to be used more to

put out fires in bond markets in spain and italy and places like that where there is the risk of yields really going a lot higher , as the greece situation deteriorates. the data -- idea is that basically spain, italy portugal ireland, one of them could possibly be the next greece and could model their response to a deteriorating economy by doing what greece did and basically pushing back on the demands by europe and threatening to break up the currency union further. the greece situation, for the most part, is not going to cause a lot of direct losses to investors. most of a debt is owned by the european union countries germany at the top of the list. the european central bank and the international monetary fund. so for those entities to be defaulted on, it is not as drastic oh severe as the situation, as far as the

financial situations are concerned, as far as -- as if the hedge funds were to fall upon. but it -- it is a very interesting situation and really i don't think anyone is right confident in exactly what will happen if greece exits. host: formerly a business writer for the associated press, our guest is now the editor at large for "bloomberg news." his expertise includes global financial markets. we go to bruce joining us from great britain. good afternoon to you, bruce. caller: good afternoon. how are you today? host: we are fine, thank you. caller: excellence. look obviously there is going to be -- let's just bring in your financial markets, the united states.

we all know that your national debt is massively increasing. approximately the imf suggested that the united states citizenship each goes something like $67,000 in debt. if each man, woman and child. what i would like to know is that obviously there is a lot of concentration and grease, etc. but when is the united states going to start kicking in austerity annex a dealing with your own financial issues because greece -- their debt is about $34,000 per head of population. whereas yours is getting close to double that. and i know that the dollar tends to provide you a buffer zone and security but with what is happening in the middle east, it is a 9/11 style attack -- if a 9/11 attack were to happen on european soil, i think our reaction would be the same as

your reaction to the september 11 attacks. and we are than likely to take massive military action against the overall middle east as a region. host: bruce, thank you for the call. our debts is not in excess of $18 trillion. -- now in excess of $18 trillion. guest: it has been a very hot topic in washington. if you go back to 2011, the debt ceiling obviously caused a lot of turmoil in financial markets. at the end of the day, a government is represented by whoever is elected as its leaders. so whether or not the republican party makes, you know, the debt situation and the deficit a big part of their agenda in the upcoming elections will sort of determine, you know, if that is their focus. you know, really, it is up to the american people. if they believe this is a threat

electing a consistency closer to the tea party that would aggressively cut spending and that sort of thing -- it is certainly a great question. i don't have a crystal ball to really give you the answer, but i think we'll be hearing a lot about it from all the candidates in the next presidential race. host: by midweek, focus had shifted away from greece and a lot of concerns about the up evil in the chinese stock market. why? guest: the china stock market was, especially in wreck respect -- in retrospect, almost a maniac type of market. it's more than doubled in the last year and the evaluations on price levels and other measures were way out of whack what people believe to be a sort of rational evaluation for the market. a lot of it was funded by individual investors in china taking out loans to buy stock.

and it had sort of been spurred by the government. china had appeared to really want to use the stock market where individual consumers and china -- any number sort of lovers and valves that they turned on and off to control that from allowing aggressive margins, low interest rates, that sort of thing. the problem with the stock market bubbles is -- i compared to sort of riding a roller coaster with a blindfold on. you know you are going up up, you can't just really see what the top is. no one really knows how far a bubble is going to go before it pops. in this case, one thing a lot of people are pointing at as the precipitating event, the pin that prints the bubble, is the decision by one corporation last month.

they are in investment company that creates a lot of indexes. for example, in the united states, we have the dow jones industrial average, the main index we look at to gauge how well the market is doing. mfgi creates a whole bunch of other indexes, emerging market indexes, and a lot of global indexes that a lot of money is directly benchmarked two. index funds have become very popular. in other words, people are so that turning away from the idea of having a mutual fund manager pick stocks for you or picking stocks on your own. as far as the flows into these funds have shown, they're more interested in just buying an index fund that religiously tracks the market. what they did is they were set to make a decision on whether or not they would include china's domestic equity market in their emerging markets index, which is hotly followed by a lot of index

funds. and many people expected that they would allow china into that index. and then a sort of surprised people by saying, we are not going to, we are ready to allow china in just yet. i was reading a report from ubs investment bank, their strategist who said basically the china -- chinese stock market was a pilot of dry to do. and the decision was the match that hits that tinder and set fire. that argument makes a lot of sense to me. it is possible that any other you know, many other things could've said that market on fire. but according to them and a lot of other investors, they believe that the decision was at least part of the reason that we saw such a traumatic 30% and about a month decline in chinese stocks. host: talking about greece, china, and financial markets around the world.

tim is on the phone from london, england. caller: hi, good morning to you. i'm wondering if greece were to exit the euro, where do you see the economic relationship between the u.s. and the u.k. the dollar versus the sterling, and we expect to see any difference between democrats and gop candidates in talking about the relationship between the u.s. and london and the u.k.? host: tim, can you stay on the line? guest: sure. it is a great question. i don't think i have heard a lot of talking points out of any of the major candidates about british and u.s. relations. obviously, the british pound is considered a safe haven asset. as there is turmoil in europe, the pound is one of the places -- and british guilt, the british bonds -- as a place people go to safety.

this is what we are finding out from the euro situation. when a country like great britain is in charge of its currency. it has a lot more sort of leverage over its economy and is less susceptible to outside influences and the type of situation that europe is doing -- dealing with in the monetary union. host: tim, let me follow up with you. britain did not join the euro. based on what you are seeing right now between european leaders and greece, do you see any scenario in which your country would at some point during the euro? caller: i can't -- yeah, i can't see that happening. i think that is rolled out for probably the next 20, 30 years if not forever. countries seem to be uniting and disunited. we are strong and want to be firm. an focus on our markets with the u.s. and the british nations. host: tim, thank you for the

call. does the euro meet expectations? guest: you mean as a -- host: as a common currency? guest: it was doing pretty well there for a while. this whole situation with greece and the other indebted countries has really called into question the logic behind it. and whether or not it, you know, this union can be maintained without closer -- a sort of closer government union where there is more central control over things like budgets and taxes so that a country like greece is not allowed to push back against the demands of the creditor nations. at this point, i would say it is -- it's credibility is probably at a low point in the two decades it has been around. host: matt is joining us from pennsylvania. caller: hello? host: go ahead, matt. caller: i would just like to say

that one potential outcome for greece leaving the euro is that they are -- host: i apologize for that phone call. justin from california, you are next. host: -- caller: good morning to my question has to do with greece and taxes. from what i read, the history of the greeks and paying their taxes is spotty. so no matter what terms are agreed to, people don't even pay the taxes that are levied when the economy is doing well. that would cause problems in the future. could you discuss that a little bit? i'm not as well-informed on that subject as i wish i wear heard host: -- wish i were. host: thank you, justin. guest: that has been the knock on greece but there has been a lot of corruption, not an efficient tax collecting regime there. to me, one of the more interesting debates over taxes

increase relates to the islands all the tourist islands around greece. one of the big sticking points between europe and greece is that they want to impose the value added tax on restaurant of about 23% on greek restaurants. and greece has pushed back very strongly against that, especially for the islands, the resort areas of greece. the idea is that if, you know, if a traveler wants to go to a greek island for vacation and realizes they have to pay a 20% tax every time they go out to eat, it obviously is going to make people look at other destinations. and when you think about it, restaurants have long been one of the areas where it is very difficult to collect all the taxes you need to. obviously, tips are a big example of that. even in this country, how many waitresses and waiters actually declare all the tips they get and pay the accurate taxes on

them? you can see how trying to rely heavily on a restaurant tax is -- is one of the things that makes people very susceptible -- even if greece were to submit to all the demands from europe, how do you go about collecting all these taxes and a country that you know, rightly or wrong, has a representation -- reputation of sort of dodging taxes. host: in the stock market this past week, a major glitch on wednesday. the nyse shut down for nearly four hours. any long-term impact for the exchange itself or for investors? guest: from this one, it is so far -- so far, it looks like it just might be a minor story, as far as the very big catalog of stock exchange which as we have seen over the last five years. the reason is it doesn't appear that anyone lost a lot of money. some of the really big headline

making problems with the market structure of the u.s. stock market that we have seen in the last few years, they really became lasting stores because people lost money. the flash crash of 2010 when the dow jones industrial average suddenly spiked down about 1000 points without any really good explanation and then shot back up. people lost real money in that. when nasdaq couldn't get facebook's ipo to open on time and there was a lot of bad trades going on surrounding that. people lost money there. one group had a problem with their software and flooded the market with orders for stock with prices all over the place well away from where prices were actually trading, they lost a lot of money there. and it basically blew them up. in this case, there is not really that victim. there is not someone who lost a lot of money that, you know, will really cause people to

worry about the structure of the market. in a way, it was wood of a success as far as, you know, the stock market obviously, the new york stock exchange is and i konica american brand. it is almost as old as the country itself. it started in the 1700s. and for decades, centuries even, it basically had a monopoly on trading on the shares listed on its exchange. that is not the case anymore. the last 20 years or so have brought massive competition into the business of matching buyers and sellers in the stock market. right now, we have 11 official stock exchanges. and 50 some other alternative venues known as dark pools and electronic indication networks that allow the matchup of buyers and sellers. what happened on wednesday as that the new york stock exchange had a software problem. it decided to shut down its stock exchange.

all the stocks listed on the new york stock exchange continued to trade on all of the other exchanges. and there were no sort of sudden price swings or anything like that. as far as computer failures go, it was very notable for the fact that it shut trading for half a day. and that is not something that i can remember happening with the new york stock exchange. but it is also notable about how well the system continue to operate, even with the new york stock exchange taken out of the equation. the rest of the market took up the slack, traded all the shares that would have traded on the new york stock exchange. so they traded on nasdaq, on extrusions -- exchanges run elsewhere. and to many investors, they might not have even noticed if it weren't making headlines. i -- i have a hard time seeing it having a very long-lasting impact on people's confidence.

but it is certainly something that cut the attention of the fcc and lawmakers in washington dc. it will be -- it will bring that topic of how complex the market has grown, how fragmented it is across all these exchanges. that will continue to be a topic that people will debate and try to find to this market so that things like this either happen less, or if they do happen, it is like on wednesday and there is not a big disruption to prices because that is the type of thing that would really hurt people's confidence. host: a comment from a tweet wall street is the fraud of all frauds. you will never stop wall street until you shut that fraud down. let's -- unless you want to respond, let's go to land in. guest: i will not respond to anyone named big guns. host: good morning, landon. caller: i just wanted to point out the fact that the reinhardt

study on austerity was proven false by a gentleman at umass. and also, i wanted to draw some letters between the world bank -- similarities between the world bank and south america. it seems to me that they are just following the game plan of the united states and south america. when they want regime change they went out and got a bunch of votes that they know they can't pay back. and then they say, oh, we will have to have you shut down your social security, all your social programs, you are going to have to cut everything. and then, oh, we are going to need your assets. and then we just go ahead and get more loans, or loans, more loans, and destroy the government. tell me how that is different in greece right now. host: thank you. guest: i am not sure regime change would be exactly what the europeans had in mind. the regime has changed a few

times and grace. and the last deal -- the president, his government, a very far left government, a communist party basically, and they are the ones really pushing back the most against this. so i don't know who europe would prefer to be in charge there but it is clear that the longer this crisis has gone on, the greek people have elected leaders that are pushing back harder and harder against europe. so, you know, it is interesting -- an interesting comparison, but again, i'm not sure europe was happy with the latest regime change that came from the voters in greece. so they would probably like to go back to one of the former presidents. host: a follow-up to your earlier economy -- comment. what resources does greece have

other than tourism? guest: that is a good question. tourism is their main -- you know -- one of their main industries. they are not a huge exporter of natural commodities or anything like that. you know, it is a very -- a very small economy, getting smaller by the day. and there is not really -- like the previous caller mentioned -- the u.s. has an advantage over a lot of countries by having the currency that oil is traded in. that is what of what makes the u.s. dollar the main reserve currency, as they call it, because if you want to buy oil even if you are buying it in london, you are paying in dollars. so from that perspective, the writer's rice in that greece does not have a lot of leverage. and that is part of the reason why they had to accept a lot of the demands from europe. they don't have a lot of leverage.

host: our last call is for manchester, england. chris, good afternoon. caller: good afternoon. good afternoon, michael. it wasn't so long ago that iceland was in a worse situation than greece. and today, they are in a better situation than greece. in your considered opinion, were not greece be better out of the straitjackets of euro? guest: right. i don't know if i want to give my personal opinion, but i will tell you that a lot of people agree with you. in fact, even at bloomberg our bloomberg view editorial board said, yeah, they would probably be better off outside of it. and the reason is because we do have control over your currency, you are a room -- you're are able to fire up the printing presses to get the economy going. that argument, as to medicus it would be for them to leave the euro and a lot of short-term problems it would cause, not

only in greece but throughout the financial markets, a lot of people agree with you that they would be -- their long-term prospects would be better outside the euro. host: should investors be worried? guest: i think it is healthy always to be worried if you are an investor. that is the funny thing about investors, they always find the next best thing to worry about. you know, this is a very important point going on with greece right now. and it will be really interesting this he with the markets opened that tomorrow and even as future trading starts five or six hours from now in the u.s., it will be interesting to see what the reaction is to this latest breakdown in talks. it has been sort of difficult to separate greece and china, the effect on the markets in the past week or so. again, the direct losses to

investors from a total greek default would not be huge. it is really the government that would bear the losses. so the risks from that are much more political. and what happens with european politics, what happens in the european bond market, and the confidence people have in the monetary union staying together, that is really where the real risk allies. it is really difficult to model exactly where that would go. host: and what about the fed? would this have any impact on a fed decision to hike interest rates? we know that with a -- that they will do so probably later this year. guest: right. the latest -- the latest thinking makes it sound like she is basically preparing people for a rate increase this year. she did indicate they obviously

have their eye on the situation in greece. and china and elsewhere. what they are looking for is evidence of these things actually causing direct damage to the u.s. economy and sort of tripping up the recovery we are in. if they do not see that direct impact on the economy, you know, it is likely that they will still raise interest rates this year. that is based on my reading of her speech this week. host: michael regan of "bloomberg" and news. thank you very much for your time, perspective, and taking our calls. guest: thank you. host: we will continue the conversation, as we do every morning, tomorrow turning our attention to the progressive movement and the presidency campaign of bernie sanders. also, same-sex marriage and religious freedom. ken blackwell, a senior fellow

at the family research council our guest and topics -- guests and topics tomorrow. "newsmakers" is coming up next. have a great week ahead. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on c-span this morning "newsmakers" is next with democratic congressman steve israel of new york. then, a senate intelligence hearing with director james comey testifying about encryption technology being used by isis and its effect on counterterrorism measures. later, some of the events of this past week surrounding the removal of the confederate flag from south carolina state --

south carolina's state capitol grounds. host: our guest is steve israel. he chairs the policy and community edition's committee for the democrats in the house of representatives. let me introduce our reporters who will be asking questions. lauren, you are first with questions. >> one of the most dramatic things that happened in the house this week was the kerfuffle over the confederate flag. democrats tried to raise this issue. what can democrats in the house do? are there more procedural maneuvers democrats can do to put pressure on republicans to force them to go on record about where they stand on concerning whether the confederate flag should still fly over the capita