summer and "new york times" correspondent adam liptak previews supreme court cases to watch this term. we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. >> this morning, it's saturday, june 4, 2016. topping the headlines on today's "washington journal," leaders around the world remember boxing legend muhammad ali, who died yesterday at the age of 74 after a long battle with parkinson's disease. president barack obama is among many paying tribute to the legend who is known as the greatest today. newly released jobs data showing a downturn in hiring leads the federal reserve to push back interest rate, but it's stoking

fears the economy is heading into another recession. president obama continues to try to assure americans that things are getting better, which brings us to today's questions for our viewers today. are you better off or worse off than you were eight years ago? special lines for today's questions, if you feel like you're better off, 202-748-8,000. if you feel that you are worse off than eight years, 8001. if things are the same for you, call 202-748-8002. you can also reach us on social media, on twitter, c-span w.j. and on facebook. we start off by talking about that jobs report that was released yesterday that showed fewer jobs added to the payrolls this year -- this term.

they break it down a little bit in the atlantic today. the job report, the atlantic writes, is out. it's a huge miss. on friday morning the labor department reported that the u.s. economy added just 38,000 jobs, while the unemployment rate dropped 4.7%. the monthly employment growth averaged 192,000 jobs added for the first four months of 2016, which was already a slowdown compared to 2015. economists were expecting a modest 158,000 jobs to be added this month, meaning that may's disappointing jobs report will almost surely be read as a sign of a slowing economy. it's the smallest number of jobs added in a monthly jobs report since 2010. and this report comes out just as president obama has been reassuring the american people that the economic situation is getting better. let's take a look at what he

said about the economy. >> would not have come this far if we hadn't made a series of smart decisions -- my administration, a cooperative congress, decisions we made together early on in my administration, we decided to help the auto industry, to restructure. and we helped families refinance their homes. >> yes, [applause] . >> we decided to invest in job training so that folks who lost jobs could retool. we decided to invest in things like high-tech manufacturing and clean energy and infrastructure that entrepreneurs wouldn't just bring back the jobs that we had lost, but create new and better jobs. and folks who lost work from a construction industry because the housing market collapsed could go back to work rebuilding

america. and we can see the results not just here, but across the nation. by almost every economic measure, america is better off than when i came here at the beginning of my -- [applause] >> that's the truth. >> [cheering] opinion page gives a much dimmer picture than the president stated when it comes to the economy. it says in today's paper, president obama's election year campaign to make americans feel great about the economy again was rudely interrupted friday by the reality of the job market. the economy created a dismal 38,000 jobs in may, the worst performance since 2010. who are you going to believe? the president or the bureau of

labor statistics. are you better off or worse than you were eight years ago? we begin with frank calling from new jersey. frank, you say things are worse. how so? caller: i just think that as a business owner and, you know, starting in -- i started my business and i was laid off from a job and i did well. it seems like everything went downhill from there. you know, it's not just the economy. take the economy, put it on one side. i live in a highly diversed democratic area and, you know, my neighbors are blacks and mexicans and it's just -- the

division is awful. host: let me ask you this, frank. you said you're a business owner. has it affected your ability to hire? are you able to hire the number of employees that you need right now? caller: hiring employees is not a problem. it's revenue. amazon has sucked the life out of retail. host: what sort of business do you own, frank. caller: retail business. host: what else would you like to see the federal reserve -- the president and the federal reserve to do to help business owners like you? caller: the federal government -- i wouldn't say to take a protectist view, but, you know, we really have to stop the wholesale goods into retail market in the united states.

retail is the backbone of our economy, basically consumer goods and the -- for stuff to come off the factory floor at wholesale price on internet and shipped through unvetted containers is ludicrous. host: that was frank calling from new jersey. a little bit more from the "wall street journal" and the president who claims the economy is doing better and recovering. it says -- the "washington journal" editorial calls it mr. obama's miracle recovery tour. he touted the jobless rate as the vehicle industry has recovered. he knows his legacy is on the line in november and he the read -- can read polls that show

donald trump is leading hillary clinton on who would do better for the economy. that's his economic pep talk, an attempt to rebut what he called miss, read by republicans and the conservative media about slow growth and mediocre incomes, but his bigger beef is with mrs. clinton and bernie sanders who have spent the last year deploring the economic conditions of america's middle class. so we see that this issue has made its way into the presidential election this year as folks decide which candidate would be better for the economy. up next on our line we have perry calling in from fort lauderdale, florida. you say things are better for you than eight years ago. how so? >> i'm kind of breaking even. that's a perfect point. eight years ago we were heading right into a recession.

ok? republicans who keep saying we have slow growth, that's because republicans would rather hurt the country than to do anything to help this president. when the president got elected in 2008, he didn't just go out and say, ok, i'm going to give away money, do this and do that. he had met with economists and we would have been out of this depression even sooner had they given him the money that he wanted. the reason we have slow growth is because republicans will not pass jobs bills. and the only way they will do it is if you give so many tax breaks -- it's ridiculous. host: can i ask you this? do you think that all of this has to do with what is happening in washington? might washington be reacting to what's happening in the markets rather than causing the situation? caller: yeah -- see, people

misunderstand things. if you really want good government, if you want government to work together, the only way to do it is, you've got to get out and vote and make sure the democrats get in instead of republicans, because they stop this government from growing. that's why we're growing so slow, because they refuse to get off their ass and do anything. host: next, we have dee calling from california. you say things are worse off. caller: it's not just for myself personally economically, but family and friends have been impacted. i get tired of hearing the unemployment rate went from 5.2 to 4.7. that is a false, false number. people feel it and they see it and they know it. it's because they don't report how many people were on

unemployment stopped -- you know, exceeded their time limit on it, have stopped looking for jobs, are underemployed. we see it all over. the area that i live in, we see more and more homeless people. we see more and more people walking around asking for money at our shopping centers. it was unheard of in our area 10 years ago. what i'm saying, why we're worse off is because we get lied to, the news that comes out very often is distorted. there's been examples of it in the news this past week. deleting things from our records. people don't have any trust or faith in the government. the last gentleman that just called, he wants the government to do more. you know what the government is doing? that big, beautiful city that you are in, that beltway, it keeps getting bigger and bigger. host: let me ask you this. do you think there's any role for the government to play in helping to protect or boost the

economy? for example, the federal reserve likely deciding to delay interest rate hikes? do you think there's any role in government in boosting the economy? caller: i think the government is the problem. it's not the solution. we keep going back to the government. the government is so bloated, we are so regulated, we are so unfree compared to what it was when i was growing up. there's just a feeling. that's what's wrong in the country. that's why we're seeing things like the supporters for trump. a lot of them don't like -- but i'll tell you something. the government is the problem. host: ok. that's dee calling from california. next, we have calling in from montana, marissa. you say things have gotten better for you. caller: good morning, c-span.

thank you for c-span, thank you for brian, thank you for book tv. can i say one thing? i'm grateful for you guys, but we don't get here in montana the c-span 3 with history tv because i'm just a c-span addict and i love c-span. host: you can contact your cable provider about that. tell me about why you say things are better for you? caller: things are better since the dark days of the bush administration. thank goodness for c-span. president obama has pulled us out of the dark days of recession and almost the greatest recession. they have done it through open dialogue. we can talk. nobody is scared about what we can talk about. we can talk about anything we need to talk about as far as the economy goes. the important thing is, america, stop whining. i listen to you. i'm a c-span junkie. all i hear about is republicans calling in. i shouldn't just say republicans. but republicans calling in and whining about everything. let's get out there, we can work, make a better america if

we work together. host: marissa, let me ask you this. the report shows a slight reduction in the jobless rate. but one of the reasons for that is that fewer people are out in the market looking for work, so that created an overall shrinking in the jobs market. does that raise concern for you? caller: not at all. where i come from -- let me point out three things. during the depression era, roosevelt put in the rodeo grounds, a ski area, the highway to cook city, which they call the -- anyway, our economy is still booming. we're still dependent upon those. it's important that the republicans finance. it's not obama's administration. it's the republicans definancing everything that he wants to do. host: that's marissa calling

from montana. the "wall street journal" -- it says no getting around it. the may jobs report stink. but a longer run perspective offsets the gloom. it's worth bearing in mind that this is noisy data. and the economy rarely zigs or zags as often as -- or as dramatically as any initial set of numbers suggests. a better gauge of the underlying rate of jobs growth is to take an average over the last three months. by that measure, the job market is creating about 116,000 jobs a month. this is a slowdown from the $200,000 range over the last five years, but it's a slowdown, it's not a sudden stop. so it's painting a slightly different picture as to what this jobs report from may can mean. next on our line of callers we

have elizabeth calming from st. michaels, maryland. elizabeth, things have gotten worse for you. tell me how. caller: good morning. i've been cleaning houses for almost 40 years. economics up and down. years ago i started losing jobs to the people that don't take america [inaudible]. i couldn't compete against somebody who would work for $7 an hour and then take my tax dollars and get food stamps. they don't pay for their [inaudible]. they get subsidized housing. they get everything. host: so, elizabeth, can you tell me how things have changed for you. how are you different than you were eight years ago? caller: [inaudible] maybe

one-third less than what i was making cleaning houses. and i scrambled for that. but i will do anything to stay off of any kind of government subsidy. i'm disgusted with the people who go, the government needs to do more. you know the government needs to do more like you want russia? i'm sorry, their government does a lot and it doesn't work well for them as far as i can tell. they need to get rid of illegal labor. i'm sorry, if i do something illegal, i get put in jail. if i can't earn a living, i can't go out and do something illegal like sell meth or do something like that. i have to work. host: that's elizabeth calling from maryland. next we have calling in from -- sorry, hit the wrong button. next we have calling in from peaceful joe ann. you say things are better for

you than eight years ago. in what way? caller: i think the economy is booking. under president obama we've had strong years of job growth. the unemployment rate is 4.7, low, low, low. we're hiring across the country in professional business services. if you can't get a job, something is wrong with your interview skills. host: you say you live in an area that's recession proof. what do you mean? >> greensberg, pennsylvania was described as one of the top 10 cities to retire in. we have excellent lifestyle here. we have a moderate climate. we have closeness to the best hospitals in the area. many people are working. let's go back to president obama. he's kept inflation low, even

during extreme international upheaval. he has expanded oil production, quadrupled oil production in america. he reduced the number of uninsured to record lows. we've seen the [inaudible]. plus, hospitals, including the ones around here are writing off the smallest percentage of uninsured debt defaulted 25 years ago -- host: we talked about how the economy is affecting the presidential race. is it affecting how -- your choice in who you are voting for for president? caller: i'm voting for hillary clinton and i think donald trump would completely ruin america. i think what hillary clinton had to say in her political speech really played it out. his serious downside in flaws. i definitely think we should

continue the obama administration policies and hillary and bill clinton would be a great asset. during the clinton administration it was a strong time of peace and prosperity. our retirement plans were growing. wonderful, wonderful jobs being created. i'll tell you what, there are a lot of games in professional business services. and the "wall street journal" always criticizes president obama. they were one of the original berthers, i remember reading an editorial page where they are asking for -- host: ok, that's joe ann calling in from pennsylvania as we are talking about the latest jobs report from may and the impact on the economy and on the presidential race. let's take a look at a little bit more of president obama's comments from his appearance in indiana where he talks about donald trump and the gop's economic policies. >> sometimes i don't get it. how it is that somebody could propose that we weaken

regulations on wall street. have we really forgotten what just happened eight years ago? [applause] >> it hasn't been that long ago. and because of their reckless behaviors, you got hurt. and the notion that you would vote for anybody who would now allow them to go back to doing the same stuff that almost broke our economy's back [applause] [cheering] >> i don't care whether you're republican or a democrat or an independent. why would you do that? [applause] >> less oversight on wall street would make another crisis more likely. letting credit card companies write their own rules will only

hurt working families. it wouldn't make the middle class more secure. how can you say you're for the middle class and you want to tear down these rules? host: that's president obama talking about some of the gop policies as he sees them when it comes to the economy. we're talking about whether things are better or worse for you than they were eight years ago. up next we have don calling in from houston, texas. don, things are better for you. can you give us an example of how? caller: things are better for me. things are better for all of us because where would we be if he were not able to rescue the economy as a nation? but, yes, washington is the problem because when you look at facts, how many of our tax dollars now has been spent on the 15-year war without a

result? is that investment worth the cost of our economy? host: you say washington is making things worse. do you think it's the job of washington to do things in order to help the economy or do you think that the folks here should be taking a more hands-off approach to -- caller: washington's job -- we have all been sold out, hood winked and given a bill of goods because how can we sustain getting [inaudible] on other nations' money and american citizens are sleeping on the streets? if you look at some cities, they look worse than third-world nations. our tax dollars are supposed to take care of us. but what has happened is that we have been made slaves for the corporation, by the corporation. host: ok. that's don calling in from

houston, texas. in another opinion piece in the "wall street journal," marie kravits points it's not just federal regulations that has made it more difficult for small businesses to thrive in this economy, small businesses being a big driver in the economy. she writes state and local regulators have -- notably through the growth of ok paksal licenses. in 1950, a license or certificate was required. cosmetologists, man curists, many others have joined the ranks of licensed workers as the rate of private sector

unionization -- >> all of these things are leading to the dismal jobs and economic situation that we see. up next we have desirae calling from woodbridge, virginia. desirae, you say things are better. in what way are things better? caller: i believe the opportunities to work are better. i think that obama has created eight million jobs during the time he's in office. i had the opportunity to come back from overseas and to have a unique opportunity to drive an 18-wheeler because obama had offered scholarships for people to go in and drive trucks, which is the logistics in the industry needs a lot more people at this moment. i think it was a great opportunity because i didn't have to worry about how housing,

about what state i wanted to come back to. i traveled all 48 states and into canada for one year until i was able to find a job suited in my profession. i think the opportunities are there if people know where to look and -- you know, they are not opposed to taking the chances to try something else. host: desirae, before you did the truck driving gig, what is your profession? caller: i'm an educator. i have a background in education and i was driving a truck with, you know, a degree and my focus in teaching techniques. so which state i was going to settle in was a big issue and where i was going to use that profession was a concern of mine. at the time, i'm heading back overseas. but looking at the united states as a truckdriver, i did see what one of your callers said, places in the united states are very dismal and do look like third-world countries, but that isn't a product of this

particular administration. that's a long standing issue that i think can be addressed through entrepreneurism, which can grow when people have healthcare, so they can use public healthcare and they can create jobs in their community. host: that's desirae calling from virginia saying that things are better. up next we have felicia calling in from florida. felicia, you say things are worse now than they were eight years ago. in what way do you mean? caller: they are currently bad. it's going to get worse. jobs -- you find a job, they don't want to pay you anything. it's really very difficult to make a living. washington needs to do something. they need get off their butt and do something -- host: what would you like to see them do, felicia? we've heard a lot of callers and others like the writer in the "wall street journal" saying

that things that washington is doing is making things worse, too much regulation making it difficult for businesses to run. what would you like to see them do? caller: i would like to see more jobs with more pay because you can't -- on minimum wage you cannot make it. that is -- there's no way you can make it. you'd have to work big jobs to make it with minimum wage. host: that's felicia calling in from florida. that leads us back to -- it doesn't lead us, but looking at other headlines for today. the death of boxing legend muhammad ali. president obama among those who are paying tribute to him today. he wrote a special piece in u.s.a. that appears this morning talking about what the legend mend to him, writing, i was too young to remember cashus clay before he became muhammad ali when he was not only the champion of the world but at

tiles the object of controversy and i was still in grade school when ali made his extraordinary comeback after nearly four years of exile. it was these qualities that i have admired the most. his unique ability to summon extraordinary strength and courage in the face of adversity, to navigate the storm and never lose his way. this is the quality that i'm reminded of when i look at the iconic photo on my wall of him standing over sunny lipton and in the end this is the quality that would define not just ali the boxer, but ali the man. that's president obama writing and reflecting about muhammad ali's death, adding to so many, including harry reid, who

released a statement about muhammad ali, saying he was deeply saddened to learn about the legend's passing and calling him a legend and fighter in every sense of the word. a few other reactions also come from presidential nominee -- presidential gop presidential nominee donald trump, who tweeted muhammad ali is dead at 74. a great champion and wonderful guy. he will be missed by all. muhammad ali last night at the age of 74. returning to the discussion of the may jobs report and what it means for the economy and talking with you about whether you're better off or worse off than you were eight years ago. next we have david calling from memphis. you said things are better. in what ways are better? is it just for you or or overall? caller: for me, things are much better. i'm retired. i want to say that i don't care

if there's a democratic or republican administration. i'm 69 and i planned my -- my wife died. we put four children through college. i had a small business. i never made more than $40,000. i took advantage of what the government offered as a businessman. i saved my money, bought one new car. we put it in my wife's name so she could have a credit rating. host: let me ask you something. as somebody who's a working person like everyone else in america, you say things are getting better and you say it doesn't matter the administration. have you seen any link? i mean people refer to the clinton administration as times

of an economic boom and then fault the bush administration for the economic downturn. do you think it is related to what administration is in office? caller: i want to make one point. we saved our money. we invested. i'm the guy who bought cans, who bought moldy cheese and peeled the mold off. you've seen me in your local grocery store. i saved money back then because i knew the day was coming i was going to retire. my home was small, my cars were modest, my clothes were modest. things are better for me now and for my children now because i didn't care what the government was going to do for me.

i appreciated the tax write-offs as a businessman. i always felt like i was a bush point of light. i trained people in my profession. but as a retiree, i'm taking social security and my own personal pension is giving me an income [laughter] >> almost twice what i made. host: that's david calling in from tennessee. up next we have george calling from ohio. you say things are doing better for you, george. in what way are things doing better? caller: yes, it is. host: tell me how things are better now than before. in what way? caller: because, before in 2008, we had -- the interest rate -- the unemployment rate was [inaudible]

>> i can tell you what's going to happen next year. interest rate is going up to 13%. unemployment lines, if donald trump gets in, more people at the hospital. host: what do you say to the argument that there's been too much happening with the government? too much regulation making things harder for businesses. caller: you think the republicans are going to -- 4.7. when has it ever been that low before? host: up next we have john calling in from new jersey. john, you say things are about the same for you. do you see -- are you concerned that we might be running into a downturn now? >> well, i am concerned about

that. i've been very fortunate. i don't want to give the wrong impression. sorry. i'm a little nervous. i've been very fortunate. i got the job that i have now in 2006 and i have been fortunate enough to keep that job for the last 10 years. and that's very unusual thing for people my age. i'm 38 years old. a lot of my friends will go from job to job every couple of years. i was fortunate to have the same job. it seems as my wages slowly increased, the cost of everything went right along with that. truth be told, maybe i wasn't the most honest person with the call screener because me, myself, yes, i have been the same, but when you add three kids during that 10 years, maybe i'm a little worse off than i was. it's only because of the kids. but i don't want to blame my situation on my children. you choose to have kids.

host: john, that's part of the american way is that people get jobs, they start families. do you think that the government is doing enough to help people like you with a young family to make it? caller: not really. we could do better. there are many countries all around the world that take much better care of their women, take better care of the small young people. i'm talking about universal healthcare, universal child care, paid family leave. i'm talking about we're the only country -- the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't provide healthcare to its citizens. we could do much better. i want to bring up one more point before you let me go. host: go ahead, john. >> the sins of the administration do not -- they don't come to fruit for a long time. and the problems that we're dealing with now were caused by the clinton administration in the 1990's.

bill clinton signed an act to take away glass steegal. he broke the barriers that let the banks do what they did to. we're blaming george bush. all he did was spend trillions of dollars on unnecessary wars. he didn't open the gates for the financial institutions to ruin country. the only answer is bernie sanders. host: that's john from new jersey. justin is calling from baltimore. you say things are worst for you. >> caller: i think, i would say our country, not just me, was better off eight years ago, not because of this administration, or that

administration. we were luckier not to have war in some other countries and we were luckier not having isis, luckier not having recession or this much debt. maybe not politics, but i think we were just luckier and people were living happier and we were not having this life that was so happy. everybody enjoyed it. i don't know what happened after all these years that even young people have started complaining and now nonstop. we are having this gap that is uncontrollable. government doesn't want to do something. you know, the government has strong will to stuff it -- host: let me ask you this, justin. you're saying that people don't have the same attitude that they had before. do you think it's because of what we're hearing about like things about the economy not recovering quickly? do you think it's based on the news about the economy that

people are reacting with less confidence? >> well, yeah. just look at the economy. the economy is growing very bad these days. people just don't feel the growth. maybe these people come out and say the obama is doing this -- these are just people offering [inaudible] >> i don't think the politicians are telling the truth. the truth is our system is breaking down day by day and politicians tell you every lie. people don't get any better off these days. host: that's justin calling in from maryland. a little bit more from the "washington post" today to try to break down what the jobs numbers may mean. it's from matt o'brian in walk blog. it says on a scale from one to

leeman, how worried should we be? if it means an actual recession, it's hard to see where recession would come from today. we can't completely rule it out when job growth has slowed so much and the labor force is shrinking. the last part is a big reversal from just a few months ago when it looked like the recovery was starting to suck people in off the sidelines. maybe it's just that boomers are retiring, even more on math or maybe it's the jobs engine is sputtering. we can't say for sure. he's writing the jobs report is not necessarily a harbinger of a recession. but it's one thing we have to keep an eye on. next we have martin calling in from maryland -- i'm sorry. from north dakota. how are things better for you?

caller: at the end of the bush administration i became unemployed and i spent several years looking for work, working part-time, getting odd temp jobs. everybody i talked to down at the job hc were in the same boat. they were talking about spends months and years being unemployed. now when i talk to unemployed people, they tell me they can't get hired fast enough. i had a guy walking down the street, a business owner came outside, he didn't even apply for job and said, i'll give you a job. he was hired off the street. another young man i was talking to said that he got fired that day from the convenience store he worked at and he got hired the next day across the street at the other convenience store. host: martin, let me ask you this. what do you make about this jobs report that shows that the overall job market is shrinking and has some folks worried that we might be heading to even

slower recovery or even a recession? caller: i don't consider it a particularly bad thing. the fact that it's growing still a positive thing. back then, 2007, we were losing jobs. now they are still growing. under the ronald reagan administration, they tried to tell us that 8% was full employment. now they are saying it's not good enough. it's purely matter of perspective and the reality is that people are employed, they are doing well. if i can go one day being unemployed as opposed to months, i consider that not a problem. host: up next talking about the economy is eddie calling in from massachusetts. you say things are worse for you. how are things worse? caller: 80-year-old on a small

pension and social security, they don't get up. i had come back from the nursery yesterday, had to restrict it to a couple of vegetables. i couldn't buy potted plants. you talk about the economy, infrastructure. yeah, it would be great. but remember, now, if you build a highway, they are probably using chinese concrete and steel. you'd be driving on highways where probably german, japanese, korean cars -- host: do you think that there's a role in government to help fix this? what would you like to see the government change? caller: lower the corporate tax. you've got to get people back to work. we're the highest in the free world now. three beer companies left the country. now will be using canadian wheat, canadian cans and

bottles. even burger king left for canada. so government has got to lower their corporate tax. corporations are not the problem. they are not the wealthiest. don't criticize them. host: that's eddie calling in from massachusetts. up next we have cindy calling in from new jersey. cindy, things are better for you than eight years ago. tell us why. caller: absolutely things are better. with this administration -- before this, our unemployment was way up. now it's 4.7. i feel that if they would have allowed president obama to do more, our unemployment would have been much less. so i feel that the economy has gotten much better. i'm also a hillary fan and i feel that women should get together all over the world and i think that this would be a positive thing. thank you. host: that was cindy calling in from new jersey. and coming up we're going to be talking with patricia kime, a senior reporter for the

'military times". she'll give an update on what the v.a. is doing to help veterans get better healthcare. later on we'll be talking to former hhs official dr. anand parekh about -- who is now at the bipartisan policy center -- about preparations under way to combat the zika virus this summer. but, first, all weekend long we'll be exploring the history and literary life of las vegas, nevada, as our c-span city tour continues on book tv and the american history tv. coming up today at noon on c-span 2's book tv, we'll feature all of our las vegas literary programming, including an interview with oscar goodman, former mayor of las vegas, and the author of being oscar, who shares this story about how he became the go-to attorney for the mob. >> we went out to a place called the truck room at the hacienda hotel. after dinner, carolyn would take whatever we had left over and

play black jack. i would stand behind her and just like we're talking, although, it looks like i do all the talking -- i spoke to the dealer. he was very nice guy. one day he called me and said, oscar, i have to file bankruptcy. would you do it for me? i didn't know bankruptcy from a speed bump at the time. but i learned how to fill out a bankruptcy petition. i did it by hand. he was happy. i charged him $250. and i was happy. weeks later a phone call comes in and it's from a mobster. his brother had been arrested and help wanted to know who's the best criminal lawyer in las vegas. well, nothing changes over all the years. the fellow who lifted the phone cups it and says who's the best

criminal lawyer? the guy i did the bankruptcy for said, call oscar. that's how it started. i represented the brother. i could try the case a thousand times and -- i got lucky and won it. anybody who was connected with the alleged mob, it was call oscar. host: we welcome patricia kime. patricia is a 'military times" senior reporter. we'll look at the state of veterans' care in the u.s., as well as proposed changes in the system. patricia, thanks for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's take an overview of the v.a.'s issues. where do things stand in terms of changes and reforms under way? guest: there are a number of reform proposals to the

veterans' choice program, which is the care that serves veterans outside the v.a. veterans who live more than 40 miles from a v.a. hospital center or can't get an appointment for 30 days purportedly can use the choice program, but there's been issues with it. v.a. would like to revamp it to consolidate some of its community care programs, make it more streamlined and efficient. it's asked congress for changes for this to happen. it's not clear whether that will happen. both the house and senate have bills that propose making some changes, but not going as far as the v.a. would like it to. host: so what are some of the sticking points in this proposal that -- as you see them? guest: well, i think the big issues are they need a legislative -- v.a. they need a

legislative change to roll all of their community care programs into one v.a. choice program. there's a number of programs out there that -- like in maine there's a very popular private care program that is a v.a. program. legislators and constituents in maine don't particularly want that program to go away. so there's some protection going on for the community care programs that are working in congress. so those things are not in -- you know, they -- v.a. does not -- v.a. would like to see those rolled into the choice program, but there are people who are -- have interest in keeping programs that working properly alone. host: and then the piece that you wrote about the expansion choice program in the 'military times". you note that v.a. deputy secretary sloan gibson was

talking about it and said if veterans who do not begin to seek community care, v.a. will refer resources from internal v.a. care, dramatically undercutting our ability to provide care to the unique needs of veterans. can you talk more about this? guest: there's some extremely -- there's legislation that proposes to give the choice program to every single veteran and eliminating those barriers like the 40-mile rule and the 30-day rule, which would allow a veteran to call and get an appointment at a private care facility, that v.a. officials are extremely concerned that veterans would then just choose to go to their nearest doctor that took the choice program and

not go to the v.a. and then you have a spiral if all veterans are seeking private care, not going to v.a. -- v.a. needs patients that -- and serves patients that have unique service-connected disabilities. amputations, hearing loss. there are specialty services that v.a. prides itself on being one of the top places to go for prosthetics. there's fear that if veterans are going outside constantly, there will be a gap in healthcare between what they are getting at the v.a. and what they are getting out in the private care and als a fear that v.a. facilities will be underutilized and will lose their ability to provide cutting-edge medicine. host: we're talking with patricia kime. she's a senior reporter at the

'military times" -- about the veterans' administration and proposed reforms under way there. callers can join this conversation. democrats can call 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. members of the visibility can call 202-748-8003. let's talk about the $10 billion fix for the v.a. this piece notes that, despite this fix, veterans are waiting even longer to see doctors. why is that? guest: there are a number of reasons for that. there are more veterans actually seeking care at v.a. than there were a year and a half ago. the number of appointments is up

by about 800,000 appointments. but, also, the v.a. choice program did not roll out as well as it could have. a lot of -- it's not easing the burden as it should. in fact, it's extremely underutilized primarily because doctors still either aren't aware of it, they won't actually take it because v.a. has been slow to reimburse payments, and have dropped the program, or they haven't been approached to be a part of it. so it is not functioning as it originally intended to ease the burden of the wait times at v.a. hospitals. host: describe some of the services. what types of services unique to veterans do they go to the v.a. looking for, to give us a better

idea of the impact. guest: the v.a. administration is geared toward helping with -- it generally provides healthcare to veterans for a variety of things, not necessarily veterans-related. but, you know, a hearing loss is one of the biggest disabilities at the v.a. there's muscular skeletal injuries. the wear and tear on the body. the v.a. is supposedly, you know, a cutting-edge place to get care for that. brain injury. we hear about the traumatic brain injury and the mental health conditions related to

combat mental health health-related conditions. host: we're talking with patricia kime of the 'military times" about the v.a. veterans healthcare system and proposed reforms. let's go to our caller. steve is a veteran calling in from phoenix. you're on with patricia kime. caller: a little nervous. i haven't spoken to you in about five years. can you hear me? host: we hear you. what's your question? caller: last weekend i was thinking -- [inaudible] alleviate this backlog. i'd like to see maybe like a mass unit. have you ever heard of cloud break, u.s. vet? there's close to 300 men and women right here off of jones avenue -- unit came here.

they could go through vets, check their blood pressure, you know, the normal things, even take blood tests, a lot of things that you have to go to the hospitals supposedly for. i haven't been there since 2012. pretty health for 66. something like this i think could really help. host: let's let patricia comment. guest: the department of veterans affairs has 300 mobile vans that do provide healthcare. there might not be one in his area, but -- and maybe i have the numbers wrong on that. but they have mobile vans, they have some clinics. they have vet clinics that provide care. but some of these areas where veteran live are extremely

rural. the issue is not just veterans' healthcare. it's healthcare for the entire civilian population. so, you know, there may be an opportunity there to provide more mobile clinics and some incentives to get doctors to go move to these places so they can provide care for veterans. host: ok. v.a. secretary mcdonald was a guest on our news makers program back in april. here's what he had to say about the quality of care for veterans. >> if you ask me, the ultimate measure for any veteran on how we deal with that veteran is whether or not they are satisfied with what we do. we put together a program where the first strategy is to improve the veteran experience. we have used companies, some of the best companies in the world like disney, starbucks, to work to build the light into those

experiences. so we're all about satisfaction. i mean this wait-time thing has kind of taken over control of really what should be the real measure. in terms of wait times, we believe the data that we're using is good data and we believe that wait times generally are on average three to six days, depending upon the specialty that you want at which location. but we have admitted to two things. if you go to the ends of bellker, almost 20% getting same-day access. on the other curve, you have people waiting much too long. those are the specialties we've got to fix. and with the care in the community program that we have put forward, it's a huge opportunity to fix those.

that's why we're working that with congress. i think ultimately the measure satisfaction is really what's important, and do veterans trust the v.a.? we know the vfw put out a study that over 80% of veterans love coming to the v.a., they like the care they get at the v.a. we're working hard to improve access so more veterans can have that care. host: that's veterans affairs secretary mcdonald. he's come under some fire about wait times, which he compared to waits at disney world, as explained here. what do you think about his response to those criticisms? guest: the disney thing was very interesting. he has had that as part of sort of his presentation about wait times for a few months and

explaining that people don't measure satisfaction with disney by how long they wait in line, which i can see sort of that -- it was a poor analogy. huge digital clocks in disneyland. you step into the line and it's a 45-minute wait. and that probably does affect your satisfaction if you're paying that much money to go to disneyland. and the comment was just so glib and i don't think he understood how sensitive veterans are to the wait times. he mentioned the ones that are on the bell curve. there was data published this week that shows that at some v.a. facilities people are waiting, you know, 50 days for

specialty care appointments. in general, there's that window that he was saying three to six days. but there's also a lot of distrust of how accurate the numbers are because of the way v.a. calculates wait times when they, you know -- do they go from the moment that a vet asks for appointment? do they go from the moment the veteran is contacted by the v.a. to schedule an appointment? there's some variety there. and the interpretation is -- by some vets is that they are sort of on the side of it looks better -- the wait times are better than they are. host: we're talking to patricia kime of the 'military times" about veterans' healthcare and efforts to reform the v.a. next on the line is steve from ohio on our republican line. steve, good morning. caller: good morning.

i'm calming because -- calling because i feel as if the veterans, they have all signed up on their own free will, they are protecting america. i think they should be able to just walk in to any doctor at any time with proper proof that they served our country and be seen for free. they should be able to send that bill to the federal government, federal government say to the v.a. hospitals or center and say, ok, he has proof, just like when you go to the doctor, you bring in your insurance card, you bring in your dd 214 or proof that you were a veteran and done. host: ok. that's steve calling from ohio. how close to that are these proposed reforms to the veterans' choice program? guest: there's -- senator mccain has proposed essentially that,

and v.a. officials, as well as veteran service organizations. the counterargument is that there are veterans that feel they fought for this country and the v.a. is one of the benefits of service. they enjoy going to the v.a. it's a lot like being, you know part of the military or part of a group. you go to the v.a. you see doctors who understand veterans. you see other veterans. is that a reason to uphold an entire healthcare system? i don't know. but the veterans really do like the care that they get. majority -- v.a. tells us 90% of veterans are satisfied once they get into v.a. care and they

really do feel like when they signed up, they thought they were going to get cared for and they want to go to a veterans medical center or clinic to get the care. host: we have gary calling in from florida. gary is a veteran. -- the united states of america, service by the v.a. wizard putting these things in, where you had to have a service-connected injury to be serviced by the v.a.. ever since then, they have destroyed the whole system. took away theagan public health system and destroyed all the public health

when he became president of the united states of america -- host: we lost gary. can you speak to the point he was making? guest: i'm not really aware of the history of rolling in with service-connected conditions, but it does make sense if you are injured on active duty, or you receive -- get a disease on active duty, there is an obligation to take care of our nation's veterans and family members, in some cases. that is what the v.a. was built for. and that is their mission. what they have created. host: you also wrote about efforts by some lawmakers to dissolve the army navy and air force medical commands. you write in the "military

times," calling the military health system slow and inefficient, the senate armed services committee has proposed eliminating the medical commands, and folding them into the defense health agency. under the committee's draft of the nda egg, the military medical commands would be , surgeoninto the dha general would become advisors to the service chiefs and secretaries. what would the effect of that e, if it weren't lamented? -- if it were implement it? guest: the medical health care system is completely separate from the veterans health system of. the mission of military health services torovide military personnel and their family members, but primarily combat readiness and provide battlefield medicine. at -- thelooked

defense department has looked a restructuring the military health system for more than 50 years. they looked at 14 different studies, the concept of rolling everything into one military medical command has been floated as recently as four years ago. and rejected. seenuld remain to be exactly what would come out of that. dod has already moved to consolidate a number of the programs, leaving the army, navy, air force alone because they each have a very unique medical capability. the navy, with underwater medicine, shipboard medicine, land-basedth specialties and the air force being able to provide air

transport, medical transport, which is why the services really would like to see their own medical commands preserved. and work jointly, rather than be put together as a joint command. host: we are talking with patricia kime, senior reporter for "military times," any former reliance -- freelance journalist about veterans health care. the next we have a veteran, tom calling in from california. good morning. caller: good morning. i like to point out, not only in my veteran, but i'm also a retired employee of the veterans of menstruation. hospital, there was a a va hospital, full service. it was a teaching hospital. but because of political reasons, the hospital was torn down. aim was to centralize

their medical hospitals and create clinics throughout the united states. everyone is talking about the v.a. health care reform, and the idea of sending veterans to private doctors, because maybe they would be outside the region, for a hospital or clinic. whatever --pitals, if congress -- they play this political football with veterans benefits. i'm also a vietnam vet, and i watched a lot of our benefits that we were supposed receive literally vanish. this is often an ongoing problem. the question is this -- you are talking about v.a. health care reform, and i see now with a holder generation of veterans that are coming back for the middle east, and some of them

are waiting 90 to 120 days to get what they really need. host: that's a lot to unpack. with patricia talk -- we will let patricia talk to what you have said. guest: you talked about the post-9/11 veterans. if you are in iraq or afghanistan veteran, you automatically received five years of v.a. health care before you had to go into the tiered system and priority system. been going to v.a., the system definitely has expanded to accommodate these veterans. what we hear often is the concern within the v.a. -- these are still young, relatively healthy veterans. what they need to do is prepare for when these veterans age,

veteranshe vietnam that the v.a. is seeing now, there will be another way of, and the vads to prepare -- the v.a. needs to prepare for that level of use in the future. host: we have michelle calling in from michigan on the independent line. good morning, you are on with patricia kime. caller: good morning, patricia. follows on the heels of what tom just said in respect to these current veterans waiting 100 days or more for 20 minutes. can you tell me why there is a v.a. hiring freeze? tend to covert personnel issues as much. it's not a question i can definitively say there is a hiring freeze. they are moving to do some things to allow there to be more

providers, one of the most recent things that the v.a. is allowing certain classes of nurses to provide health care unsupervised by doctors. , midwives,hetists nurse practitioners, v.a. believes that by allowing them to operate without doctors signing off on their work, they will have more health care providers, and i will also help alleviate the backlog. host: let's talk about some of the health issues that veterans face. for example, based on a survey of post-9/11 veterans, it found high rate of suicide or suicide attempts or consideration. 40% of vets have considered suicide at least once after they joined the military. hadsaid they service-connected mental health

conditions, and 82 were receiving treatment, mostly at the v.a. talk about this issue and how it's affecting the v.a. and veterans care. that was a survey by iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. it had adjusting things to say about those 9/11 groups. one of the most striking things about survey was the majority of those people who did seek health care -- mental health care were asked by a loved one -- hey, i think you need help. perhaps you should go see somebody. that did spur them to action. repeatedly, the increase in suicide and suicide attempts is a national problem. veterans are microcosm of society, we are seeing that happen.

v.a. has expanded their mental bylth capabilities almost one third in the last couple of --rs to accommodate more mental health treatment. -- they like to get enjoy talking to peers, they enjoy getting treatment from people who they believe understand them. quite often, if they go to a civilian, a civilian might not know what to do or how to treat combat related anxiety or ptsd, post-traumatic stress disorder. and they feel comfortable going to the v.a. for mental health care. host: up next on the call list is ted, a veteran calling in from warrenton, oregon. caller: good morning. at the time i was in the air

force as a noncommissioned officer, i was a plumber in the engineers. when i got out of active duty, i went into that career, and for the past 25 years, i have been a journeyman plumber, working in a lot of hospitals worried both civilian and v.a.. what i know, and what i've learned is that when the v.a. makes a mistake, they put it on the front page of the paper for all the world to learn. a civilian hospital, when they make a mistake, it is a fact that is never learned. i have found that the whole premise, of the whole debate civilian hospital versus v.a. has been moved from the very beginning. because you cannot compare v.a. health care to civilian world, when civilian world is never reported the outcome. me, personally -- i do have the

opportunity to go to a civilian hospital, should i feel that the v.a. is an quick enough for my needs. host: let's give patricia a chance to respond. guest: it's an interesting question you have brought up. is the issue of transparency. sure that every error and mistake that is made of the va hospital is made public. big issues with people -- whistleblowers pointing out things that have past --elined in the the wait times issue was raised by whistleblowers. actually issues with reaching out to patients and the health eligibility enrollment system. they had a problem, and a whistleblower raise those concerns.

the v.a. is trying to be more transparent. we now see many, many more reports. but there are still issues. the wait time investigations by the inspector general -- those were not released until usa today filed a freedom of information act request for those reports. i do think there are some ongoing problems that v.a. needs to address, in terms of transparency and accountability. ray: up next we have colling and from leavenworth, washington. the veteran. ray, good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. to patricia, thank you for helping us out and writing stuff up for us. god knows we need it. is -- it always boils down to money.

there is never, ever enough money for the veterans, but there's always enough money to go to war. -- 50% of thedget budget now goes to defense. v.a. int we combine the the department of defense -- their budgets, so there's never any problem with money. and maybe you can write a column about it. but what we need to do is start brainstorming, to get the v.a. back on track. thanks for taking my call. [laughter] guest: thank you for calling. the v.a.'s budget is $75 billion and it isg, substantial. climates -- budget there are concerns among congress that the health care budget of the v.a. is ballooning

, and while they want to serve veterans, they still also have to balance the budget and keep the budget contained. host: can you explain a little bit as to why we are having tweets that are asking the same question? why is the v.a.'s budget not a part of the big defense spending budget? why is it separate? of two separate cabinets. the defense apart has one mission, the v.a. has a completely separate mission. the defense department serves the u.s. military, and uniformed personnel. veterans, while they are veterans, they are civilians. it is a very different mission set, and different goals. deborah, calling in from millennial beach, virginia. deborah is a veteran. you wrong with just a kind. good morning. -- you are on with patricia

kime. caller: i'm a veteran, and i have had expert care through the veteran hospital. but it had to make use of an iergency visit to a hospital, was having a gallbladder attack because the va hospital was more than two hours away. the bills got cemented to the v.a., they didn't pay them. it's a year later, it went on my credit, and i'm having difficulties buying a house because it now says that i'm the link went in payments. we went through all of the procedures that were required to go to an outside hospital, by calling the v.a. to get authorization, they said i did everything right. of having arocess go through the different departments to get the money to pay the bills. host: deborah, let's let patricia talk about the situation. the one 800't know number offhand, but are you aware that there's a one 800 number for veterans who have had

their credit affected by the veteran's choice program? v.a. has recognized this is an issue, and they do have a number you can call. they are supposed to have folks that can help you resolve your issue. this is a concern, the veteran's choice bills were not paid in a timely manner. we heard from a number of veterans who have credit issues related to this. call thatd that you one 800-number, which is available online. if that doesn't get resolved, i would contact your congressional representative. host: has congress responded? it sounds a major difficulty that faces veterans. has congress responded to this as well as part of the reforms bill? provisionse are some in a number of the bills to billinghe third-party

bytem, v.a. choices run primarily to contractors. there were issues with the way people to get appointments and doctors were getting paid. there are some solutions with these bills to allow v.a. to direct bill. and they recently have rearrange their system so that they can solve the billing issues much host:uickly than they did initially. the -- then they did initially. host: we have bob. caller: i would like to thank all of my fellow veterans for their service. i believe america owes them the best health care in the world. no vet should pay nothing.

i had cancer, it has nothing to do with the military, and i was taken very well care of by the v.a.. my representatives went 100 miles to help me. i went to my local hospital to be treated, to where the v.a. is here was well over two and a half hours away. it would be a hardship for my wife to come visit with me. i became very ill. the v.a. took very good care of all the paperwork, everything. i'm sad to hear that that lady who had the problem with her v.a. paid for it. my representatives took care of everything. relaxed in my head, knowing my wife and the bills were taken care of through the v.a.. ,'m very happy with the v.a. and i'm sorry there are other problems. i just wanted to let people

know, the v.a. does go 100 miles when it's called for. thanks to the v.a., thanks to our veterans, and god bless america. thank you. host: can you talk a little about that? how much of these problems sporadic, or depending on geography or other factors to give these different outcomes and experiences? guest: if the data is any sporadic, int is that there are huge issues. general overall satisfaction -- i hear from veterans a lot, they really appreciate the care they get, they like the care they get , but there are these outliers that are not getting good care. said, i do hear from a lot of veterans who really appreciate it, and don't

want the system to go away. next we have ronald, calling in from philadelphia on the independent line. caller: in the first place, i would like to know do you represent the veterans with a military, or the news organization? who are you representing? host: she is the senior reporter for the "military times," she's a journalist. caller: what does that mean? guest: i publications, we run army times, maybe times, -- navy times, and air force times. we cater towards the military audience, and in the last few years, we have been covering veterans, because most of our military audience -- a lot of them have expanded and left the service. and moved on. so our main focus of our audience is military and veterans.

now: up next we have calling in from saint roberts, missouri on the democratic line. good morning. do you know the meaning [indiscernible] host: hello? did you know the number -- host: what is this law about? it is about the v.a. program. if you have any program on your record, you can be seen at the v.a.. public law -- host: let's let her respond. guest: i believe the callers talking about whether you have

-- i can't tell if it's a weminal issue or within -- call them bad paper discharges, if you have been discharged from the military with a less than honorable discharge, in many cases, you cannot be seen by the v.a.. there are certain parameters a veteran must meet when they leave service to be treated at v.a. host: how widespread of an issue is that? is that preventing a lot of veterans from getting care? guest: it's most recently been in the news because some veterans who have had service-connected mental health conditions like post-traumatic --ess or anxiety issues substance abuse. while they are in the service, they may be having some behavioral issues, and they end up getting in trouble with their commands, and getting in trouble

, and being discharged from the military for what essentially are service-connected conditions. and they cannot be seen at the v.a. the good news there, to some extent, is there is some v.a. to afoot within partner with community health providers, to provide care for these veterans. a number of organizations have stepped up to provide counseling withervices to veterans service related conditions that have bad paper discharges. one is in new york university, has set up some veterans clinic's and plans to put them nationwide to serve veterans with dishonorable discharges. host: i'm next we have pete calling in for leesburg,

virginia, and other veterans. good morning, you are on with patricia kime. caller: when i was in, i can say was an adventure, not a job. with this refers to my son, combat veteran. i think the v.a. has to come into the 21st century and separate my service compared to a combat veterans that one outside the wire every day. if you have a related incident or something that's related to the military or you served and you are a combat veteran, you should be able to walk into a v.a. clinic almost any hospital or doctor's office in the world, and you should have a card where you can get service for anything you need, anything you wanted. it's ridiculous where you have to put up with some guy who was behind the wire, and he slipped and twisted is on his way to get coffee in the morning. host: let's let patricia respond to the differences in care to different types of veterans. interestingis an

point. there's a group right now, a blue panel commission called the commission on care that is really looking at what the v.a. should look like in the future. one of the proposals they are considering is exactly what you proposed -- everyone has a card, and they can go out and get civilian care in the community. and then preserve the v.a. for very specialized care that they are good at, with prosthetics, traumatic brain injuries, mental health conditions. thought, but the v.a. needs to be more flexible. in providing care, either through the civilian community, or at v.a. host: up next, we have mike calling in from south dakota. good morning. caller: good morning.

i am from kindle, i'm currently at the va hospital in sioux falls, they are taking excellent care of me. my question is, in regards to those of us that are on social security with medicare and medicaid being taken out, we have the option of supplemental insurance, or whatever -- medicaid replacement policies. but, of those policies that are offered, none of them would give that money directly to the v.a., like in my particular case, trying to see the v.a. exclusively, the only reason i would look at the medicare replacement policies is because the va hospital for me is about an hour a half, 2 hour drive away. emergency room visits are my primary concern of. why isn't there a program for supplemental would go to the v.a. instead of some companies that you will never actually use? guest: there are several laws on

the books that prohibit the v.a. from taking money from medicaid, tri-care, those varieties. entail a legislative change. to be able to do that. , seniortricia kime reporter for the "military times," thank you for joining us. coming up, we're talking to dr. on as official part -- anand parekh. and later on, we talked adam , about how the eight members of record is punching so far, and the cases to be decided. -- supreme court is functioning so far, and the cases to be decided. >> live coverage of the president torres continues

tuesday night with primaries in six states. california, new jersey, new mexico, and north and south dakota. >> a more different vision for betweentry than the one our side of democrats for prosperity, for fairness, for opportunity. then the presumptive nominee on the republican side. donald trump: we're going to win on progress, we are going to win on education, no more common core, bring it down, we want it local. care,t away with health we are going to win at trade. have got tors: we redefine what politics means in america. we need people from coast to coast, standing up, fighting back, and demanding a government that represents all of us, not just the 1%.

>> join us live at 9:00 eastern for election results, candidate speeches, and your reaction. and we look ahead at the fall battleground states, taking you on the road to the white house, on c-span. c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> citizens of got to feel that their vote matters, that their voice matters, and whether they tonot spare a single cent help a person running for office, or whether they can write a big check -- it's their concerns, their struggles will be listened to and followed up on. >> sunday night on "q&a," tammy baldwin talks about her career in public service, and wisconsin political history. >> bottle follow it senior -- bob the follett senior, helped shuffle the change whereby senators were not appointed by

demandedlatures, but elections. i guess -- and i know if it was the first, but the idea that it wasn't going to be the party bosses who made the decision of who the nominees were in smoke-filled back rims but rather, the people who were going to get a chance to vote in free and fair elections. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." continues. journal," host: joining us now is dr. anand parekh, with the bipartisan policy center, where he is a senior adviser. you will be talking about the public and private health services preparations for the mosquito borne zika virus, as we head into summer. thank you for joining us. guest: it's great to be with

you. host: let's take a look at what cdc director tom friedman said about the zika virus, and the preparations that are underway. [video clip] >> the latest challenge we're dealing with is the government -- zika. it has been more than 50 years since we identified any pathogen that can cause a birth defect. beforehave never identified a situation where a mosquito bite could result in infection that causes a devastating birth defect. it is unprecedented, it is tragic, it is not proven. causes microzika safely and other birth defects. there's an enormous amount that we still don't know. we are still learning more, literally, every day about what the zika causes, and how to

prevent it. the top priority is to protect pregnant women, and that focus has to be our guiding principle for the work everywhere there is risk for zika. heralds the weekend start of mosquito season in the u.s. we have a narrow window of opportunity to scale up effective zika prevention measures, and that window of opportunity is closing. host: he calls it the narrowing window of opportunity. it sounds pretty concerning. that?s your reaction to guest: it's a fair characterization. it's a narrow window of opportunity, because the mosquito that carries the zika virus is usually seen in the summer months here in the continental united states. summer is right around the corner. i think a narrow window of opportunity is correct.

i think it's also the right phrase here, because as public health leaders, we are all in the business of preventing lives and reducing suffering. every day that goes by when you think you are not optimally prepared is the debut are concerned that you're not doing as much as you could, if there were resources to prepare for it. host: we are talking about preparations that are underway for the zika virus as summer is upon us. we have special lines for this discussion. oryou are in the eastern central time zones, in united call (202) 748-8000 . in mountain or pacific regions, you can call call (202) 748-8001 . given those geographic distances, let's start there by talking about that. what is the level of risk for americans, and how does it depend on where they live? guest: this mosquito which is

transmitting the zika virus is usually found in the continental united states, usually in the southern half of the united states, so the south, southeast, southwest. this mosquito gets up into the mid-atlantic. there's another strain that actually gets into the midwest as well as the northeast. the public health experts believe that the first potential local transmission by mosquitoes of this virus will likely happen in localities in the south. i think we are paying particular attention to states like florida , gulf states like louisiana, states like texas, california -- related viruses like dengue -- those of places where we have seen outbreaks first occur. host: what can we learn from those other kinds of mosquito borne illnesses, and what we in placesfrom zika like puerto rico, to help inform the u.s. officials within the

continental u.s. about what the response should be? guest: why we care about this is really because of birth defects. it's the first mosquito borne viral illness that leads to birth defects. so first and foremost, our focus is to be on protecting pregnant women, and women of childbearing age. of differentrray preparedness activities that are currently ongoing. the first is surveillance. whened to be able to know these mosquitoes are here, if they have zika, if their resistance -- if they are resistant. we need to track whether it american citizens have zika, whether pregnant women have zika, whether they have convocations, such as microsoft late. -- microcephaly. learning that vector the factorstrolling

is aboard. removing standing water, using insecticides in a targeted way, is critical. public education is critical. education to the public, what they can do to prevent zika transmission. education to providers and health care professionals, so they know how to diagnose and treat zika are all very important aspect. the final thing we've learned is we need more research. we need to learn more about this virus. we need research that can help all of the vaccine, even though it's not going to be found in the near future. and we need better diagnostic tests to test the virus. host: hitting a couple of the points that you made, number one, the birth defects that can happen to unborn children of people infected with the zika, as well as to book officials recommending now that anyone who is traveled to a zika affected

region, women of childbearing age weight eight weeks to start planning a family. and men, wait six months before starting to plan a family. explain why the difference in those precautions. guest: we have found that the zika virus is carried longer semen rather insemen than blood. if you are a young couple interest in conception, and have been to an area where it is being transmitted, and men, longer because the virus is more than likely still in their bodies. so up to six months. these are important recommendations. and i think important recommendations on only four individuals who have traveled, but also, if there are local clusters here in the united states over the next couple of months, these are important things that young couples need to be thinking about if they are interest in conceiving right now. host: we are talking with dr. on

parekh ---- on on the anand parekh. lines barbara from the east coast. concerned that in new york city, what used to be standard for any apartment building, whether it was a tenant or a co-op tenant arrangement or whatever was to provide useful screens, window screens. it is no longer mandated, and for some reason, buildings, particularly the one i'm in, on manhattan, is not provide screens. does not replace broken or ripped screens. this is a simple protection for everyone.

the doctor let address this. important's a very point you're making. part of the preparations right now, in addition to the important use of insect repellents and understanding the modes of transmission of this virus is realizing that preventing mosquito bites is central. ensuring there are screens under windows, the you are indoors in air-conditioned places, particularly if there are clusters of the zika virus, more than likely, this will be in the south, i think it's very important. your point is a very valid one, that a variety of authorities should recognize as they think about elderly populations, vulnerable populations, really all americans in trying to reduce the transmission of the good virus, you should know that just a couple of days ago, the centers for medicare and medicaid services and the

medicaid program is now essentially allowing states to cover, should they choose, insect repellents, family-planning services -- all to prepare and mitigate against zika virus. there also allowing managed-care plans to actually go in the homes and essentially pay for some of the things you are talking about, like screens, simple things that you can do to reduce transmission. it's a very valid point, reducing the exposure to , reducing being bitten by mosquitoes is an important part of repair this. -- preparedness. host: it's unclear, or at least experts are differing as to how big of a threat this does pose in the united states, this piece and health magazine points out that health officials in the are healthes --

officials in the united states overreacting? it is unlikelyy to become a widespread hazard to pregnant women throughout the united states. gettingype over zika overblown when it comes to pregnant women and certainly for people who are not pregnant or planning to have families? the mindset is still in the ebola framework, when the worry was anything back to 2014, people dying with hemorrhagic zika is not going to cause death. zika is different. but when you think of vulnerable populations like the children of this country, and newborn babies, essentially receiving a life sentence in terms of developmental disabilities -- that is the focus. that is why we are all concerned. most individuals who contract the zika won't even know that they had it. -- will be a symptomatically

asymptomatical. then why are we worried, but can mosquito borne illness cause birth defects. and we want to prevent as many birth defects as possible. the way to do that is to focus on pregnant women and women of childbearing age. host: we are talking with dr. next have billp coming in from georgia. caller: i just would like to make the comments that i agree with some of the experts -- this is overblown. basically that these tropical type diseases, whether they be areue or chikungunya basically found in the tropics, that this fear that is being generated in the united states

is going to paralyze people. i think essentially what you are seeing is that these kind of viral illnesses carried by mosquitoes, they are seen mostly in the tropics. and basically, a simple thing mosquitoesg the using ddt like we did in the 1940's for malaria here in the southern united states really saved the thing. maybe that is an extensive program, using ddt would really -- for lack of a better expression, this fear. host: bill, let's give the doctor a chance to respond. caller: those are important points. i totally agree that anyone who is trying to generate fear and hype and panic is not correct. in public health, we have this mantra that you prepare for the

worst, you hope for the best. and here, you always have to air on the side of caution, particularly when you are thinking of children. you are right that zika so far has been found in warmer, milder climates and tropical settings. but come the summer months, these are environments that are not unlike many of the environments, particularly in southern states in the united states. and that is why public health experts believe that there could very well be some clusters of local transmission, particularly in areas such as that in the southern united states. all of the activities right now is, from my perspective, are all focused on preparation. in providing information to the american public. i think that is critical, doing so in a way where you are not generating fear and hype. the last point i would make is there is no magic bullet.

as one local public health leader recently said, we're not going to spray our way out of this problem. there's a multipronged effort that is needed, from reducing standing water and breeding areas for mosquitoes, to the use of targeted insecticides, to ensuring that we can reduce transmission of the mosquito. shared responsibility. individual responsibility, as well as responsibility for local state and federal public health authorities. host: talk a little bit about that individual responsibility. what should folks living in southern regions be doing right now to prepare themselves for zika this summer. ? guest: if you have specific questions about your help we are family members health, talk to your health care professional. if you would like to learn more from the web or the internet, go to cdc.gov. there is a tremendous amount of information they are as -- there

as well. listening to local public health authorities is critical. there are a couple of important things that individuals can do in these environments. the first is to realize that insect repellents is one very important way to reduce exposure to mosquitoes. there are an array of epa registered insect repellents that individual should purchase and have that will prevent mosquito bites. wearing long clothing, arms and legs is critical also. these are common sense things, but things that are worth remember them. understanding that even though the mode of transmission is mostly mosquito borne, that sexual transmission is an uncommon but potential mode of transmission, that's particularly important for men and women of childbearing age. access to contraception will be critical, some of the rituals may want to refrain from sexual

activity if they are in an environment where there is little transmission ongoing. and finally, going in your backyard, in your home, and seeing is there standing water? are there potential areas where mosquitoes might be breeding and reducing that is part of the shared responsibility that public health and individuals have. host: we're talking with dr. anand parekh with the bipartisan policy center and the preparations for the zika virus. he is a board certified internal medicine physician. we have michael, calling in from crosby, texas in the south. michael, you are on. caller: i'm down in the south, in texas. we have been having a lot of water in our area. going federal governments to ramp up their responsibility? i know texas has been cutting back on a lot of these programs,

spraying. host: there is a lot of flooding areas of the united states, including taxes. texas.uding taxes -- guest: it raises the possibility of standing water and the risk, so that is concerning. i think your question about the federal responsibility -- i'm with you here. we, unfortunately, what we're hearing from local and state public health officials is that they are trying their best, but they don't have the resources to do their jobs. essentially what we have had in washington for the last five five months of congressional impasse, where between the administration in congress, there's disagreement. even within congress, between the house and the senate, between chambers, there's disagreement in terms of what aid needs to move forward, how quickly it needs to move forward , what are the most important pieces of aid?

we are at an impasse, but i think this is where the federal government needs to step up, we need to see some bipartisanship, we need the season compromise -- we need to see some compromise. we need resources to flow, the state and local health authorities to reach the challenges that you are talking about. host: congress is in recess right now, and they went before acting on a measure to combat the zika virus. the obama administration asked for $1.9 million to respond to this. did approvesenate $1.1 billion of funding that had been used -- targeted, much of which is funding that have been targeted for the polar response -- ebola response. how much time to they have when they get back? guest: there is a narrow window of opportunity. the sooner they can act allows local authorities to prepare

even more. i think the president asked for emergency request in february, it took quite a while for response, in may, the senate did approve a bipartisan version at a lower number. the house version is even lower. about $622 million. it only goes to the end of the fiscal year. the offset is, i think you are referring to this, it's taking money from the response of one infectious disease, ebola, and applying to zika this idea that we can work from crisis to crisis, which is not the best way to approach public health challenges. we are at an impasse. if it were just the administration in the senate one could think that maybe in the next couple of days, when they come back from recess, there could be some progress. but given the gulf between the house and the senate, the

committee is going to have a lot of work to do. every day that passes is another day where we are not optimally prepared. host: up next we have bill coming on from fort saint lucie, florida. thank you for c-span, and i have a couple of questions. on thein lancet internet, that they had done a study in the south pacific islands of how likely you were the brain defects and such for childbearing women. they concluded that it was about one chance in 100 in the first trimester, versus one chance and 5000 if you did not get the virus. chance -- the second question is, we are not in childbearing age, there's another version that gives you a

syndrome of my haven't heard any probability studies of that. is the lancet study correct? great question. i will take the first. there has been an even more study recently published that looked at pregnant women with zika in their first trimester, and they found that the range of born willof babies have microcephaly. wide range,hat's a because we are still learning quite a bit, but is not insignificant number by any means. zika,regnant woman has contracted in the first trimester, there is a 1% to 13% chance that baby may have birth defects, microcephaly, develop mental disabilities.

-- developmental disabilities. thank you for bringing up the point about the system -- the syndrome. it's the one complication that focuses not just on pregnant women, but on all americans. there has been increased association, 13 countries around the world have seen this so far. of cases of zika leading to this syndrome. immune syndrome, where your immune system attacks nerve cells. your peripheral nerve cells, making you feel weak. in some instances, you can have paralysis as well. many times, and short-lived, and certain times, you can be permanent and lead to death as well. anis seen connected with array of different viruses, but this association between zika seems pretty new. it is something that we are concerned about here as well.

there is already been one case in the united states attributed to zika. this is something to watch out for. this is not about fear, it's not about height, but this is what public health officials -- this is what scientists and clinicians do, we try and track associations that trying to the best information out there. host: up next we have steve, calling in from scranton, pennsylvania. steve, you are on with dr. anand parekh. caller: my question is -- this recent big outbreak that was from brazil -- if you got athletes and fans coming in for the olympics from lots of countries -- what do you think the odds are that it is going to fromd around the world these people being in brazil?

and once you are infected with the zika virus, how long does it stay in your system? is it permanent, or does it die off after x amount of months? host: that's a good question. guest: i'll start with brazil, and the olympics. guest: great questions. i will start with brazil and the olympics. this is not an ideal situation. has now been found in 46 countries. you are right, this is a very difficult dilemma because the olympics will like to bring riot 500,000 travelers to de janeiro. there will likely be some transition of the virus and likely some transition of -- transmission of pregnant women

which could lead to some cases of microcephaly. on the other hand, 500,000 sounds like a lot, but already millions of people have been traveling to and fro. in dozens oflready countries. during the olympics, it is wintertime and the transmission is much less during the wintertime. we are also seeing that some of the international committee and others are taking seriously to make sure they are not pockets of standing water near the olympics and that contraception, insect repellent, and all of these things are available to athletes. there has been news in the press asking if the olympics should be postponed or moved.

currently, both the center for disease control and the world health organization have looked at the risk and benefits and think that, with sound public health education, mosquito , the olympics should proceed. in terms of your question if you contract zika, how long does it stay in your system, it is thought that it stays in your .lood about 1-2 weeks it might stay in your urine a little longer, about 20 days. menis not to stay in se longer, many weeks or months.

most viral illnesses like zika, if you know you have it, it is usually out of your system in one week or two. host:, we have bill calling in from sebastian, florida. that the 26d be countries, are there any common importedors like troops or chemical runoff that they use that could lead to this? or could climate change and the prolonged heat add to the problem. guest: all good questions. zika has been around a long time. it was first found in 1947 in africa.

early 2015, they came to the americas, to south america. isre is clear evidence this in this.o born the focus is on controlling the mosquito and the bites from the mosquito. that is the most important mode of transmission. that has been scientifically proven. separatenot a environmental cause of zika. affectsy climate change and is one factor that scientists look at when they determine where it may

circulate. host: let's talk more about the of the gut.st cbs news looks at that and says th the 1.8 million dollars figure could be insignificant if .ika runs rampant the warning signs are already baby wasthe first zika diagnosed with a deformed head and 1500 more known speak of pregnancies -- zika pregnancies are to come. are you concerned of what the cost may be of an outbreak? guest: i have heard the estimates are roughly $10 million to care for a baby born with microcephaly. beyond the tragedy of birth defects that could have been prevented, beyond the pain and

suffering for that baby and the family, to care for that baby with the disability, the lifetime costs are $10 million. you can do the math. $1.9 billionhe request, that was a request that goes to agencies like the center for disease control and prevention to control mosquitoes. it is money that would potentially go to puerto rico where there is local active transmission. that is sort of the basis, andy senate version and the house version has components of that.

they are all components that try to prevent essentially birth defects. or $1.1 m n billion may sound large, but when you consider the downstream implications, the quality of life and the cost, a number of things, this is not where i would look if you are trying to cut the federal budget. as taxpayers, we want to make they are good stewards of taxpayer dollars. this is money going to the public health infrastructure to protect women from birth defects. whatever the bipartisan compromise that the industry

should comes up with, i think we need a compromise, and related soon. dr. one're talking to .nand parekh he is a former hhs official and worked for 10 years at department of health and human services as a deputy assistant on health. next rehab rina -- we have rina calling from north carolina. caller: i would like to weigh in on the zika virus. i'm not a fan of any of these governmental agencies that are money from get the the hard working taxpayers. number one, who in their right mind would like to travel to a

pregnanthen they are and they contract a disease such ebola, or whatever. let's talk about the nau -- the north advantage union. everything is trying to be pulled into global -- we are sick of climate change also. i have studied this for probably 40 something years. at any rate, if i want to know the truth of something, i go to the new american magazine. host: let's give the doctor a chance to respond. can you talk about americans who may not be sure of what to trust. think, in my

experience, and perspective, i think most americans first trust what is close by to them, what is in the community, and local. i think the first place to look would be a local public health department. these are your neighbors, your friends, your family's. individuals who live in communities that you do. the trust factor there is always the strongest. what you will hear is this idea that you don't know exactly how this will play out, but we have seen from past experience this potential risk of birth defects that we need to be prepared and we don't have the resources we need to be prepared. i think the caller makes another good point that you ought to

think twice about travel, whether to the olympics or to countries where there is local transmission. if you are pregnant or thinking about being pregnant or you are a man thinking of conceiving ,ithin the next six months considering that the virus can live in a man longer. -- there are certain segments of the population and that is why there is a strong travel advisory out -- you really ought to think twice about whether or not you travel. backould bring the virus and could potentially be bringing it back if you are in one of those high risk groups. if you are bitten by one of those mosquitoes the summer, that could further spread the

virus. reports that at least 11 troops have been infected by the virus since january, nearly all of whom travel to countries with the .osquito on virus is prevalent a report was released friday. is this a concern for you? guest: i am not surprised. i think the key piece here is -- of transitio transmission for mf you think of sexual trends mission, the only studies that have shown transition is meant who have been symptomatic. the men who have the government are automatic are the only ones thus far who have been found to transmit the virus. for military members who are interested in conceiving

sometime soon, the current recommendation is that they wait six months before conceiving. dave, you are on with the doctor. caller: yes, in order to get rid thehe mosquito that causes vivus, there is a company that sterilizes and eliminates the mosquito -- the infected mosquitoes. why haven't you talked about this jackal what you think of this effective solution? guest: i think it is very interesting and innovative. garnered a lot of willest in the medicine community. a lot of this research is new and novel. some of the initial studies have

been promising. this is an area that we need to continue to focus on. we need more research. whether it is ready for prime as wen the coming weeks prepare for mosquitoes that may carry the zika virus remains to be seen. we need more research. it is very promising. on an parekh, thank joining usch for today. coming up next, we will talk to adam liptak. he will be here to talk about the eight member supreme court is functioning so far, and be cases yet to be decided. tomorrow, don't forget to tune ." this week,ers air force secretary debra lee

james is on to talk about the air force increasing in size with women, transgender people, and more. [video clip] >> in my opinion, i think women should register for the selected service. i see no reason not to. this is a timely debate. people have differences of opinion. perhaps there are those who say we don't need a selective approach at all because it has been years since the draft. my opinion as an american is that we should have selective service. it is an insurance policy for the united states and i think that women should register just as young men should register. >> any sense as to what congress should do? >> it is too close to call. we will just have to wait longer es.see how it go

>> you have spoken about how transgender troops should be able to serve openly. that policy has been in development in the pentagon. do you know when that will be approved and the ban withdrawn? >> i think the review on the transgender policies should be complete in the next few months. these are somewhat complex issues. by the way, i'm certain that the policy is going to change. i'm certain that transgender's will be allowed to serve in a more open way. what we are to do is get some of the particulars figured out, some of the specific policy matters under the umbrella policy so that we do it correctly, roll it out correctly so that if there is training required, we have that in place.

i would expect it within the next few months. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is adam liptak, supreme court correspondent for the new york times. he is here to talk about how the court is operating after the death of justice antonin scalia. thank you for joining us. tell us about how the eight member court is working so far. guest: it seems like they have gone into hibernation. to their credit, they are trying avoidide credits and deadlocks. to do that, they have to find narrow grounds to decide on. it looked like they were six different cases involving abortion and immigration. clear if they will turn out to be blockbusters or

fizzle out. host: you wrote a little about how the justices are functioning created byacancy justice scalia's death. it is not just the split that folks like you and i were writing about beforehand. you have seen that the court seemed to split into two camps, you write, with the four justices working diligently to deliver unified opinions. the remaining members of the court seemed less committed to that project. the conservative members wrote eight differences and the more foural defenses wrote just

r and the remaining justices are making up the center of conferences. guest: the old nine justice court, everyone pretty much considered this way -- for conservatives, for liberals, and justice kennedy in the middle. kennedy have justice and justice kagan almost always floating together. the people resisting this trend, a little bit, are the two most conservative and the two most liberal. brand-new situation, advocates are getting used to it. cases willa lot of exercisingby a court minimalism. that is a project chief justice heerts said he wanted to do

said he wanted people to vote on a narrow operation. he did not have much luck with that until justice scalia died. host: this is sort of the prime season of when the cases are expected to come. guest: everything you just said may be proven wrong in the next few weeks. guest: there is a position to block any major move to the right. chiefyou talk about consensus.erts

[video clip] >> i try to achieve as much consensus as i can. that is not something i can do on my own. we have to have a commitment as a group to do that. i don't want to speak to the others, but we spend a fair amount of time, maybe as much as others, talking them out. it has been subject to criticism and maybe in five years -- people think it is bad, but it has to do with judicial philosophy. i think it is part of how i do the job in the system.

host:host: that was chief justie roberts talking at the conference last month. what you think of what he said? guest: i think that is exactly what he is trying to do, and he is happy to do it, to sit down and private conferences where no one else is allowed in. where the conferences could eat risp, there is a sense that they spend more time hashing it out, finding common ground. i can imagine where the initial vote is for-four, it doesn't look good, and someone says, let me write this in a way where at least five of us can agree. that may mean that the case goes one ground, but you have a supreme court decision, and you don't have a court that is deadlocked. host: we are talking with adam

liptak on the u.s. supreme court and the eight members with one vacancy. democrats, you can call, (202) 748-8000. .epublicans, (202) 748-8001 independents, (202) 745-8002. you spoke of cases with a four-fourth leg. we had an example of that. tell us about it, and should we see more cases like that in the coming month? guest: that was truly unusual. there was a case under the informal care act that called for cases of free coverage for female employees and religious groups that say it is not something they want to be a part of. liberty ando contraception -- it does not seem you can bridge the gap of

this. there was a very hard order -- they are acting more like a family court mediator. .he party submitted briefs they sent back down to the lower courts so that maybe they could figure it out. this may turn out to be a brilliant move. it may be kicking the can down the road for a few years. members of the court said they are quite content with this and if they can forge a compromise, it would be good for them. host: we have richard calling in from new york. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on with adam liptak. is why anyquestion

judge or judges should the divided along political lines. appointedd not be that way. guest: most people think that legalquestions have lingl answers. some of the big questions are to answer. dividedcases judges are along ideological lines. republicans are fighting like help to make sure that president obama does not have another supreme court nominee. because his nominee

is crazy liberal -- correctly, i should say, republicans is a politicale component to supreme court decision-making. host: while a lot has been ideologicalt the battle, you have written that it does not carry over to the personal interactions of supreme court justices saying that they like to eat meals together, and occasionally get a drink together. ginsburgr t commented that when someone has a birthday, they toast the

birthday boy or girl, and seeing happy birthday. she said, it is not pretty, most cannot carry a tune. guest: justice scalia used to say, i don't attack people, i attack ideas. they have to get along. it is an arranged marriage with mar divorce.y for that is true on the personal side, does not always carry over to decision-making. singing, justice scalia was also known for his singing. .p next, we have brian calling caller: my question is whether

or not i would like to hear your thoughts on whether what the isublicans are doing constitutional. my reading of the constitution is that the constitution shall the supremees to court. it seems unequivocal. to follow that the advice of the senate cannot be to not nominate someone. the defense therefore cannot be never. i would like to hear your thoughts. guest: that is one reading, but one.he generally accepted if you need the sentenc senate's consent, they can withhold the consent or withhold it wholesale. it not be pretty, but probably

what the constitution envisions is political accountability. if people are not happy, they office. them out of host: what are the chances that there be a hearing or any other action on judge garland's nomination? guest: i'm not an expert and legislative congressional stuff, by take the republicans at their word that they will not do anything until at least the election. od,re is a lame-duck peri and should hillary be nominated, they should accept merrick garland who is both reasonable and also old. host: let's talk about what is still remaining on the docket in this term for the end of the month when the final decisions come out. abortion, affirmative action -- guest: those are big cases.

affirmative action is back for a second time. it is a challenge to the ' admissionsf tec texas plan. that is a case where interesting interestingly, justice scalia's death a limited at the possibility of a deadlock. it means we will get a decision. on the other hand, the court may be wary on making a decision on something as important as affirmative action with only seven justices participating. that said, i would not be surprised if justice kennedy writes a fairly narrow decision that says what texas is doing, which is idiosyncratic, and i will not get into it, is no good, but perhaps not doing any damage to affirmative action

across the nation. host: our next caller is lydia from illinois. caller: first, i have a point, and then the question. west of all, i believe that are in a serious condition of denial which could be demonstrated by the word, "oversight." one side is attention and the other site is in attention. both of them are in the dictionary as valid definitions of that word. also on junent is 15, the magna carta last year, was800 anniversary obviously not recognized in this

country. because that is the cornerstone of our legal system, that needs .o take place host: you said you had a specific question. can you get to that? you know, on the magna carta, i think i have a slightly different recollection because i went to a beautiful exhibit at the library is the target with a ceremony in which the chief justice of the supreme court participated. there is a through line in it in the constitution. host: you wrote of out donald saying that scholars are

worried that the rhetoric on his recent attacks in the trump university case and also his valid to open up the libel laws make it easier to go after your folks like you and i. talk little bit about that. guest: i have this idea that we should call around and talk scholars -- people who may be inclined to support the republican nominee. what i got back was a uniform thee of dread about separation of powers are a crisis.or the this is someone who does not take seriously the foundational

legal concepts. these are people who think that maybe president obama made even far. has gone to they say to hear donald trump .alk, it would be much worse i was surprised by how hard and uniform that point was. i should say that trump talks a lot and talks loosely and does not have legal training, so it is a little unclear what he means to be saying on a lot of these points. even the republican leadership disagreementsome on this. it is congress, the courts, the press, but at least some people think that as a practical matter the legal branch has so much practical power on personnel and

to military, if mr. trump is be taken at his word, there is cause for concern. host: at the same time, he released a list of potential supreme court nominees, and it the likes ofisfy conservatives on this list. guest: almost everyone on the right thinks it is a great list. they are not sure they can trust trump. it is not exclusive. there may be other people he has in mind. there also -- i'm not sure what you think -- if you asked donald trump why diane sykes is on the he would not give

you a response. host: our next caller is on for adam liptak. caller: i just want to say that i completely agree with the gentelman who called before about these people being anti-constitutionalist. this is absurd. this has never happened in our history. judges have ever been appointed -- have always been appointed whether the president was on the way out or not. as you said, they are all upset about executive orders. what was the man supposed to do? sit around and do nothing all of this time? that profoundly upsetting these folks would do this. interestingis an perspective. it is probably a political point that i should stay out of. host: x, we have alley calling

ali- up next, we have calling in. caller: the last caller touch on what i wanted to say. one thing i wanted to comment about was the fact that our founders set up the supreme tort to be nonpartisan, guard the constitution. it has become so political. basicallyes are now agreecians and i don't with everything that they do. considered the united states. that is pretty much all i had. host: let me ask you this. the supreme court is set up to

be an apolitical branch of the government, but they have always been involved in politics. right? they have always played a role in the cases that have been .ecided thet: all it does is allow court to affirm people with life tenure, a life sentence. don't vote politically all of the time are most of the time. they are unanimous most of the time. 5-4 about 20%oes of the time. whereis a subset of cases it is hard to think there is going on.ut politics:

liam up next, we have calling from north carolina. you are on with adam liptak. caller: yes, i happen to be ay.acial and also g i'm independent, but i'm going to vote republican this year. there are a lot more people like me out there. mrs. clinton needs to get used to that. i have studied american history my whole life. i take things seriously. i check out both sides. that is why i am independent. if this were the other way like back in 1992 -- they

would do the same thing if it were the other way around, all of these democrats colleague and , crying. it is ridiculous. i love to watch this fight. explodings are because of mr. trump. i don't even like the man, but i would vote for him over anyone like this is clinton. guest: it is a very good thought experiment, what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot or if the democrats controlled the senate or the appointment which shifts the balance. i think the caller is right that the exact same thing would happen. it is quite rational for the party to want to put someone on the court that they like to serve for 20-30 years.

we don't know. it is hypothetical. let's talk for a moment about cameras which is a perennial issue. there was a report on supreme court transparency and some of the things that they do. they do not allow cameras in the courtroom. they released recordings later in the week of proceedings and transcripts during the same day. do you think ever be allowed in the supreme court? guest: not anytime soon. the report you mentioned does courtslots and lots of in the u.s. that have cameras. it works just fine. citizens inis that

a democracy ought to be able to see the government at work when they are making a public session. they line up for days to see a supreme court case, which is deeply troubling. they are afraid that people will take soundbites and put them on youtube or late-night television. there have been, even without cameras, protests in the courtroom lately. i think the only fear that cameras would encourage people to do that thing. i think the case for cameras in the courtroom is as a practical matter is going backwards, not forward. taking apan has been very active role pushing for camera access in the supreme court. you can learn more about that on c-span's website, c-span.org. a little more about what happens inside the supreme court.

the solicitor general announcing that he would be stepping down this week. argued a lot of cases, including the big health care case. talk about his career. guest: here is someone representing a democratic administration with the supreme completelyt dominated by conservatives. he helps to persuade the court same-sexish a right to marriage. this is someone who got .riticized and beat up it turns out that even though there is a mixed record and the court can be skeptical, he turned out to have a very good run.

host: we are speaking with adam liptak, the supreme court correspondent for the "new york times." attorney,covering like myself, and also worked in the legal department. we have bob on the line. good morning. caller: i want to ask a question. what with the supreme court say president ordered a citizen of the united it's killed in a foreign country without a trial? guest: we don't know, the case has not gone to the court. it is a very hard case. i would start thinking that they generally defer to the executive branch on anything dealing with national security. that would start the conversation in favor of

presidential power. this is off-the-cuff. you would need to know a lot before you make any prediction about the case. it is an interesting question. host: one case we are still waiting for is the decision on the presence immigration orders. is it anything that we could read on that? but ani have a sense, intuition only that the court will find a way to sustain the in the roberts court, which you think would be totile, might find a way sustain it. i cannot back that up with evidence. whatever you can say about this program, the state of texas does not have standing.

that is a point that the chief justice often adopts. while i say i have this intuition, i really do not know where the case is going. host: we are talking next to ann from montana. you are on with adam liptak. yes, i want to ask about the citizens united thing. how can that be changed? congress could change it, i imagine. guest: actually it is a constitutional ruling. it.ress cannot change constitutional ruling. moreess could order

exposure are more spending, but you would need a subsequent ruling to change citizens united. we have heard the candidates say that is something they would like them to do. host: are you surprised to the extent which -- i know the vacancy has changed a bit -- the extent which the vacancy is becoming an issue on the campaign trail? citizens united is one point that was brought up on the campaign trail. guest: maybe i would say, but it is because it is all i think about, it should be a bigger issue. there's nothing more significant than who of president appoints to the court. we have several justices who are older, and the next president may well appoint not one, but three, or four justices. the power of the supreme court on the major issues of our time

is enormous. people might want to talk about it more and not only in the context of merrick garland, but in a larger sense. host: next, we have sheila calling on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on with adam liptak. caller: i have a question. cnn manystened to times, and it has been more than one -- reference i'm not pointing out just president obama -- it has happened before, and will happen again that presidents have overstepped their boundaries. our founding fathers wrote the constitution. the laws, wetepped are a nation of laws, are they -- aren't they breaking the laws? guest: if they do, they are. executes the laws,

.oes not make them and many, not all cases, someone can go to court, and challenge them. host: we have seen an increase in these cases making that claim . is it just because it is reported now because it gets more attention? we talk about the immigration case and the claim that the president overstepped his bounds on that and a number of other issues. is that on the uptick? guest: i feel that the states are much more active and challenging lots of lots of things that the obama administration does. about transgender bathrooms -- all of a sudden, you see 15 states file suit right away. attorney general of texas day, het he does every

goes to the office, and sues the government. there are certainly more. jim, you are on with adam liptak. voice sayheard your live in a democracy. that is the confusing part to the american people. we have lost our education in this country. people do not even know what a black law dictionary book is. the definition of a gavel is just a collection of rent and money. we still say we have african-americans, mexican-americans -- we are americans, we, the people.

host: do you have a question regarding the supreme court, specifically? caller: the supreme court is supposed to protect we, the people. you know,to protect -- where are we getting separated from? we are being separated. host: do you have a reaction to that? guest: that is an interesting perspective. i always think, if you ask people 10-20 years ago, whether things have gotten worse, whether people used to know more stuff, it is easy to think that the past was better. jule: up next, we have a calling in from florida. you are on. caller: good morning. i was calling in to find out

about -- we keep paying people to do their job. we don't get paid and do our job in the public sector. i was calling to ask you about why do we have to have nine judges and not three judges? also, hello? host: you are still on. caller: also, does it cost extra money to keep fighting these ?ases over and over again does it take money out of the taxpayer budget to keep fighting cases the keep going on and on? guest: a couple of things there. there's no special reason why it needs to be nine justices. congress gets to decide. there have been courts with 10 justices on it. for a long time, we have been at night, and it seems to work well. when you get stopped at the supreme court, you probably want more. the second question is is all of the litigation expensive? .he answer is yes and no

if you'd in isolation, pity expensive. viewed as part of the federal budget, miniscule. .ost: it is not inconsequential we have seen millions of dollars of legal fees. guest: modern litigation, as we lawyers, cannsive turn out to be a lot of money. host: up next, we have michael calling in from celina, ohio. you are on with adam liptak. caller: i have three questions for you. are you there? number one, the supreme court judges should not be for life. be for only 10 years. i am a physician. their mental faculties should be judge when they are 80. they are not gods.

guest: that is question one. caller: number two, on obamacare, i am a physician, healthy, and retired. go to a v.a. hospital, and employees who are not military, there is this and question again about small they should be evaluated by groups like on, the president of the united states, or be voted on during presidential elections. host: let's give adam a chance to unpack that. guest: there was a lot going on there. let's start with the interesting point you started off with which

is should supreme court justices be appointed for life and served as justice stevens did until he was 90. the cottagers and does, in effect, require -- allow lifetime appointments during good behavior. it would require a constitutional amendment to change the state of things. we are, around the world, quite distinctive in this process. most courts around the world limits.ed if the framers knew what the life expectancy for a to be, they might have thought differently. that is not to say it should not be long-term. you want to have judicial independence. if we were to start from scratch, that might be a good idea. host: is there a concern or

possibility that by imposing term limits, even if they are 18 years, but you can count them out in terms of what administration might get them might make it more likely for a court to take a case or declined to take a case? an interesting point. i think can think of analogous situations where justices time their retirements, an interesting way to show there is a political element. they retire under presidencies whose views they favor. i don't think justice ginsburg trumpretire during a administration. host: we have bob on. it seems like a way to minimize the life term things

that requires a constitutional amendment expands the supreme court to maybe 21 members. am i right that it would simply need an act of congress? guest: you are right. you're not the only one to stop this. courte to be known as the packing plan. soundlyticular plan rejected it because it was meddling in the affairs of the other branch. host: up next, we have robert colligan from the method, georgia. you are on with adam liptak. caller: i suggest you use the word ideological as opposed to political in describing the court. as you pointed out before, these are very difficult issues. i am an attorney. i have been trained, as we have,

to look at both sides of an issue. not everyone concludes equally on things like search and seizure, privacy, so on, and so forth. that is reflected in this election cycle. there are people who have, i hope, honest, but different views on these issues. it is no surprise that on these very difficult issues, nine people appointed by president of different philosophical ideologies, and yes, political, will have different ideas. when you use the word political, it suggests that there is something wrong full of foot. i believe we had nine very thoughtful, bright people, and i respect the analysis that they

go through. that is what is missing when people call the court decisions political. guest: i do not think there is a lot of daylight between ideological or political. it is true, i don't think the justices are partisan politicians in terms of what is the democratic party platform for the republican party platform, and that is how i am going to vote. no matter what term you use, the you can use to get words, and that is fine. i don't mean to suggest that the judges are acting in anything but perfectly good faith. they believe what they are doing and would call the judicial philosophy. the caller calls it ideologies y. i don't think political is a bad word. eachare bumping up against

other. host: adam liptak, thank you for joining us to talk about the court. that is all for today's "washington journal." you can join us back here tomorrow at 7:00. have a good saturday. [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] , this weekend, the c-span cities tour, hosted by our cox partnerstions commit explores las vegas.