in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the house stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday, april 23, 2018.

the messenger: explain to our viewers the nature of the discussion. senator grassley: what we saw this week at the supreme court was one piece of the larger discussion about what we're going to do about faxes online. more and more people have started shopping online. states have become increasingly concerned about their sales tax revenues. south dakota in this case has taken it upon itself to pass a law that would allow it to reach outside of its borders and collect sales tax from companies who don't have any ressence in that statement on the other said is a store asking to uphold the rules as they are now. before the sales tax can be taken, it has a store, warehouses in that state. host: if i'm the enternet retailer, what's the argument i'm making before the court for

this? senator grassley: mostly who is objecting to this are smaller internet retailers. for instance, people don't always know this, amazon collects in all the states that have a sales tax. 17 out of the 18 largest 18 retailers do collect. this is a small group of internet retailers. the people you would expect to find selling on e-bay, one man shops. for them what would be hard out south dakota's plan is that it makes them have to calculate and remitt to thousands of different sales tax restrictions all over the country and remitt to the 45 states that collect those taxes. host: go ahead. senator grassley: it's a huge compliance burden. and that's the crux of the problem. host: if i'm a state like south dakota, what are my interesting there? senator grassley: i think your interest is financial. i think -- senator grassley: - - guest: i think your interest is financial. we know from a g.a.o. report that states and localities continue 20 break records every

quarter with their spending. they are always looking for new forms of revenue. host: we'll continue on our discussion with our guest f you want to ask her questions about this internet sales tax and what the support -- supreme ourt brings to it 20 -74 8-8001. and independents 20 -74 -8002. as far as the court was don't know if you attended or not, the nature of the interest the justices. what do you think they brought as far as their questions. where don't know if you attended do you thinker in goin? guest: i have learned not to make prediction abouts the supreme court in deference to them. they had some great questions about what we were speaking about the clines cost to small businesses. also a concern about changing the rules about 50 years into the rules being set. a lot of these have been based on how we have been doing things so far and what chaos would result if we change them now this far in. lawsuits and economic loss.

host: one of the things that came up was notice of the quill decision. what is that? the rule sort of that is in place now. a 1992 case. a catalog mail case. before online sales were an issue. and the quill corporation was asked to pay north dakota some ales tax and the quill corporation said we don't have corporation said we don't have any stores or warehouse there. we have nothing to do with you. we ship our products into your state by common carrier. you don't have a right to make uths us collect taxes. they won that case. place and as been in that's what's at issue here. host: leading up to the supreme court case, the place and "usa today" their opsed section, says the most obvious description in quill is the harm done to brick and mortar stores? to tree vails are easy

see. both quill and tuesday's case, south dakota, versus way fair, came from the dakotas, states with the plan for south dakota and some plans similar to it that have been floated in congress too far - tip the sail the other way. now you have a brick and mortar shop, mom and pop shot. -- shop. no matter where the customer comes from. they don't ask you for your driver's license when you were visiting out of state and figure out the home sales tax. that's what we would ask retailers to do under south dakota's plan. with 10,000 different tax jurisdictions across the country, it's an enormous financial burden. the g.a.o. did a report where they estimate even with the free software that some plans and e, the integration

maintenance needing -- n.i.t.in socks in their garage and selling them online and e-bay. there is going to be a loft market disruption with that. host: you said you are nonpartisan but free market. what's the best way of approach as a and maintenance is still between 60 and $260,000 a year. that's a huge expense for someone free marketer. guest: if you real bye want equity and maintain positive tax competition between the states, we like an origin based approach where you do treat online retailers the same way you treat bricks and mortar. the principal point of business. that way the company pays in one place, one set of rules, one state to recommit to. you won't have a situation like you would with the south dakota case where someone in idaho selling their knickknacks online and maybe new york state or california gets to audit them. that's terrifying for a small business owner. host: the zort's look at this internet sales backs, 202-74 - 001 for republicans. independents 20 -748-8002. democrats 202-748-8,000.

first caller, michigan, go ahead. caller: i just wanted to first i think it's inappropriate that this is not undecided yet. legislatively. my understanding of the issue is that. it's a patchwork understanding of college. that's how it's applied. i also wanted to ask you if here are any proposals to have agency to -- host: caller, aim sorry. leave you there because you are breaking up. go ahead. guest: that's a great point. the states have been lobbying congress to do something about this for 20 years. there is a number of different opinions about that. we do feel -- we filed a brief

where we make the point this is a much better to be solved by congress. where everyone can debate and exchange ideas. this shouldn't be left to the court. we do want the court to keep deet fault rule in place. that doesn't prevent congress in acting to fix this problem. there's been a number of different ideas. some we would agree with. more or less than others. but healthy debate in congress, you are right, would be the way to deal with this. he constitution tells congress that they are in charge of interstate commerce and should be doing something about it. i'm not -- i think the question you are getting at has there been any ack fifth to move this o an that they are in charge executi --any activity to move this to an executive agency. this is the court throwing out the default rule or keeping in place and congress is free to make any changes it wants. it's in charge of interstate commerce and has a responsibility to act or not act. but it certainly falls under their authority. host: 20 years of inactivity suggests they are not

interested in this. guest: it could suggest a number of things. they are not interested in doing something about t i think there are political realities that point to that. a very -- the ideas that have been floated in congress are very unpopular with voters. you have the pulling in the 60% in a very -- the ideas that have been floated oppositi. i don't think a lot of members want to go on record voting for something they know their constituents don't like. there are under enormous amount of pressure from state lobbyists and big retail. optimistic more idea about why they have it. maybe they haven't found the right solution yet. maybe they just need more time. host: from our line for optimis democrats, from missouri, this is nelson, hi. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i think that the average customer could care less about the sales tax issue. in fact, they would like to keep it the way it is. i think probably the solution here is to just -- can you hear me?

i think the solution here is to just impose this state tax and not try to collect different municipality taxes across the state. that would be the best solution. if i live in st. louis as i do, when i go to kansas, buy something, they don't charge me the taxes i would pay in st. louis. i pay whatever taxes i pay in kansas city. so i think the best solution would be just to impose the state tax for these internet companies, just let that be the solution. guest: i think what you might be getting at is the difference between what economists call a destination based tax. that tax follows the product to where it's going. it's basically base the on the buyers' rate. you are arguing for an origin-based tax where it follows the sellers' rate. we advocate that same idea. treat everyone the same. just as many people who live onboarders drive their car across the border or maybe go shopping across the border for a better tax rate, being able

to have that same thing work online would be a democratization of that tax competition and we agree with that very much. host: from connecticut. jocelyn on our independent line. caller: yes. good morning. thank you very much for having me. i just wanted to ask the question first and then chime in. the question sim' just not understanding the pushback. the reason i'm not understanding it is brick and mortar companies are archaic think point. they are going to be obsolete in the relatively near future. my question is, these people that are fighting it, do they not understand that if you don't pay sales tax you're not going to reap the benefits of it? you're not going to have the infrastructure, the schools, so on and so forth. if i make a purchase on o amazon, then i pay my sales tax for it. i don't understand the problem with that. i'm happy to do it because i'm happy also that my children go to a good school.

i guess i'm just not understanding the pushback for it. guest: i think a lot of the pushback you are hearing runs in two vains. one is a very principaled argument -- principled argument does the state have the right to reach outside the borders and regulate a company that has no physical pressence in that state. the second, more practical concern and the justices talked about this a little bit in their arguments, is the compliance cost of paying those taxes to small businesses would be very serious and would either close some of those businesses or push them on to igger platforms like amazon. which you could have different opinions on. but it certainly is a market distortion you want to take into consideration before you o forward.

host: even on a recent op-ed you wrote about the topic, you said amazon wins if this goes into effect. guest: the interesting thing about the tweeting of our president about jeff bezos and amazon. amazon actually is great with forward.posals going for them they already collect on their own marketplace. they would probably see more people come on to their guest marketplace site where indpent sellers ---independent sellers sell where they can charge forw. for a fee. host: jessica with the competitive enterprise institute talking about internet sales tax. 202-6748-8001 for republicans. 20 -74 -8000 for democrats. and independents. 202-74 -8002. other people don't want to put other regulations on on that front? guest: i think there is something to that for sure. it's been an amazing engine for growth. no one wants to harm that. but it's important to remember

the big picture here. internet sales are only 9% of total retail. at numbers in the billions as opposed to total retail in the u.s. which is numbers in the trillions. as big as amazon is, it's by far our biggest retailer here in the -- online retailer in the u.s., it is still dwarfed by wal-mart. they are four times bigger. we're in a strange place. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. now these guys are getting big earn we have to start taking a look at how we go forward. host: as far as the justices, did anybody take that approach the internet -- if it ain't roke, don't fix it approach? guest: i think there was more concern about changing the rules. maybe that's corollary there. i tonight think any guest: i think -- it would hard these days with the googles of the world and facebooks to really say that

an these little things need incubator. they are doing well. they are well established. and there's some great arguments to be made against regulating. i'm not sure that they are just starting out is maybe the most compelling one. host: here is todd. new jersey. ndependent line. caller: yes. caller: yes. i want to ask your guest, right now in the trucking industry we have what's called interstate fair trade agreement. why can't they use that same way for the internet sales tax? you buy fuel in one state, you have to pay taxes for all the states you travel through just to make your delivery. it's fair. it's already implemented throughout the country. why can't we use that same principle? guest: that's such a smart question. there actually was a draft bill by chairman goodlatte that looked at that exact example you are giving as the trucking industry and try to come sort of national clearing-house to redistribute sales tax back to the states. the interesting proposal i think we thought it was a huge

improvement over some of the other things that's been floated. that's right. i'm not sure if it exists online, but that's the kind of thing that's being discussed. those are the kind of ideas that we're asking the court to just keep the rules that are in place and give congress a little more time to work through great ideas like that. host: craig from amarillo, texas, go ahead. caller: i was just wondering, is it illegal to target one company with a certain tax, maybe like amazon a 20% tax, and ask smaller companies to have internet sales pay a lower tax? guest: all the rates, rates, the percentage you pay on sales tax and based what is and isn't taxed in your area is up to your local area. when you think about the complexities of that, i think that as of a couple years ago there were multiple sales tax jurisdictions within dallas-fort worth airport.

we're talking about layers on layers, that's their call. on a national level i'll tell you that some of the national legislation that's been discussed in congress has small business exemptions. it's not that it would be a different percentage, but at a certain level businesses would be exempt because compliance is so costly. host: have we seen the white house give an opinion on this? guest: the white house did way in. they --way in. they seem to be for doing something about this. if i to on balance, they are for an online sales tax. there might be some confusion at some point. not quite remembering correctly about what amazon's position is. i'm not sure how much that plays a role. they did file a brief in this case. they seem supportive of south dakota's move. host: from new york, dill, good morning. caller: hello.

i'd just like to point out that sales tax, state and local sales taxes, are a regressive tax. it hurts the poor disproportionately. if we can avoid that and let states raise their state income tax, which is more progressive, any way we can avoid sales tax i'm in favor of it. let's not charge sales tax from out-of-state businesses. thank you. guest: there is a band of economist that is agrees with you. and there are actually five states that don't have a sales tax at all. and make their revenue otherways. income tax, property tax. whatever the mixed bag s part of letting states experiment within their own borders is what you are talking about. maybe you are in an area where they don't feel -- they feel the sales tax is too regressive. we feel keeping the current rules in place allows for that state experimentation without states getting together and ganging up on other states' businesses.

host: big states like california, texas, they benefit more, obviously, in the fairness of it all, do they have more -- advantage? guest: i think that's right. with. so proposals where states can become a member of a state simplification project that hasn't made much progress in simply filing, there is free software provided. the problem with that is 70% of the population is left out of those states it. big, big economies like california, texas, new york, florida not involved in that. they are able to throw more weight around. host: then if a person is running a website like you talked about, what changes for that person if this goes into effect the next day? what happens? guest: there is about 30 states that, like south dakota, have gone ahead on their own state legislation passed a form of collection or reporting. if the court upholds the rules, it will be gone. if not, they go into effect, you have someone who is selling on etsy now responsible for

every tax jurisdiction they sell to. we send 10,000. we all have their own base rate. in one place 2006 is a candy bar and is taxed. next the 2006 is a food and exempt. tax holidays. a local industry is exempted. the national governors association a couple years ago famously release add press release not kidding about the a lexities of taxing marshmallow. on top of that, they are also going to be subject to audits for those states. those audits will not be happening in the seller's home state. they have to travel to new after them. comes the thing to remember about sales tax is the seller is the legal taxpayer. host: hear from barbara in alexandria, virginia. caller: good morning. i don't know if this issue has been discussed because i just tuned in. the impact of the loss of revenue to the localities and

the states is having an impact on residential owners. home eners are having to bear a higher and higher brunt of the loss of the tax to their local communities to pay for the nesses whether it's police, fire, schools, teachers, whatever. not to mention on garbage night the piles of boxes that are sitting out in the street from all the impact. i know there was a discussion not too long ago about the recycling plants that are having difficulty dealing with all the boxes that things are being shipped in. i'd like to hear your comment on that. for me there's a discussion and should be on the impact for

residential owners who are having difficulty not only buying homes, getting into homes, but paying those increased taxes on their homes. host: thanks, barbara. guest: let me put your mind at ease a little bit. there is a g.a.o. study last november that tried to estimate if we let states go ahead and do this and collect these what will the actual numbers look like, what will be the gains, and they put that number somewhere between $8.5 billion and $13 billion which sounds great until you do the math on what states and localities spend. and that money represents less than half a percent of state and local spending. that's -- i'm being generous on my math there. that's the high end of everything. you touched briefly on all the waste from shipping from internet purchases and i wanted recommend to you completely the "wall street journal" article about all the things people are doing with the amazon shipping boxes, making

cat condos and castles and play ooms for their children. host: jack in pennsylvania. you are next. caller: thank you for c-span. thank you for your host, guest for letting me on. i just spent over $2,000 with amazon. if i paid the tax, i wouldn't mind paying the tax if the state i lived in was efficient with the tax money it already collected. i'm totally against that unless states increase their own efficiency in a state by state .asis if the state becomes efficient, then you should apply -- be allowed to apply the tax. until that. if happens why give more tax money to states totally inefficient with the money we give them. guest: you are hitting a core difference that runs through many of the policy debates in washington. either you don't like taxes because you are not happy with the government. or feeling great more taxes because you like the government

to do more. that's a pretty black and white place. i would certainly agree with you most governments could do a better job. host: from new hampshire, grace. good morning. caller: yes. i live in state where we do not have any sales tax but we do have high property taxes and the state has state liquor outlets. the $300,000 home, property tax is about $7,000. had a it my -- you couple -- someone a couple calls ago who talked about recycling cardboard and had a t that are mailed. my largest container for recycling was all cardboard. it was.ll everything else was in the smallest container. i think a lot of people have gone -- not just cost wise, gone to using internet sales but also because of the decline service.er

at a large retailer at christmastime one full floor in the largest city in the state of new hampshire, they had one register open. so when people have to stand in line at christmastime for 45 at a large retailer at christmastime one full floor in the minutes to buy something, they go, forget it. that's why they go to online sales. thank you. guest: as i discussed, online sales is less than 10% of total, but it's a growing part of the retail community. i'm sure that frustrations with dealing with other human beings in real time is probably part of that. host: going to ask you. brick stores are in danger? guest: it doesn't seem so. what you have now, interesting development, amazon recently opened a brick and mortar bookstore in georgetown. you see them pairing in partnership with best buy. you are going to see is a combination of both. when we talk about what consumers want. in some cases they want the convenience of sitting in their living room ordering it. other times they'd like to know

where they can get it repaired or you are going to see put the have it immediately. what you are going to see is -- this is going to be not an either/or. it's going to be a mix. host: agnes in oklahoma, hi. caller: yes. good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm calling to let you know as a former bricks and mortar owner, i also had an extension online of my store. so what i did is charge the same sales tax for those sales as i did in my physical store. and i felt that was necessary because i was the one profiting from the sales and the process of the sales tax would go to was providing me the opportunity to have my business. host: what kind of things did you sell? caller: i had children's clothing and baby furniture, that type of thing. used and new. host: thanks. guest: i completely agree with

you. what you are describe something the origin base we was providin just have it right there. you only had to remitt and calculate for your home jurisdiction. you had just your hometown authority to deal with. the state of oklahoma. all the places you have chosen to locate. that would be a great way for things to he'd. host: c.e.o.org is the website for the competitive enterprise institute. thanks for your time. guest: thank you so much. host: one more round of open phones. you want to call us, it's 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-74 -8,000. and independents, 20 -74 -8002. we'll be joined by adam smith, democrat, to talk about the way forward in syria, russia, and north korea.

>> sunday, the women's liberation movement held long held assumptions about american womanhood, transforming society. joining us to talk about women's rights in 1968 are debra spar, and author of wonder women, sex, power, and the quest for perfection. and mona, a syndicated columnist and senior fellow at the ethics and public policy center in washington, d.c. she's also the author of the upcoming book, sex matters, how modern feminism lost touch with science, love, and common sense. watch 1968, america in turmoil, women's rights, live sunday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span's "washington journal." and on american history tv on c-span3.

>> connect with c-span to personalize the information you get from us. go to c-span.org/connect and sign up for the email. the program guide is a daily email with the most updated prime time schedule. an upcoming live coverage. word for word gives you the most interesting daily video highlight in your own words, with no commentary. the book tv newsletter, sent weekly, is an insiders look at upcoming authors and book festivals. and the american history tv weekly newsletter gives you the upcoming programming exploring our nation's past. visit c-span.org/connect and sign up today. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on this open phone you can reach us on twitter at c-span wj and the phone lines e again 202-748-8001 for

republicans. -748-8,000. and independents, 202-748-8002. start with len, bellevue, washington, republicans line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i have a comment of the last person you had on there talking -748-8,000. and independents, 202-748-8002. start about the interstate tax. my reading of the constitution, that is illegal and also she making it by ut the states. there is another section of that says that any law, contrary to the constitution, is an illegal law and doesn't need to be followed. nobody seems to ever bring that up, which is in the law of the land. that's what hi to say. i disagree with putting interstate commerce tax on. host: alan in brooklyn, new york. democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you. host: fine, thank you.

caller: i wanted to commend to the audiences anyone who hadn't a chance to watch pbs last night. there was a two hour special on climate change, which very thoroughly laid out the science and the choices and the dangers for our future generations that any ordinary, nonscientific viewer can understand. given that i think it's a travesty we have someone at the e.p.a., like scott pruitt, who is not only be lambasted for his corruption in office, expensive flights and furniture and soundproof booths, but actively trying to not only slow down the pace of climate change, he's trying to undo the work of past administrations to protect generation from climate change. it's about time that the oath of office should be understood not only to say that you are protect and defend the constitution of the united states, but that you are loyal to the laws of the particular

cabinet department that have already been enacted. if you don't act in accordance with the purposes of those laws, that in itself should be a source -- cause for removal. i think people should watch if they can online, catch on d.v.d., the pbs special on climate change. any child can understand. denial if they are lying about this. host: the associated press is reporting that raul castro as passed the presidency to canal, putting the island's government in the hand outside the castro family for the first time in nearly six decades. he remains head of the powerful communist that oversees political and social activities. nashville, tennessee. independent line. caller: good morning. hello, america. i would like to bring up the farm bill. it only comes up every five years. most people don't know that almost 10% of the united states gross domestic product comes

from agriculture. but, yes, yes, it's less than 1% of the work force. it's less than a million people who are certified americans. how many undocumented people make up that 10% snim' not sure, but let's reframe the ag bill as putting americans back to work. isn't it interesting they are saying it's jobs americans can't do? what's wrong. what's wrong here? let's reframe the agricultural bill and make food our medicine. can we conservatives agree on that? always it's the snap. we got to take food out of the people who need it. why not change the perspective, make food our medicine. thank you. host: "the new york times" reporting on a new higher for -- hire for florida senator marco rubio, jeremy peters

reporting at chief executive of the influential conservative think tank, heritage action for america, mike at needam, waged unforgiving political warfare against the republican party establishment. deepening the divide between party leaders and grassroots activists who helped elevate donald trump to the presidency. he's leaving his job there to become the chief of staff of one of republican establishments favor sons, senator marco rubio of florida. the move is certain to raise questions about whether mr. rubio, whose hopes of becoming president in 2016, were dashed by mr. trump, may be positioning himself for another run and underscores how unsettled the conservative remains after two years after mr. trump became the party's improbable leader. from truth, new mexico. independent line. paul, go ahead. you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is just a statement. you pay taxes. i can't see the home state

getting their cut if they don't rovide services that you need. i tried to buy stuff in my home state. i can't find it in my home state so i got to go out of state to do it. my home state wants the money, they should provide the goods i am looking for. it's just a statement. you guys can talk about it later if you wish. thank you. host: republican line from ashland, kentucky. mary. go ahead. caller: hi. this is mary ellen. i want to say about that sales tax, i do wonder -- two comments. first, about sales tax. i wonder how much of that is hurting these state budgets. i'm in kentucky. we have been having a lot of battle about the funding of pensions. i wonder how much tax revenue we're losing. and then about that show on nova last night, i watched every bit of it. i'm an environmentalist. but i would like to say is we

need to move away from the coastlines in general. i think we have too many people in too ources concentrated places that the other thing about the environment, it begins at home. you need to be a better in environmentalist in your household. watch how much gas you use and watch how much heat you use. and try not to have too much things we're throwing out not recycling. that environmental thing needs with each individual because we don't realize how much we accumulate as a mass population all over the world. that's what i would like to say. host: mary in ashland, contract c we'll do this until 10:00. along the way have a chance to talk with the legislature about

activities on capitol hill. joining us right now, representative adam smith, democrat of washington state, ranking member of the armed services committee. representative smith, good morning. guest: fine. ranking member of armed thank you. host: we'll start with syria. particularly after the air strikes. talk about the nature of the air strikes and what does it mean for policy in the united states as far as future policy is concerned. est: two problems on the front. syria is a difficult problem. no easy solutions to dealing with assad and dealing with what is a huge humanitarian crisis. it's been a seven-year civil war, hundreds of thousands of people have died. there is no question that assad is not a legitimate leader. as we learned in iraq, getting rid of a leader who is not legitimate is not an easy thing to do. it's a very difficult problem. for policy purposes, number it's critical that congress approve any further strikes in syria. there is no self-defense

argument for the two bombings that have been done in syria. and i it's critical think we ha to the constitution, back to having a legislative branch involved. the executive, not just under this president but the previous two, has had an enormous amount of power to engage in military action with the legislative branch having no say in that. i think that needs to change. then the second thing is, the president's policy right now doesn't make any sense. he bombs once a year, assad goes back to slaughtering his own people. he goes back to use quems. -- chemical weapons. it does not discourage him from using those weapons. it is not an effective policy. i do not believe in using the military if there isn't a clear, achievable policy objective, which is why i opposed the strikes. ot an easy syria n problem. but there is no easy solution for us here in the u.s. i'm reluctant to engage our military when again there is not a clear achievable objective. host: as far as the issue is concerned. were you brief by both the defense secretary and joint chiefs on this matter. anything they say clearly --

changing your position. does anything they say bring new light in how we proceed going forward? guest: i understand what they are saying, which is basically they have decided that the mission where assad is concerned is simple and straightforward. try to stop him from using chemical weapons. period. that's all they are interested in. the second piece is to make sure that isis or other affiliated groups don't get safe haven within syria, which presence still have a there and we're working with our allies. on a chemical weapons piece, two problems with that. first of all clearly what we're doing has not been effective in dissuading asawed from using chemical weapons. it's not working. second it's an interesting balance. he's killed hundreds of syria. s of people in he's syria. he's killed a couple hundred with chemical weapons. is it really more of a humanitarian atrocity using chemical weapons than it is bombs? i'm not saying we should ignore this. clearly we should stand up and work as much as we can with the

international community to condemn these actions and try and stop them, but again, i come back to the fact we have to be aware of the limitations what we can do. iraq and afghanistan have taught that lesson very, very well. which is why assad and syria are what we such a difficult pr i understand the policy. i just don't think, a, it's working, or b, it advances our interests. host: how is the best way to go forward in crafting a new aumf not only to give congress and satisfy their concerns, but also to give the administration the flexibility to act when they have to? guest: that's very difficult. legislatively to craft the language in such a way that it makes sure the president doesn't have a blank check, to basically use military force wherever and whenever he wants, at the same time making sure he does have the authority to use it when necessary is difficult. but it's a task we should take on in congress. i think both the house and senate should pass a new aumf reflecting the threats that we face. we do still face threats. no question. isis and al qaeda are still

active, still trying to plot attacks against the west in a variety of different countries. we need to make sure we can defend ourselves. there are a lot of different pieces to that. congress needs to pass a new aumf. we need to work together to figure out what is ourpolicy. what should we use the military for right now to protect our national security. host: one of the things expressed even as we're talking about this is that the desire by the administration to pull troops out of syria, is that good policy? guest: look, syria is a huge mess right now. the stated goal what we were trying to do, number one, was drive isis out. to do that we needed to find allies within syria who were both opposed to the assad regime and not aligned with isis or al qaeda. primarily that was the kurds. small numbers of syrian freedom fighters who were not kurdish. we worked with that group effectively. what has fallen apart, number one, you have turkey that has

now invaded syria to battle the kurds. we were trying to work with turkey. number two, you still have the presence of extremist groups and remnants of isis in syria. overall the policy is we want to try to find a reasonable alternative to assad. we want to work with -- keep in mind, when the revolution started in syria, it was a democratic revolution. people were asking for political and economic freedom. and then it was taken over by these extremist groups like identify al nusra. the policy is clear. do we find those allies within syria we can work with to create a credible alternative to assad while at the same time trying to deal do with the turkish -- turkey and kurdish conflict. that's what we have to try to do. that's not easy, i don't think lobbying missiles into syria once a year saying mission accomplished and calling it good is going to achieve that policy objective. host: representative smith, you

say that even as the "wall street journal" reports this morning that in syria there is a new islamic group rising, al qaeda offshoot. that further complicates the matter. guest: it does. like i said i'm not going to be overly critical of this president on syria because there is no easy solution. i told you what we'd like to achieve. and also told you that it's going to be almost impossible to achieve. that puts us in a difficult place in terms of the decisions we make in syria. i think if you go back to some of the things that candidate donald trump said about how easy it was to solve every problem we faced from health care to the deficit to syria to middle east peace, i think he's easy g that it's not as as he said it was. host: one of the things that stem interested what happened in syria was the back and forth betweenle trump administration at the white house and easy as he said it was. nikki haley at the united nations, particularly over russia and u.n. sanctions. what did you gain about russia policy from those exchanges? guest: it's deeply troubling.

it certainly seems, i think nikki haley is doing a good job at the u.n. of respect for her. it certainly seems the highest levels of the trump administration got together and agreed that part of their response to the chemical attacks in syria should be to put more sanctions on russia. and nikki haley said as much. then president trump simply decided not to do it. why did he simply decide not to do it after the administration had agreed. to say nikki haley was mistaken, as she made clear, is dead wrong. they made this decision and president trump once again, as he has time after time, has shown that for some reason he doesn't want to hold russia accountable unless he's backed into a corner he absolutely can't find his way out of. why? why does he have this putin that with doesn't seem to make sense? i think we need to get answers to that question. host: will more sanctions have an actual effect in russia, or is it more symbolic? guest: it will have an actual effect. you have to hit russia where it

hurts. where it hurts for putin is the oligarchs. when you start freezing bank accounts and freezing the economic activity of the very, very wealthy people in russia who are responsible for propping putin up, that's what hurts. that's what russia was interested in from the very start. the whole meaning of the trump tower with donald trump jr. because they wanted to get out from under these sanctions that were placed on them that limited the ability of their -- individual owe lig arcs in russia to engage -- oligarchs in russia to engage economically in the world. those are the sanctions that get putin's attention. doesn't care about the economic well-being of his people. he's trying to appeal to them with the sense of national greatness and conflict with the west, creating the west as an enemy to go after. what will hurt him is that his key wealthy allies start feeling the penchant of their economic activity. we have done some of that. that's what we were supposed to do more of until donald trump pulled the plug.

again the question is, why? what's his policy? why is he going against what his most senior national advisors are telling 20 do? host: two quick things on the senate side. i wanted to ask you about, one the possibility of mike pompeo becoming secretary of state? guest: it's going to be tough. look, i don't think rex tillerson did a particularly 20? host: two quick things on the senate side. i wanted to ask you about, one the possibility good job as secretary of state. i admired the fact that he was willing to stand up to president trump. it left us with a completely incoherent foreign policy because would he say one thing. the president would say another. i also think that secretary of erson did a terrible job managing the state department. driving morale down to all time depths over there. i have worked with former congressman pompeo. i don't necessarily see him as an improvement, but i would say that the problem with the state department ultimately is with president trump. whether it's pompeo or somebody else, you have to have a president that is supportive of

his secretary of state. and is supportive of dimcy in the state department. we don't have that right now. i wouldn't want to handicap pompeo's chances in the senate. i'm not a senator. no matter how this comes out, we need the president to change his tune on diplomacy and role of the state department. host: the pending activity on gina becoming head of the c.i.a.? guest: same basic answer. i think it's going to be difficult. in that case further complicated by her involvement in the post 9/11 -- some of the torture, illegal incarcerations and all that. i think it's going to be a very difficult time for her to be confirmed because of that. host: adam smith the armed services committee ranking member democrat from washington. thank you for your time this morning, sir. guest: thank you. host: on those last two fronts by the way. we asked the representative about when it comes to confirmation hearings, the senate intelligence committee reporting they will hold confirmation hearings for the c.i.a. director nominee.

that will be on wednesday, may 9, and following -- open session followed by a possible closed session. that being reported by our capitol hill producer. also reporting when it comes to mike pompeo, the senate foreign relations committee will vote on the nomination of the c.i.a. director to become the secretary of state, that will take place on monday. back to open phones. this is jackson in tennessee, independent line. jackson, go ahead. aller: thanks. the word about syria. are we worried about syria? can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: ok. we need to do another segment on -- how many people we got dying in america on our hospitals, poor medical care. we need to do another segment on it, pedro. i haven't talked to you in probably about a year and a half or two.

i watch all you every morning. politic. ar away, every time we do is politic. let's go to what's happening in america. host: let's hear from tom, hazelton, pennsylvania. democrats line. hi. caller: yes. tom from hazelton, pennsylvania. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: yes. i was wondering if 9/11 was an american inside job because the towers were bombed before and this was the second time they bombed. i'm wondering if they are blaming it on arabs because of arab hatred just like we hated he chinese in the korean war and vietnamese war. host: the hill reporting this morning that a group of 131 representatives, 39 senators, have signed a resolution introduced wednesday. that calling for the

environmental protection agency administrator scott pruitt to resign. the resolution states the co-signers have, quote, no confidence in the administrator of the environmental protection agency and are calling for the immediate resignation of the administrator. highlighted within the resolution are concerns about pruitt's use of taxpayer money, quote, dramatic budget cuts, and waivers given to employees to work at connected companies while still employed by the e.p.a. the letter going on to say, that the agency is hemorrhaging staff and experts needed to protect the health, safety, and livelihood of millions of people in the united states. more than 700 employees of the agency having left or beening fored out of the agency during his tenure as the administrator, reads the resolution. from the hill this morning. the e.p.a. ing on administrator scott pruitt. bloomberg news reporting that scott pruitt is to testify before the house appropriations environmental subcommittee next week. that's on the same day he's scheduled to appear before the house commerce committee. collin, in santa monica,

california. independent line. caller: hello. i tend to agree with jackson, two callers ago. little too much politics out of d.c. and maybe more policy would be nice. i'm calling just to briefly advocate for something people laugh about. marijuana. we have five million jobs unfilled in this country. i wonder how many of them test for marijuana. 55,000 truckers. i wonder how many of those people are tested. another thing, states that have legal marijuana have 10% less opioid problem. there's been studies show there's healing. i have known people, personally, who have made that switch. also our deficit is out of control. and we could use the funds for marijuana taxes to help fund a lot of things, including our

deficit. this country was founded on tobacco and hemp. we have coffee and chocolate. all sorts of things our bodies marijuana rs for built into them. in small doses mare kwana --marijuana is no different than a lot of other plants provided by mother nature. the prohibition is causing a lot of problems in this country. as i mentioned -- host: let's go to denver, colorado. democrats line. david, you're next. caller: good morning, pedro. i'm calling this morning to alk about wendy who has been nominated for the federal court out of the eastern district of louisiana. i believe she is completely unfit for the job. i'll be encouraging my senators, senator michael bennett and senator corey rdner, to vote against her

being seated as a federal judge. for two reasons. one, her answer to senator did nthal's question about board.port--brown v. she said that she respected the president but disagreed with t i didn't understand why she couldn't say she agreed with it. because roberts said that, alito said that, even kneel gorsuch -- neil gorsuch said they agree with brown. secondly, she is an extremist and way out of the mainstream where there are anti-abortion positions and failed to disclose to the senate some of her more controversial speeches. and she has said that birth control causes the death of 150,000 women a year. and she's also said that birth

control encourages violence against women. this woman is totally outside the norm. host: ok. we'll leave it there, david. the news outlets reporting kansas' secretary of state violated a court order that required his office to inform certain people they were eligible to cast a ballot while a lawsuit challenging state law requiring proof of citizenship worked its way through the courts. judge ruled on wednesday. the u.s. particular trict judge found a conservative republican running for kansas governor in contempt of court. did not fine him but ordered him to pay court costs including attorneys fees for the american civil liberties ruling. republican line, all is next. go a -- saul is next. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make a quit syria conflict. what i noticed is that i don't

understand why we immediately just go in. air strike, air strike. anything that we have a problem to we just go ahead and to that. in this situation i understand when a chemical attack is actually done on people, civilians, innocent people there needs to be an investigation. i highly agree. put the only thing on that is that it seems that with every country that we place ourselves in, we just have this itch, like we need to keep going to a new war every time like a new drug, new high, which it shouldn't be like that. we should wait for the investigation to be done. whether it was actually syria or was actually just like last time with the republicans, it was proven that those chemical weapons are used by them. and that's all i have for today. host: "usa today" takes a look at penalties for privacy violations by social media companies. elizabeth writing if facebook had to pay a federal trade commission penalty, the cambridge analytica, it would join a short list of companies

having to do so. of 91 cases involving privacy issues the federal communications commission brought since 1998, two companies have paid civil penalties specifically for violating adult users' privacy, according to a "usa today" analysis of the data. air google, which paid $22.5 million in 2012, and youpromise, which paid $500,000 in 2017 because it already is under a settlement. e first step to incuring a penalty. facebook risks becoming one of the rare case where is it could ay out for a privacy violation . harold in palmdale, california, hi. caller: good morning. my outlook on syria would be as long as russia, the united states still have a little bit of rapport, that i'd like to see them draw a line and have russia take care of one side, the united states and its allies take care of the other. clean it up. and maybe they could bring them

both back together. host: again, open phones for just a few more minutes. this for the senate judiciary committee meets this morning. to talk about this legislative effort for special prosecutor and protection of a special prosecutor. the topic of this hearing rules for firing a special prosecutor. you can see that at 10:00. this program ends, c-span. you can also monitor it on c-span.org. our c-span radio app. people filing in in preparation for this meeting. we'll take you to it as soon as it starts. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.s, gene, and maryland. you are next up. guest: -- caller: good morning. we want to talk about beyonce.

i am the man from across the nation who has gone nba teams to say the national anthem. its tohe washington was do it. the golden state waters to do it. -- did it on february 28. i have this going individually. i don't have any support from the civil rights organizations. the naacp or any of those. i have been interviewed by associated press, espn, this movement must go on. host: what was it like to hear? and then to also hear what she is doing for historical black colleges. it is just great. host: donna is next. in pennsylvania. democrats line. caller: hi. i am calling about the president. that anything he

has done it undo what obama has done. it does not make any sense. host: what do you mean by that? caller: what has he done? all he has done is undo what obama has done. he has no plan. no drive. no nothing. he is the worst president ever. he talks disrespectful. what does this show our kids in the future? host: to san diego. jim is there. caller: hi. people and couple you show this morning to promote -- idea of bombing and i disagree with that. the only reason why trumka -- admittingcause that all these mistakes happened like iraq and the other places.

now it is turning even worse. it is wrong to -- are trying to overthrow them for some reason. we are not getting the truth. host: ok. jim will be the last call this morning. the before we take you to senate judiciary committee. another program comes your way at 7:00. a hearing taking a look at rules for special prosecutor. we will take you to that hearing now.

announcer: waiting for the

senate judiciary meeting to get underway. they will consider a number of nominations including district and circuit court nominations. federal attorney nominations. marshall nominations. they will also take up a discussion on this special counsel legislation. proposed legislation. sponsored by two democrats and two republicans. we expect the date go like this, they will hear the judicial nominations first, and then take up the discussion on the special counsel law.

announcer: this is the senate judiciary committee. they are going to be taking up a discussion a bit later on possible legislation that would require just cause before a special counsel, special prosecutor can be filed. weighing in on the opinion pages saying donald trump's allies hope you won't fire robert .ueller and his opponents pray he will be at side recognizes it would jeopardize his present -- presidency. -- would compound the damage if it passes legislation aimed at curtailing his right as the head of the executive branch to do so. the point out that

majority leader said tuesday he won't bring up the bill for a vote. this is proposed legislation. it is a twofold meeting this morning. they're going to take up a number of judicial nominations. we expect them to take those up first as members gather in the committee room. and then get on to the discussion on the proposed legislation.