their work requirements for food stamp recipients. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on his -- on facebook and twitter as well. ♪ host: good morning. it is saturday, june 20 5, 2018. end of a week that saw a flurry of opinions from the supreme court, including police must get award before obtaining cell phone location data that maps out an individual's movement. the decision was hailed by some advocates as a victory of digital information privacy in an age where mobile devices hold deeply personal information about americans lives. four of the more conservative justices said he could hamstring efforts to bring criminals to

justice. we are starting today's washington journal by asking for your thoughts on the supreme court's decision on cell phone privacy rights. we have regional lines for this discussion. in the eastern or central time zone, call (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain for pacific time zones, call (202) 748-8001. you can also reach us on social anda, on twitter, @cspanwj, spent --ok.com/he facebook.com/c-span. siding withricans, privacy advocates over law enforcement in a major decision for the digital age. authorities generally must obtain a warrant to gain access

to sell tower records that can provide a virtual timeline and map of a person's whereabouts, ,nformation detailed encyclopedic, and effortlessly -- cell tower information at issue. the reason they adopted the 5-4 decision lend itself to protection of other forms of records and data a person compiled in daily modern life. the ruling was hailed by privacy advocates as a victory in an age where cell phones collect a growing amount of information. a little bit more from politico's ashley gold. "the tech industry, privacy advocates and some democrats applauded the supreme court's ruling that police typically need warrants to access cell phone location information."

robertsstice john joined in the decision. the justice department under both obama and the trump administrations argued no warrant is required for access to such information because the user voluntarily revealed that data to the phone company. senator edward markey of massachusetts said the high court's ruling updated the force amendment of the 21st century digital world, adding we need to continue to update our lives to protect the privacy of amerins -- update our laws to protect the privacy of americans. ashley gold is joining us on the phone now to give us more information about this case. good morning, ashley. tell us a little bit more about this decision. the chief justice said it was narrow but privacy advocates are saying this is a big win. guest: it is narrow because it

has to do with this particular carpenter.ing a i believe their willing allows for possible law enforcement access the cell phone data in other cases. was sought out by law enforcement, it depends on a specific case. it sets a precedent that law enforcement cannot access cell phone data if they needed for criminal cases. they need to have the right amount of discretion. that creates a warrant and that is different than they could get before. themar is much higher for to access your cell phone data. it is a win because the privacy advocates that argued everyone carries around a cell phone should have a certain expectation of privacy. and cellve cell phones

phones are necessary for everyday, modern life. you should not be expected to just be giving away your whereabouts in your private data because it was cell phone. that was the prevailing argument about why the digital age is different. our phones are not free access for law enforcement. host:xpined for our viewers what the standard was before the lease -- police would still need to get a court order to obtain this information. how will the job be different in obtaining this information after this decision? guest: i am no legal expert. before they just needed reasonable grounds to suspect that the person whose cell phone records they wanted to access are involved in a crime, certain legal standard. the burden of proof to actually

obtain a warrant under the fourth amendment is much, much higher. they will have to be providing much more evidence that this is indeed a person involved in a crime. it is going to be much harder to ask the court for that kind of information on someone because falls undernow, a much highelegal standard. host: some law enforcement groups, as well as some of the conservative justices on the court expressed concern that this could make it hard for police and prosecutors to convict criminals. a little bit about that? thomas allkennedy, dissented. carpentersagreed with but he thought he brought his argument about it in the wrong way. he had a scholarly dissent that

a lot of people were expecting on twitter. a lot of justices think this will keep law enforcement from using a valuable crime-fighting tool. to getst seems too easy the cell phone site information to determine if someone was nearby. they think is a valuable tool. what was really overturned was the idea of the third-party doctrine, which is if you decide to give your information away to a third party you are essentially giving up the right of privacy. this opinion essentially turned that on its head and said this may be -- said it might be the third-party doctrine that is flawed. i can see the law enforcement argument. it is not necessarily they can never use it again but the

standard is much higher. host: ashley, what does this mean for viewers? the court said it is narrowly focused on this issue of location data as it played out in this case, of the court also -- but the court also found fourth amendment protections for gps devices on cars that track location. it has found fourth amendment protection for police that require a warrant before they can search the physical contents of his cell phone -- of a cell phone. this is a shift by the court? guest: i think so. that asfinitely a sign the court tries to grapple with how americans live in the digital age they are leaning towards privacy and they are leaning towards consumer protections. fors certainly encouraging everyday people that carry around cell phones. definitely a win for those concerned about their fourth

amendment rights. i think the court wants to show as we update our laws for the digital age, the privacy of americans is kept in mind and it should be expectation the government will not intrude on your digital footprint that you leave everyday. we see more cases of the court taking up these kind of digital age cases, is definitely a good sign for people that are concerned about that. host: ashley gold, technology reporter for politico pro. thank you for helping us understand this this morning. we are talking to our viewers today. are you concerned about cell phone privacy? what do you think of the supreme court's decision requiring police to get a warrant before they can obtain information about location of cell phones? we have regional lines for this question.

in the eastern or central time zones, call (202) 748-8000. if you were in the mountain or pacific time zones, call (202) 748-8001. a little more about that decision from today's wall street journal. 2014, thein 2012 and court rejected government arguments that police should have the same access to digital data as investigators to under 20th-century president. they examined business records held by bank to conduct shoe leather surveillance. there is a world of difference within the limited type of personal information addressed by 1970's decisions allowing warrants of business records and the exhaustive chronicle of location information casually collected by wireless carriers today, the court said. -- steve from brentwood, california. caller: c-span is discussing the

news? what does that have to do with kids on the border? for a week c-span has looked like cnn. this must be getting to you as much as it is your viewers. fake news. the little girl on time magazine, from other was -- we talked about that earlier in the week but today we are talking about the supreme court ruling. do you have a view on cell phone data? caller: c-span looks too much like cnn. host: table talk to fill from michigan. what do you think about yesterday's ruling? caller: basically the decision is moot. site.n go to a what you do is if you have a phone number or an email, if you get harassed in any way on the computer or the phone, take your phone number, type in your phone number and it will give you their exact location. in some cases showed you the

house they live in so you can find the person that is harassing you or the person is using the internet or anything else. informationthat abou addresses is different than the one located here. people thatcern carry their cell phones, that they are giving information pinging off of towers, that can tell information about where they go to. the bank, houses of worship, whether they go to the doctor. does that deserve a higher standard? caller: i'm not sure it really matters. if i know exactly where you are at by going to a website, was exactly the point? there is this thing called valley tracker.

if someone is committing a crime, the cops basically go to this valley tracker and triangulate your location. the cops do it on a regular basis. ands just not anything new i doubt this decision will change crime-fighting situations. host: we are talking to viewers about yesterday's decision affirming privacy rights in cell data.users' we have regional lines today. (202) 748-8000 if you are in the eastern or central time zone. in the mountain or pacific regions, call (202) 748-8001. a little bit more from the decision from the new york times which points out four of the court's conservative justices dissented in this case while the chief justice point the more

liberal justices annually for the majority. each of the other justices wrote a dissent with opinions running to more than 110 pages. justice anthony kennedy said the distinctions drawn by the majority were a logical and will frustrate principal application of the fourth amendment in many routine yet vital law enforcement operations. cell site records are uniquely suited to help the government develop probable cause to apprehend some of the nation's most dangerous criminals, serial killers, rapists, arsonists, robbers and so forth. justice alito said it guarantees the blizzard of litigation while threatening many legitimate and valuable investigative practices upon which law enforcement has rightfully come to rely. we have jerrod calling from minnesota this morning.

what do you think about this ruling? inler: it's a good thing but all actuality i don't think it will really change anything. cops, johnny law, they don't care about abiding the law. they just care about arresting for people and people of -- poor people and people of color. cops break the law on a daily basis. they shoot and kill unarmed civilians and get away with it on almost a daily basis. cops rob the civilians more than burglars. still more stuff from civilians and burglars. why would they care about following the rules? i watch them on a daily basis when they break the rules, traffic laws, pulling people over for no reason -- host: if the police break the rules in obtaining this

information without a warrant, it will not be admissible in court. they will not be able to use it in prosecuting these folks. does that provide any protection to cell phone information? caller: no. they go around that. around, they bend it, the twisted. -- they twist it. the police department will make something up on an individual. who would you believe? the police or the one individual that is supposedly a criminal it? maybe did or not do cops and justice nowadays, you are guilty and you have to pay your way to get out of jail. then you are guilty and you have to prove your innocence, which is the very opposite of what it is supposed to be. even the supreme court stole the south dakota black hills from the native americans and the one

even give it back. they are criminals. the cia are criminals. host: more from the dissent written by justice anthony kennedy we disagree with the majority. "the new rule the court seems to formulate that is needed, reasonable, acceptable criminal investigations at serious risk in serious cases. often when law enforcement seeks prevent the threat of violent crime and places undue restrictions on the lawful and necessary enforcement powers exercised not only by the federal government, but by law enforcement in every state and locality across the nation." we are talking to you today. see you think this decision might make it harder for law enforcement to prosecute criminals, for if this is a win for data privacy with so much information about our lives is on our cell phones?

eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. noun or pacific regions, (202) 748-8001. -- mountain or pacific regions, (202) 748-8001. sam, what do you think? caller: basically id radio. -- i do radio. i will be on the air in an hour. the supreme court ruling was made to affirm peoples' personal privacy. unless you have a case against you or evidence of a crime, they should not be able to pick up your phone and track it. by doing this they are tracking you to find out if they have a crime going on. this is not how our system is supposed to work. like the man said before, you are supposed to be proven guilty first.

contactsssuing these warrant,o go around a they c track them, watch them, you lose your privacy rights or the rights to do something. unless you are a convicted criminal n, youelon -- a felow cannot have somebody take your information. host: you are concerned about this tracking with surveillance that is happening despite this ruling. what would you like to see happen? what is needed to protect privacy rights to the extent they ought to be protected? caller: the privacy rights of every individual is their basic god-given rights. it is not the rights of man to give or not. the only way you would use that

is by committing a crime. first he would have to commit a crime. an investigation of a crime is that isime itself looking to see if you committed it. understand what i'm saying? they are using the phone and the -- host: i'm asking wyou would like to see done. do you think the supreme court has the power? that is what they seem to be doing yesterday, which is restricting the -- giving more protections for privacy rights. what needs to be done to protect the rights you are so concerned about? caller: to tell you the truth that people have to stand up. i can't really blame the government. there are too many people giving up their own privacy to facebook companies and stuff like that. yhat allowed the slipper slope to start in the first place. is the responsibility of the person to make sure other people

don't abuse them. is doing,what the law i just want them to follow the constitution. you look at what the fbi did, they violated laws. the laws were set up to make sure people can't abuse things. host: let's take a look at what cnn's jeffrey toobin writes about this decision. "although the chief justice look at the framers intent of the constitution, we don't know what james madison would've done because they did not have cell phones. the basis of the court's decision shows how tenuous the conclusions should be in this area of law. reasonable? that depends on how we end the court perceive our relationship to technology. that technology is constantly changing. it is easy to criticize the court and i frequently do it

with enthusiasm, by cases like this show the difficulty of applying mr. madison's constitution in the modern world, even with the best intentions and clear facts it is not obvious what medicine and the other framers would want their heirs to do." jules, whether you think about this privacy rights decision? caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i think a number of things probably need to happen. inbe congress needs to step and passing legislation -- hassan legislation. i -- and pass some legislation. i also don't think a lot is going to change. police will circumvent these rules. also we have artificial intelligence which is far more intrusive.

so, another tool law enforcement uses, parallel construction. like one of your callers previously stated, they will just lie and circumvent the needs but maybe congress to step in and try to keep up because this is so wrong. say: what you say when you congress needs to step up? the justices were considering a constitutional question. this was about the fourth amendment protections of the information and the congress can't trump the constitution. what would you like to see the congress to? caller: looking avid technology -- looking at the technology, , whatings are changing

law enforcement is allowed to touch. something needs to be done because -- host: you are saying congress needs to do something more than just affirmed the fourth of the protections? caller: exactly. that is my opinion. that is what i think because these things it is going to keep evolving. start.be that might be a personally, no, i don't think this means anything at all. host: the opinion writers of the wall street journal took the case on, saying the new precedent will invite legal challenges, cause trouble for law enforcement. chief justice john roberts presiding aself on court that provide clear guidance, yet on friday he personally delivered the opposite.

opinion that creates new constitutional obligations for law enforcement without clear guidelines for how to operate in the digital future. is this the roberts court or the war and burger court -- warren -burger court. sprint corporation and its competitors are not your haveal witnesses, but they been ever alert and their memory is infallible. it creates a distinct category of information, but what they years with a credit card information also meet that standard? what is police only one a few hours of a suspect's cell phone data for a list of the phones

connected with the bombs went off for the shots were fired. the majority answer is straightforward. we do not express a view on matters not before us. ed is calling from georgia. as soon as i punched the right button for you, sorry about that. what the thing think about this privacy dated decision? caller: i am stunned. i would of that money -- i'm a criminal defense attorney -- i would bet money they would have gone the other way. the third-party doctrine is well-established. it has been around for a long time. this will impact the number of cases that are already being litigated and are in the process . going to be is not too long until this decision is changed. i believe it will be limited year,a bit in the next two years, three years. it's an unbelievable decision.

host: you said you think this might be limited in the years ahead. the court is sort of going the opposite way. eight years ago, they ruled an employee can look at their employee -- an employer can look at the employee's cell phone data. now they have found expectation of privacy in gps, cell phone and cell phone location data. doesn't it seem like they are granting more protections? caller: they would like to do that. i don't doubt they would like to do that, but this is going to limit law enforcement agencies and what they are able to do and how they do things. they have not even thought about this kind of thing. they are so used to going out and getting this data via subpoena that -- or a simple

request. most of the time it is a simple request of over the mobile carrier is. -- it wille a real hobble them in a lot of ways. there will be a real backlash. you will see things occur as a result of this. host: a little bit more from the new york times about the point ed was making about the third-party doctrine and how law enforcement now obtains information until this decision came out. a federal law does require prosecutors to go to court to obtain tracking data, but the showing they must make is not probable cause. the standard for a warrant. they must demonstrate only there were specific and articulable facts and reasonable grounds to believe the recordss sought are relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. that was insufficient, the court

ruled. chief justice roberts emphasized it did not address real-time cell phone data, cell tower data or called into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools such as security cameras. rick is calling from san diego. what the you think about the ruling? caller: i agree with the decision, kimberly. i think what chief justice roberts is doing is laying the groundwork for what we are viewing as a new frontier in technology. whatthe recent scandal of wa happened with facebook, i think bottlesome real conversations going on within branchls of the judicial

that something needs to be reined in, i feel. host: what do you think that should be? caller: this fourth amendment issue of privacy. especially when it comes to new technology. that is what i'm talking about in the new frontier. paper files.our it is not your wallet in your pocket. it is everything out there that is digital. it's electronics. apply a living constitution to this new technology? i think that is where chief justice roberts was going with this. host: we are talking to our viewers about this decision, one

that affects the privacy rights of cell phone data of all americans. if you're in the central or eastern time zones, (202) 748-8000. in the mountain or pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. tweetsake a look at some from journalists and lawmakers about the case. oregon, bigwyden of win for privacy today. scotus says the government must get a warrant to search americans location information. edward snowden tweeted "the decades-old practice of warrantlessly tracking your movement has in many cases violated the constitutional right to privacy. major victory for the aclu in america." tweeted,to eat it, "--

"it will have a ripple effect for privacy and help protect all sorts of digital information stored online from emails to data from star found appliances." things like alexa. while this decision does not cover that, that seems to be the direction the court is going. donald from san antonio, texas. what do you think about this ruling finding a privacy right and cell phone location data? caller: it is really complicated because i have a cell phone. i don't put things on the cell phone i don't want people to know. law enforcement. people can hack. my tracking device, i cuts it off. when you are putting things on the cell phone, people need to think it is out there for anyone to get it. why would you put things on the cell phone? people -- one of the

benefits of having a mobile device is to use things like mapping applications to find directions. do you think just by using this technology to help people that they are giving up their rights in some way? caller: no. cut it on, cut it off. people that wants the technology but they don't the chaos to go along with it. if you don't want these things, like i said, when i'm going -- they told me your tracker is not on. where i left the phone, the people kept the phone for me. technology within you want to whine about it. i'm not agreeing the police can do anything. our government, the police, we can't trust nobody.

but stop whining that he wants the technology but understand things come with it. today,n other headlines the new york times reports the president is sticking with his hard-line views on immigration even after a reversal of a policy that led to child separation. president trump hit back on friday a criticism over his administration's stance on immigration. democrats and the news media of not caring. all statistics show native americans commit crimes at higher rates than immigrants, mr. trump has long pushed a narrative that suggests otherwise. let's take a look at some of the comments the president made. in delivering immigration policy and being joined by families whose loved ones were killed

by undocumented immigrants. [video] >> josh was brutally tortured, strangled over and over. he was set on fire after death. his last hours were brutal. as everyone standing up here, none of our minutes had -- none of our kids had a minute to say goodbye. we were separated permanently. anytime we want to see or be close to our kids, we go to the cemetery. we can never speak to them. we can't skype with them. i want to thank you for what you're doing to an -- you know the permanent separation. it is the media -- share it with other people. we can never have them back on this earth. thankfully i will see him again in heaven but i want to thank , mr. trump in vice president pence for keeping their commitment to us. it has been ongoing. please understand there are so many more of us than what you

see here that have the same story over and over. killed, lowg, bond, out in 30 days. i want to thank each and every one of you in law enforcement. you know it, you love it, you want to do your jobs and thankfully we have a president that will allow you to do that now. host: those family members. talking laura wilkerson about the murder of her 18-year-old sun josh in 2010 -- 2010.sh in she held up a photo that was signed by president trump. that was something that raised eyebrows yesterday. a white house aide tweeted a response, saying "requested by family members after the private meeting and visit to the oval office, which took place before public remarks as seen in the

eisenhower executive building, below." we are talking about the supreme court's privacy rights decision, something advocates say that is a big win in the digital age for law enforcement groups say will make it harder to go after criminals. teresa is calling from minnesota. what the you think about the cell phone data -- we lost teresa. whatfrom fort lauderdale, the you think about the decision yesterday? caller: there is no accountability. you have further expression before, absolute power corrupts absolutely. i have been personally stopped by police. what has happened is that i have been referred to internal affairs and it is like the chicken -- like the fox guarding the chicken coop. the court system is set up such that they have carte blanche in their behavior.

you can see it in a traffic stop. a city of florida called sunrise, florida, recently had a system called stingray. what it does is it automatically reads the license plates. -- ourppened was our son newspaper busted them. they were luring people to the city so they could use seizure and assets. what i'm basically saying is law enforcement, there are good people. they put their lives in the line every day, but they have no one really to answer to. host: the supreme court is disagreeing. they say law enforcement has to answer to the constitution. if they obtain this information location information from cell phones without a warrant, they will have to answer to judges who will prevent them from introducing this evidence and their cases.

why don't you think that is enough? caller: i agree, but some of this stuff does not go to the court system. the little side jobs they have. some of the things they do, they are not going to be official with it. there has been incidents where there has been of use. what happens is the average joe votes, pays his taxes, becomes a juror. it does not always go to the official extent and what i would say is that there is no law. just like a gentleman i heard before, d feeling your privacy is being invaded, they do something about it. take the responsibility. i will take the battery out, shut the phone off. in the meantime their activity, which is not ethical, probably not illegal but they abuse the system, it is -- the

accountability is not there. they have a mentality. the blue family or line, whatever you want to call it. a bad cop -- a good cop is not cop, as rat out a bad the most of the prosecutors and judges. what i say is we as american citizens pay our taxes. look at the fbi. there is a great examined -- example of one of the best police agencies in the world. look at what is transpired with them. host: i want to get to some other headlines as we continue to talk about the supreme court ruling on the other side. they created as task force to reunify migrant families. created and accompany children reunification task

force, a first step towards reunifying thousands of migrant children in the agency's custody with their families according to an internal document obtained by politico. the task force was established by the assistant secretary for thearedness and response, arms of the agency that response to public health disasters, an indication the challenge of reunifying thousands of families is likely beyond the capabilities of the refugee office. the secretary of health and human services directed the assistant secretary of preparedness and response to assist the office of refugee resettlement with unaccompanied children reunification. the order reads the agencies emergency management group, which operates out of hhs operations center was activated. we are talking about yesterday's supreme court ruling that the fourth amendment requires that police obtain a warrant before

they can seek data from cell phone companies about the location of cell phone users. if you're in the eastern or central time zones, (202) 748-8000. if you are in the pacific or mountain regions, (202) 748-8001 . what do you think of the ruling? are you concerned about the data your phone collects? rick from louisville, ohio? caller: this is the same supreme court that said exxon is a citizen and that they have the right to take as much money as contaminate our political system. this is the same court that said the ar-15 with a 90-bullet magazine and a bump stock is with the forefathers envisioned. you just had a thing. let's click on the facebook.

thereok, let me back up, are three states the control information in this country. texas, new york and california. facebook is headquartered in california. facebook was just exposed as selling their wares to the chinese and russians. they were dividing the country, literally. it is insane. after facebook -- they are out of california. that is where amazon is. the guy with $130 billion piece payse tol $12 for -- people $12 for our. -- for our. -- $12 per hour. host: what does this have to do with collecting data on her whereabouts? caller: facebook takes the information from your phones and

take your identity from that information and sells it. these are jews from facebook. host: let's look at reaction to yesterday's decision by the u.s. supreme court. "this isenwald tweeted a great and rare victory for the fourth amendment and privacy rights. the court rules the police can't obtain cell phone location records without a warrant. the ruling happened he goes john roberts joined with four liberals and join the opinion." representative susan dell being -- delvine. "they victory for american's right of privacy by requiring a warrant for cell phone location data, of congress must act to update laws like the ecpa and create forward-looking policies that work in today's innovative and you all society."

lauren davidson tweeted, "i look forward to reading the opinions over the weekend, but the ruling is a major in rare win for privacy in america." some twitter responses to yesterday's decision that requires police to get award before obtaining information about location from individuals, from their cell phone companies. chief justice roberts joined with the four democratic appointed members of the court for that decision. how do you feel about the privacy in your records? in your cell phone records? are you concerned about law enforcement's ability to fight crime? eric from carrollton, texas. caller: i kind of feel law enforcement has to have a want to be obligated to my cell phone. nowadays you can do anything without a cell phone. when you turn on the cell phone yet the basically give it all your data.

you need to have a warrant to search my home. you need to have a warrant to search my car. you need to have a warrant to get my phone records from my home. we should have a warrant to have to get the records are my cell phone. this almost reminds me a bit of fun we had a few years back with the nsa recording conversations about us -- without us knowing. you can't allow government to get into your private life if they don't have a warrant because then government controls you. it is kind of scary they would be able to get that information without a warrant. host: while this case in itself does not apply to other forms of surveillance, the chief justice said it does not apply to that, you're bringing up that case. do you think that is something the court should take a harder look at and maybe put more protections on? caller: yes. we are in a technology age now where all of our information is going into basically central

databases. we can see a lot of these companies are getting hacked and your information is getting put out there. if we are protected and our data is protected, you are invading our privacy but we can't do anything nowadays because of the integration of technology without giving up our data. when you start a smart tv, same deal. you have to put your data in there. it is part of my life and part of my home and i should be protected from you being able to access that because, again, you have to have a warrant to search my home. why don't you have to have a warrant to get my information? host: the pew research center look at how americans viewed government surveillance and privacy since edward snowden leaked documents from years ago. americans view of government information gathering and

surveillance has evolved since then. among its findings and found a majority said the government should prosecute leakers. half of americans, 49% said the release of the classified information serves a public interest while 44% said it harmed the public interest. americans have become somewhat more disapproving of the government surveillance programs the ensuing months, even after president obama outlined changes to nsa data collection. yesterday's opinion does not apply directly to government surveillance of information, of people are concerned it is a related topic. john is calling from trenton, new jersey. what the you think about the cell phone data decision from the supreme court yesterday? caller: i think it is a mistake. i watched the arguments last night.

i cannot tell fully about the case, but the things they were mainly arguing over was the extent of the data and they held in cases where they can just store cell phone numbers information, the police can get that from the company because it is the company's records. here, this situation would on for longer period of time. apparently it was an armed robbery. they were saying because you can track a person here and there, that is too much. the police have to have probable cause for that. but i don't see a difference. under the third-party doctrine once the cell phone company is collecting certain records or in this case pings where they are at from the cell phone, those

pings don't give you a strict view of where the person might be. case, they decided unanimously that was unconstitutional. i believe that is right. the gps is stuck right under your car without your -- it is selling your opinion right where you are going. they can be following you all around. host: the court ruled police in a warrant before they can get inside your phone and obtain the data that is inside the phone itself. these phones have to communicate with the carriers in order to work. isn't it an extension if the information of the phone is worth protection, why isn't the information still worth protection once it goes to the cell phone carrier? caller: in this case it was not really information. it was more the location data they had stored.

i think what the court was scared of is that is going to far and going to deep. too deep. and going i think it will hinder law enforcement. i'm a former retired assistant prosecutor, so i might be a little biased. in this case i think is basically the same as the previous case that sending get the cell phone information from the third-party without getting a warrant. when you are reading the statute in question, the statute says they needed reasonable and articulable suspicion, something like that. it was not probable cause but it was pretty good standards. i don't see why that is not sufficient here. host: in your opinion how much harder will it be -- the standard that existed under the statute, something again to reasonable suspicion, how much harder is it for police to show

probable cause? how much information do you think might be inadmissible because they are between those two standards? caller: the first problem is that if you make the standard probable cause for gathering this type of information, it will make it more difficult to investigate the case. if they never reach a probable cause standard to get to that information, you will probably not have a decent case. that is one of the main issues that is wrong. host: some of the tweets from our viewers today reacting to this case. "cops shouldeeted, not be able to randomly track a person's whereabouts without cause any more than they should be able to put a tracking device on a person's body." "the only thing that is

frightening is the left numbers of the court place so much value on the phone, as if it is an extension of our brain. this is send up a few red flags or inspire a couple of short stories." we are getting your views on yesterday's supreme court decision finding police must obtain a warrant under the probable cause standard before they can get extended location data from cell phone carriers. (202) 748-8000 in the eastern or central regions. (202) 748-8001 if you're in the mountain or pacific regions. the los angeles times editorial page weighed in on this case before the supreme court put out its ruling giving their views about what should happen. "when the fourth of minute was added to the constitution in the 18th century ensuring people were secure in their person,

houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, that meant keeping the police from trespassing on citizens physical property. in 1967, the supreme court inganded their understand of privacy in which the fbi attached and he's dropping device that eavesdropping device outside a telephone booth. although there was no physical trespass, the court found the fbi violated the suspect's fourth amendment rights. justice john marshall harlan wrote the fourth amendment protected against any act by the government that violated a reasonable expectation of privacy. cats versus the united states showed the supreme court could adapt the constitutional changes to technology. it must do so again in the carpenter case and yesterday the u.s. supreme court found that ruling people have a neck citation of privacy in the

people have a-- neck citation of privacy in the location data since a cell phone carriers. janet from iowa, what you think about the court's decision? caller: i think the decision is a good decision but there is one problem that i'm wondering and maybe the viewers can help answer. how will this affect law enforcement when they go to find someone that is lost? say an alzheimer's patient for someone in need or lost in a snowstorm and all they have is their cell phone and they are trying to be located? host: the chief justice said the decision did not apply to real-time location data like in a situation you are talking about, trying to locate someone in the event of an emergency. this case involves police

collecting information over a long period of time to reconstruct the location of a reticular person. does that make the case a little less worrisome for you? caller: yes. that is what i was concerned with. thank you so much for clarifying that. i'm sure a lot of people would be wondering if that would affect their elderly people that have cell phones. thank you very much. host: the wall street journal reports president trump is aiming to privatize the postal service as part of a proposed reorganization of the federal government. the trump administration is proposing a restructure in the u.s. postal service with an eye on taking it private to get the agency greater flexibility and adjusting to the digital age.

the recommendation is part of a sweeping plan to trim the size of the federal government. it brought and require congressional approval received mixed reviews on capitol hill after it was released thursday, including tentative responses from republicans and immediate rebuke from democrats. coming up we will be joined by supreme court -- we will look at another supreme court decision that paves the way for states to force online retailers to collect sales taxes. we take a closer look at that and the impact with jessica melugin of the competitive enterprise institute. will join usyong to talk about americans preparedness for the next pandemic. we will be right back. ♪

>> this week, the c-span bus traveled to juneau, alaska, as part of our 50 capitals tour with the help of our cable partners gci. the bus continues the trip across alaska to the city of haines, ahead of our stop in fairbanks. join us july 21 and 22 when we feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. this weekend on afterwards, maryland, spent john delaney, the first democrat to declare a run for the presidency in 2020 offers his vision for america in his book "the right answer: how we can unify our divided

nation." he is interviewed by donna brazil. >> you have been a member of congress now since 2013. you had the opportunity to do legislation work with democrats and republicans, what you call for an end to partisanship, especially partisanship that rewards division. >> i think a president or any other elected leader in this country should effectively represent everyone, whether they voted for them or not. they should almost take a pledge never to divide us. that does not mean that they don't go out there and say why they should vote for me over the or why theon, fo future i'm envisioning is better, that taking it to the step for the were actually cultivating a spirit of division is, i think, one of the things

going on in this country right now that is insidious. if you have the privilege of serving, which i feel like i do, in addition to swearing to defend and protect the constitution, we should place to the american people that will not say things to divide us and we will go out of our way to try to unified -- to unify the country because the country is unified when we are stronger. >> watch afterwords on c-span's booktv and 9:00 eastern. >> washington journal continues credit host: joining us is jessica melugin. she is the associate director for technology for the center of technology at the competitive enterprise institute. i will get that right before the segment is over. she is here to talk about another u.s. supreme court to vision this week, which held that states can force online

retailers, like wayfarer and overstock to charge state sales taxes, and the impact that will have on retailers as well as consumers. jessica, thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: remind our viewers with the competitive enterprise institute is. media-led economic issues and a little taxation. host: this supreme court decision, it was a case between wayfarer and online retailers. and south dakota over sales taxes. set up with this case was about. guest: in 2016, south dakota passed a law that said, even if youeware, don't have a physical presence, a store, warehouse, or office, we well expect you to remit sales tax to us. that has not what the legal

present has been for decade. todays what we see here south dakotalet reach outside their borders and tech companies that have no physical presence interstate. host: you are referring to that physical presence. that was a supreme court ruling that came down before, and had been followed for decades when the supreme court said, you need to be in a state to be required to have to collect sales taxes. the supreme court took an unusual move. they usually abide by their past precedent. what is the difference here? guest: it is a major u-turn. it was from a 1992 decision. it was way back then about catalog sales. the same issue, but a different method of delivery. it is a really big deal that the supreme court overruled said what he did before.

it was attributed to how big internet retail has gotten. there is so much money at stake and so much commerce, they thought, maybe it is time to .eevaluate the rules host: we are joined by jessica melugin and we are talking about another supreme court decision, this time affecting online retailers and consumers. billions ofng dollars in state tax revenue, allowing online retailers to collect sales tax. if you are in the eastern or central time zone, you can call 202-748-8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific region, 202-748-8001. if you are concerned about mom-and-pop stores, or your prices are going up on the items you shop online, give us a call as we talk about that with jessica. in this case, including the case

we discussed last hour, there was an unusual alliance of justices. we think about the courts sort of being evenly split, but that is not exactly how a check out this time. guest: it is surprising. before they even started on the merits of the decision, talking about the unusual opinions this decision produced. it is surprising in that sense, but it is not a left or right issue. there are bigger constitutional issues that divide. it is interesting in that respect. host: those justices ruling in onor of overturning that van online sales taxes including justices kennedy and justice clarence thomas, justice neil

gorsuch. on the other side, the defenders of the chief justice john , sonja, stephen breyer sotomayor and alayna keegan. a mixture of those thought to be conservative and more liberal justices here. forward, who do you think the winners were? the big winners were in this decision, and who were the losers? guest: the big winners are going to be state and local tax authorities, so politicians who would like to grow their tax coffers. anyone who is aligned for those public funds is a winner here. you will see more and more dates pass these laws -- more more states pass these laws. it would be shocking if you can see almost all the 45 states with sales taxes doing the same thing. i think amazon is a big winner,

and i think yesterday's stock price of amazon reflected that. they are already collecting in the 45 states with the sales tax. they don't collect on the market price, but they haven't a legion of accountants to get that done -- but they serving have an legion of accountants to get that done. losers in this of the small businesses, not the big guys who can comply. we are talking about 10,000 to 12,000 tax jurisdictions a lobe of the u.s., state and local, overlapping over each other. they don't correspond to zip codes. they have different tax rates, exemptions. it's like a twix bar and the snickers bar sitting on the shelf. one is taxed as a candy, and the

other one is exempt and we are talking about candy bars. ebay,eone selling on trying to figure that in 10,000 different places and remit is a huge accounting birding -- a huge accounting burden. and consumers will be paying more sales tax. host: you wrote a piece of for the decision came out, laying out the landscape and who might win or lose. you write, it is a fundamental tenet of federalism that a state's power is limited to its own state and citizens. they should not in cannot impose their will on other states, but instead should compete for residents and businesses. the problem with internet sales taxes is that they are anti-competitive, and will likely experience a tax hike on consumers.

they also give states the opportunity to create a makeshift tax cartel, something that prohibited -- the minimalist prohibited the constitution. i will not try to make you get into the weeds of this like nerds like me get excited about. host: our viewers will highly appreciated. guest: but in plain terms, talk about that landscape. this idea of federalism playing into something as simple as making a purchase on wayfarer. guest: it definitely falls into that category, but the kind of federalism we are taught in school is the federal government versus the state. and that istimate going on, but what we are talking about in this debate is the federalism that left the states competing with each other. recall that horizontal federalism. that is about letting the states

play with their policies, both high and low tax. and letting citizens sort themselves and to these groups. how that relates to the internet sales tax is the same way it relates when those of us in washington, d.c. occasionally drive across the border into virginia him and fell up our cars with gas. when we pull into that gas station, that attended doesn't ask for our drivers license and charges residents gas. we are charged at the point of origin. it disciplines d.c. in maryland because they can only raise those gas taxes until everyone decides, forget it, i will spend the extra 10 minutes to get a lower price. in that way, it is healthy test competition. that is what we were experiencing online. yourconsumer, you can take

purchases to a lower tax state online. it is a check on government growth that way, which is why a lot of people opposed it. that is kind of how this compatible -- competitive federalism plays into this debate. guest: -- host: all right. raymond is calling from clinton, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. text on a point -- touched on a point. it is strictly monetary and has nothing to do with right now. in the past, it was based on one's right to go outside of the state boundaries, like north dakota or south dakota, whoever brought this. to believe that the supreme court was already contacted in this and debated it before the issue came up because these states are broke.

the decision in rhode island that the federal court upheld that they could break contracts now the state police for retirement and medical benefits. there is a lot of states that are in dire straits. they cannot fulfill this, and now they are going to find a way. i have a reasonable belief that is what the supreme court did. i think they were already contacted. host: let me give jessica a chance to respond to the monetary issue. we are talking potentially billions of dollars that can be collected from consumers going into the coffers of states. guest: that is absolutely right. the money is driving this, no daddy. -- no doubt. perhaps you feel like states have a revenue problem. or perhaps you feel that states have a spending problem.

it is certainly much, much easier for them to tax other businesses than to make tough political choices. they would rather tax people who cannot vote them out of office, and they would rather sell those tax coffers been cut programs that are popular with their constituents. no politician like doing that. i think that is exactly right. as far as the supreme court's motives, i think this issue has been on the minds of justices. in a few public comments, they said they would be interested in re-examining this. this has been on the minds of many justices for a while. host: and you touched on the issue of small retailers, like folks on etsy. they said this ruling could have a big impact on them. states can compel retailers to collect sales taxes, even if they don't have a physical presence in the states, paving

the way for more taxes on online shopping. for independent vendors who rely on etsy, ebay, or other shopping platforms, the decision leaves more questions and answers. i have been seeing a lot of chicken little, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, says sue and who operates a shop website,d her personal selling handmade jewelry. other sellers she has spoken with are afraid they are going to have to do if the sales tax returns. the court did not say how big of a business it has to be to fall under this. -- the lawshe law south dakota says if you do more than 200 transactions of more

than $100,000, that qualifies. they did not say if that was going to be the test. what should small retailers be doing now? if they are close to that threshold in south dakota? guest: that question is the same one on their minds, too. the media problem is the uncertainty. we can all make a pretty good guess about what is going to happen. more and more states are going to come on up with these plans like south dakota. they are point to see how low they can get that small business tension. there was money on the table. , iti think the uncertainty is a narrow ruling in the sense that we don't have a problem south dakota's plan. in a way, it does pay all of this uncertainty for small retailers. what happens when nebraska does it more texas does it? we don't know what the standard will become so how do you operate in that environment is a real problem for the small

entrepreneurs who have been a part of this amazing growth on the internet. internet commerce has made our lives much more convenient, but it has given so many people their own small business, and the extra cash to make ends meet. it has been such a driver in the last 20 years. to throw it into this chaos is what a lot of people are worried about. mary barry is calling -- is calling from pennsylvania. you are on with jessica melugin. caller: my question that was touched on a little bit, each state has a different point of view about sales tax. pennsylvania, there is a sales and usage tax. i am responsible for paying the sales tax if i purchase from outside the state, not necessarily the entrepreneur collecting that tax. also, when entrepreneurs

collecting these taxes, there are some things that are not taxed and are taxed. for example, in pennsylvania, written material is not taxed, although amazon is collecting it. what happened to that tax that they are collecting? because it really is not supposed to be collected by them. also, it is a very strange state. for example, if i am making a dress, i don't have to pay the taxes on the material for making a dress. but if i am making a quilt, that is a craft, so i have to pay taxes on it. touchinghink mary is on some of the point you are making. within a state, there are a lot of different rules. in some state may take a different approach than others. south dakota is trying to enforce the sales tax. , theyhusetts, for example don't expect a change of policy that all based on this ruling.

talk about that. he -- it makes it a fair it makes it a very confusing landscape. they are selling out of their garage, to figure out all of these exceptions and exemptions and rules is really going to be and possibly challenging i think. and just to set mary's mind at ease about pennsylvania, it is not just pennsylvania. there are legendary stories about strange sales tax and loopholes all over america. many years back, the national delivered association an announcement on taxing marshmallows. they were not trying to be funny, but for those of us who followed this, we thought, there you go. asking people who run a business to also keep up with marshmallows is somewhat unrealistic, i think. -- wewe are talking about

are talking to jessica melugin from the competitive enterprise institute about the supreme court possible in a gives states the ability to force online retailers to pay state sales taxes. we're talking about the impact on retailers on and off-line. we have lines for this. you can call 202-748-8000 if you are in the mountain or pacific can, 202-748-8001. jessica, talk about how this ruling can affect brick-and-mortar stores, the old-fashioned stores we have to walk into? guest: the big versions are big-box stores, target, best buy, walmart. they actually happen right alongside the state whether lobbying congress for this for years. they have a physical presence everywhere because of their warehouse and distribution systems, so they have to pay sales tax everywhere, and they really, really don't like it

that the small little guys online don't have to. that is not a completely fair situation from their perspective, which is understandable. they also have regions of accountants and lawyers and they decide to build a store someplace, in legal terms, that is unveiling themselves of the taxes there. that point is less clear when someone on etsy send something in the mail to someone in a different place. better make them feel about what they perceive as a more level playing field. i have a different opinion on how level it actually is, but i don't think it will reverse larger trend of people shopping online. survey showed that people enjoy the selection. they enjoy the convenience. i mean, i think, a lot of it comes down to good old-fashioned american laziness. we enjoy sitting on our couch, i know i do, and browsing and looking, and you don't always feel like fighting for traffic

and parking spots. i don't think it will be a big market reversal for the trend of online shopping, but i know that millions of dollars have been spent by shopping and online retails. this is a victory they had been winning for for a long time. host: what about that e-commerce landscape? what do you see the impact within the e-commerce landscape? guest: i think there is going to be a lot of small and midsize sellers that will be driven on to the big platforms, like amazon, maybe even walmart, will decide they can have a marketplace that handles the tax obligations for people, too. i think there will be money made for those big platforms taking that on. i think on the margin, we will lose the smaller sellers. this is one more barrier to people starting their own business. it is such an enormous amount of

accounting and paperwork compliance. and another thing that doesn't get talked about, once your remitting sales tax to a state, your subject to be audited by that state. now we're talking about that thereperson getting kitchen wares on ebay or etsy, and getting a letter from new saying,lifornia, texas we don't like your sales tax receipts, and you need to come down to the state court and defend yourself. that is a huge risk. that kind of uncertainty, who knows who will be deterred from trying? host: bigger retailers we are talking, the national retail federation, together a list of amazon even retailers, sits atop that list, number one. jd.com in china coming in at number two.

apple and walmart rounding out the top part. the top 10 in terms of the biggest retailers involved in can tell on my retailers they have to collect sales tax due to their states. sherry is on the line from mayfield, ohio. hello. caller: good morning. good morning, jessica. i sell things on ebay, just collectibles and antiques and vintage pieces. i do it to supplement my social security. i am very small. i am probably less than $10,000 a year. so, one of my main question is, how is a state going to enforce this? i have to remit my taxes to ohio, but how are these other states going to, after us -- going to come after us? will they be able to access us like with ebay's records?

remittinge they are sales taxes to each, individual state? and doesn't that create a nightmare for states to prosecute those who don't limit sales tax? it would cost them more money in the long want to prosecute us small retailers. and you touched on those subjects a little bit. say ebay will develop a program for us little retailers to take your of the tax for us. that would be the easiest way. host: ebay would be incentivized to help folks out. talk about what little resource is, what little retailers might be expecting from other states. guest: that is part of the uncertainty question. it is just not clear what happened if you say, no, i am not going to do it and you are in another state. that is why we talk about this being a de facto tax cartel

among the states. maybe south dakota gets together with ohio and says, hey, if you turn your violators in, we will turn our violators in and everybody gets everybody's money. but all of those details are not clear yet. that is part of the uncertainty. that even in the oral arguments in the supreme court, a couple justices brought up, this will create so much uncertainty that is not good for anyone, not good for the economy, and that was a concern that surfaced again in the dissenting opinion by chief justice roberts. you are not alone. i am sure ebay is handling the same concerns and you know, doesn't want anything to go on any longer be any worse for its sellers than it is actually necessary -- for its sellers than is absolutely necessary. tax points to the software solution.

the problem is that it has never been proven to work. they cannot quite get it to be foolproof. is it isexplanation soccer to handle the tax complexity, and we all do turbotax with our taxes because it is not that clear cut. it is so complex. jurisdictionsax make hundreds of changes in your to their tax code ego. . when you talk about updating that tax software, it is going with a cost associated using it, developing a coming keeping it updated. host: lowell is calling from virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. it seems wrong for us to spend so much money on illegal , for some, and then

reason, look, if you are running a business, you pay tax. that is the way america is. but as far as the illegal immigrants go, the money you did not have to spend on all of the illegal immigrants in our country, it, you know, i wonder if this is why this is a push because look, america is already bankrupt, we cannot afford to do all the things and pay for all as opposed to those that played by the rules. host: jessica, we are talking about state taxes here and immigration as a federal issue. what may be driving this desire states? is $34 billion in uncollected sales taxes according to some of the information held with the court.

factorse particular driving that push to get access to that money? guest: i think it is as simple as following the money. as internet e-commerce is worth more and more, the interest in states getting their hands on that cut become more and more. the estimates for this will bring in our wildly varied. everyone takes their own study that serves their purposes. there is a study that puts it between a $.5 billion and $10 billion. .here are other studies all those can be fairly cited. point,e generally to his everyone has an opinion. you states have a revenue or a spending problem? you do business and you pay taxes. , if you payus brief

taxes, you should pay them to people that you are powered -- empowered to vote out of office. it is about political accountability. host: kathlyn is calling from ohio. caller: good morning, here is my question. do not the retailers you support, don't they use the infrastructure that i provide with my tax dollars? useshould you be allowed to the roads and the bridges and overpasses that are paid for by tax dollars, but you yourself don't want to pay the tax dollar? i live in western hamilton county, closer to the indiana line than i do cincinnati. the roads here are extremely poor. lectures of,lers, pay no taxes, then my roads will get worse and worse. my grandchildren order a lot online, and it is delivered at my house because they all work. they use the same infrastructure

that i pay for when i go to a mom-and-pop store. host: jessica, talk more about that infrastructure issue. guest: to a certain extent, that is a fair point. i will say that no one ascending firetrucks across three state lines to put out someone's fire in their garage, but i think you are right about the roads. there are inequities in the way things are been done up until this point. i think the problem is that thursday's rolling seems to be a cure worse than a disease. i don't think so get everyone to agree that it is for -- that it is fair. there are solutions. if we went to an origin-based system where we tax on limelight if we went tor -- an origin-based system, like we said with brick-and-mortar like ,n the gas station example

everything lines up. there is no reason we cannot do the online. states would rather tax other people's businesses thinner bus. that has been the political breakdown in that plan. it is alwaysto say 100% fair to the brick-and-mortar companies until now, but it is also very disingenuous to say this new approach is fair because when i walk into your rick and mortar store to collect type -- rick and mortar store to collect taxes -- now i have 10,000 different jurisdictions to calculate for. 45 states to remit to. scale ofust hit a unfairness the other direction with this particular move. host: bruise from almonte, california. caller: good morning. a president we have

in office that doesn't even pay his taxes for the last 19 years and will show us his last taxes. then he runs out on a platform to become president. nobody's talking about analytic a and steve manning and how they influenced 20 million people to vote. host: the have a question about internet sales taxes? caller: cap a fortune 500 company said not pay taxes the last 10 years. that is a crime right there. how about the pentagon spending $900 billion on other -- on all their bullshit weapons. host: one thing the chief justice made about his ruling saying this is for congress to decide, not for the courts to decide. how likely do you think we will get some sort of legislative fix from the folks signing? that, i agree with him on

getting congress to do their job on any given issue has become challenging here in washington, d.c. butsure how likely it is, they certainly have a role to play in this. they delegated this power in the constitution. there are a lot of great ideas they could consider. so much to stem the damage and control the chaos from the ruling. they could maybe clarify with the physical residence means, modify these ideas even working on in the law. they could introduce legislation about this origin-based idea where truly brick-and-mortar and online retailers would all be treated the same way. that would go a long ways in the fairness argument. they had every opportunity. we would love to see them were coming out that is fair to everyone, whether that will happen i don't know. .ost: jessica melugin

you can find her work on twitter at cei.org. thank you for joining us today. next, will take your calls. let us know what policy issues are on your mind. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will be right back. ♪ this weekend on american livery tv, c-span3, coverage of the gettysburg college civil war institute annual summer conference. starting this morning at 8:30 eastern with villanova university's judith thesg eeseburg.

at 3:15, former historical park director wilson green on the battle of the crater during the siege of petersburg. continues sunday at 9:00 a.m. eastern with new york historical society's jonathan landy on desertion among african american troops during the civil war. -: 15, arizona state university brooks simpson on president lincoln and his relationship with his commanding generals george mcclellan and ulysses s. grant. on2:45, elizabeth verin elizabeth van loo, cooperated a spiraling out of richmond. watch this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. >> this week, deceased and, bus

traveled to juneau, alaska as part of her 50 capitals tour for the help of our cable partners gci. the bus continues to trip across alaska by fairy to the city of haynes ahead of our stop in fairbanks. join us july 21 and 22 when we feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. washington journal continues. host: we are taking your calls this segment. let us know what is on your mind. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. looking at some of the headlines. the wall street journal reporting this morning the president is threatening to impose a 20% tariff on european cars. president trump repeated on

friday his threat to slap tariffs on european cars hours after the european union srted imposing duties on a range of american products worth $3 billion in retaliation for steel andn aluminum. this indicate trump's desire to engage in combat on multiple commercial fronts. earlier this week the president issued a statement saying he was beijing,his attack on placing tariffs on to 450 billion dollars on chinese goods if the government retaliate for new duties on chinese goods slated to take effect july 6. based on the tariff and trade barriers long place in u.s. and workers for the european union, these tariffs and barriers are not broken out and removed, we will place a 20% tariff on all

their cars coming into the u.s. build them here," he wrote on twitter friday morning. we are taking your calls this segment. gary from sterling, virginia. caller: thank you. i would like to talk about the legacies of the pro-life movement, the tragedy and strife on the border. that is just one of the legacies of the pro-life movement. i know a single mother of five special needs children. over 37oyees professionals during the course of the year. because. -- i asked her she is a white girl, too. she had a cocaine child, a crack baby. the kid spent nine months in an incubator in the neonatal

intensive care unit. that cost over $25,000 a month. i don't know where people talk thet ripping out the womb, babies. she tried -- he told me i can stick anything in the mouths of the to fetal alcohol syndrome children i wanted. sheld her if i had -- if had more children, i would have her arrested for child endangerment. she laughed at me. this is another legacy. the crime. two of the children were juvenile delinquents. judges, lawyers. it just never ends. host: the washington examiner is reporting republican lawmakers are seeking to move forward on immigration reform despite a warning from president trump not

to do so. house republican leaders are ignoring president trump's advice to give up on immigration reform until the next congress. they will push for a vote next week. majority leader kevin mccarthy, a republican of california said friday the house gop will forge ahead on an immigration bill even after trump tweeted there is no point in trying until the republicans are elected. trump stressed democrats in the -- the reality will not stop the house. you shouldink condition when you can do in houston with the senate will do." if they pass it, have to do something. we have to prove we can do something. jim from virginia on the independent mind. that line. -- independent line.

caller: i would like to make a comment on the sales tax decision. nothing has changed as far as the buyer, the customer's obligation to pay the appropriate sales tax. that has always been there. you must pay the appropriate sales tax on any item you purchase, whether you buy it in it.ore or long-distance buy collectedhanged who it. under the old rules, the rules on, ifcourt was commenting you were buying it from a in then that was not state location, you must pay it directly to the state. you would do it by then paying

it is a use tax incentive a sales tax, but you still had an obligation to pay it. under the new rules they are saying the company that sells the product, no matter where they are physically located, must charge you on their bill. obligation from the buyer to pay sales tax has not changed host: how do you think they'll have an impact on the ground who is collecting? some people make a purchase on a website and there is no sales tax collected moving forward. how does that -- what is the practical impact of that. caller: the individual customer must pay just as you would pay it now if you are in the state. you would still have to pay it

to the computer or through some other situation like that. the they impact will be that a lot of people who were not paying the sales tax, now they have to pay it. host: allen calling from fort pierce, florida. i want to say first of all thanks for c-span and for washington journal. i have always enjoyed watching. theuld like to mention viewers need to be more civil. they need to be more appropriate with their calls. i am tired of hearing people making comments about race, about other things. -- the tone of this is set by the congress. sometimes the congressional congressmen get very focused on partisanship. they say some off-color things to each other.

i think as citizens we can be better than that. host: in some other headlines today, the washington post is reporting a group once to probe the financial dealings of commerce secretary wilbur ross. a leading watchdog group on friday called for a government ethics investigation of commerce secretary ross, intensifying scrutiny of his financial transactions. citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, known as crew, sent a letter to deputy attorney general rod rosenstein and acting director of the office of government ethics david apol urging them to investigate if ross made false statements about the investing the firm in invesco, he ran before taking office in the trump administration. crew's executive director and board chair also asked for an

investigation of his october 2017 sale of a shares in navigator holdings, a shipping firm that did business with a russian energy company whose director included russian oligarchs subject to u.s. sanctions. we have kola from atlanta. caller: good morning. how are you? host: what the you want to talk about today? caller: your comments -- your last comments on the last caller is that why are republicans complaining? whatever is happening in this country is what the republicans are reaping and encouraging. is this the america i have known in the 50 years i have been here? the commerce secretary, these people that trump put in his

cabinet, are just enriching themselves. people are dying. children are being imprisoned. the republicans -- true? i watch you want television every day when you make your comments on programs. ryan, do these people have any decency? host: we have breaking news. a tweet from rebecca berg of cnn says "potholders. -- awful news. was seriously injured in a two-car accident lace last night. the other driver died. a little bit more for the post and courier on that. to two weeks ago

one the republican first congressional district nomination over mark sanford was in a fatal car accident late friday and taken to the medical university hospital. reports are she was seriously injured. rringont was in a car heading south on u.s. highway 17 towards hilton headad island when her vehicle was struck by another car. the driver in the other car was killed. we will keep an eye on updates on that as well. margine is calling from louisiana on the democratic line. caller: yes. i've had attempted murder on me. i have had to call the sheriff's department in the state of texas, carthage, texas. they were done not what i said when i called. what they wanted me to say because they wanted to in trap me. they ended up falsely arresting

me, accusing me of blackening a grandchild's sun. i just had a senator's on the phone yesterday accused me of child abuse. of three children that chase me with machetes. with no water on my property at one -- for a week. i don't know how many times. what i want to talk about his these cell phones and these computers and facebook and google and every thing else. i have been trying to get on a cell phone because i talked to washington everyday. i don't know if it is someone political. i had an officer come in. somebody is coming in on this cell phone, changing the text of what i'm saying and turning it into something ugly, vicious and putting nasty words in there. i trusted that officer to come in my home. host: i want to get to a programming note.

newsmakers interviewed senate judiciary committee chair chuck grassley. one of the topics was his concern about epa administrator scott pruitt on ethics questions. [video] >> you have raised concerns about the ways he handled ethanol. he also faces multiple allegations of misuse of government resources. as someone who make government and oversight spending a key priority, the have concerns about him beyond ethanol? >> it does not sound very good. a lot of questions are being tosed, but i think i ought wait to say he should resign based upon ethics until all the investigations are done. there are things that are very disturbing, particularly when he asks people to help get his wife a franchise. host: you can see the entire interview with chuck grassley friday night at 10:00 p.m. and

on sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. you can hear it on c-span radio and watch it online at c-span.org. we are continuing with your calls this segment. let us know what public policy issues are on your mind. judy is calling from indianapolis on the democratic line. good morning. caller: fellow. i hope the lady heels from her injury from the car wreck. anyway, i wanted to let you know i was appalled by what president trump did yesterday by bringing all those victims of people who have family members killed by immigrants. there are a lot of people in america who have murders and their families. my brother was murdered. shot down in the streets in the neighborhood. even though we found out who did it, we don't do those types of

things. i did not say the person who killed him, he was murdered as well, but we did not say that is good he was murdered. we have to have compassion for people. those children at the border, they have not murdered anybody. they were brought here. that was not in their control. to have those children separated from their families like that is not nice. for people to say they deserve that because they broke the laws of the united states, people are breaking laws every day. but the people who actually break the laws and not children who were not breaking them. i think donald trump -- that was the way to spread hatred. he wants people to hate immigrants and feel the same way about people the way he feels. and the way he feels about people are not correct. you need to punish the people who commit the crimes and the people who do not commit the

crimes should not be harmed. host: in some other headlines, the new york times reports the order the president signed over childrens separation has tossed a wrench into the system with contradicting policies. arguments broke out at the white house over the past two days. top government officials clashed over how to carry out president trump's executive order on keeping together immigrant families at the mexican border, according to people familiar with the meetings. the disease started thursday night and continued friday as -- mccalthat alina and agency wasion how is supposed to detain parents and children together when iran acquires children not be held indefinitely in jail. the bureaucratic battle threatened to undermine mr. trump as his administration tries to counter a political crisis driven by heartbreaking

images and recordings of crying migrant children separated from their parents and sent off to shelters. steve is on the republican line from robert hill, missouri. -- robertsvill missourie,. caller: i have said it before and i will say it again. there are simple solutions to all of our problems. the problem is we are so corrupt and we won't do it. the immigrants, we can't take no more. i have been a truck driver for 30 years. i have seen the population explosion with immigrants and ronald reagan started the whole ballgame. a lot of the republicans are misinformed. we need to fly them back to their home country. don't separate their families. fly them back. that's the compassionate but that's the short-term. the long-term is to work with other governments.

we can't provide security. we can't even take care of our own problems. we have our own violence going on, as everybody knows. all the shootings and everything else. we have got to pay for our tax cut. that is the main thing. donald trumpit is don't know what he's doing. i think he is committing treason. he wants to meet with putin. i think it is a treason deal going on. the best we can do is just take them back to their home thing. we can't take no more immigrants. do a planeload every day. host: the washington post is reporting president trump is extending economic restrictions on north korea. he cited an unusual and extraordinary threat to u.s. national security as he acted friday to maintain long-standing

economic restrictions on north korea, including the freezing of assets in the united states. the official declaration contained in a notice to congress despite his assertion his historic summit with north korean leader kim jong-il and ended -- kim jong-un ended the north korea nuclear weapon threat. "sleep well tonight," he tweeted the night after he and kim met in singapore. , from florida? -- tommy from florida? caller: i want to make a comment about our congress. our congress -- host: mute your television and listen through the phone. caller: they will not do their job. if congress don't do their job, we are headed to a dictatorship. that is what mr. trump -- that's

why he don't do nothing but deal with the countries under dictatorship. that is what he wants. the already told them he wanted like the under him other people under their dictators. weak theyss is so want to anything to stop it. reporting fbi is agent peter struck has been subpoenas. criticisment taking following a series of anti-trump text messages was subpoenaed to appear before the house judiciary committee next week. friday, evenirmed though he was already willing to go before congress that you may issue the order because he would not confirm a specific date to appear. he has now been subpoenaed to

capitol hill on june 27 at 10:00 a.m. his appearance will be closed, fox news has learned. that attorney for the agent confirmed to the washington post sunday he would not plead the fifth and was willing to testify without securing an immunity deal. berkeleyhe line from springs, west virginia on the republican line. caller: good morning. you know what i have to say. if hillary had been elected president, we would never heard about all this corruption in the fbi. this is thee it, biggest scandal since watergate. the lady in the obama administration that worked at the u.n. requested over 200 american citizens names be unmasked from the cia. have ofiness does she having american citizens names

unmasked? i'm telling you it is going to be the biggest gamble. -- scandal. washington journal has done 130 minute segment on this. -- one 30 minute segment on this. but you are not putting the emphasis on the seriousness of the situation. i'm telling you, it is going to wind up being one of the greatest scandals since watergate. host: the washington post is reporting robert mueller is adding people to his team to help with the russian trolls case. a handful of new federal prosecutors have joined one of the special counsel robert an indications, he is are to hand off of this whenrosecution to others his office completes the investigation and the russian interference of the 2016 election.

to a pair of court filings, special counsel for the u.s. attorneys to the case against russian entities and people accused of running an online influence operation targeting american voters. people familiar with the staffing decision set the prosecutors are not joining his team, of being added to the case that they could someday take responsibility for the special counsel ceases operation. larry calling from fort worth, texas on the democratic line. toler: i would like to speak the trump voters for a minute. called.ly the one that thessalonica wanted to speak to. -- that was the one i wanted to speak to. their is no way you can call yourself a christian and go along with what trump is doing to these kids, these babies. you can't call yourself a christian.

stop calling yourself a christian. up, atlantic magazine science writer and y -- ed yong joins us to talk about america's preparedness for the next pandemic. everything into the farm bill the house passed this week with bjerga.g's allen ♪ announcer: this is been buzz is traveling across the country on

a tour. the bus is on its 30th stop in juneau, alaska asking what is the most important issue in alaska? >> we are in the middle of a budget crisis. we are used to having oil money come in and as a result of lower prices, we are not getting back revenue we are used to. there are other revenue streams that need to happen but it does not seem to be happening very fast. there are political reasons. without additional revenue coming in, the alaskans are facing crises in areas and one is the substance abuse crisis. the more our economy goes down, the more people are upset and are not living their lives in a way they are happy with so they end up getting destitute and turning to self-medicating. >> i think the most important

issue is child hunger. it is linked to poverty. hunger -- 40% out child hunger. we are going way back up. we have to stop giving our money to the oil companies and start spending it on children. >> it is a chunk of economy. --are concerned about promote the state at an issue wide level. .t is a spot in our economy >> it seems to be an issue.

a lot of them are not actively seeking help. looking for the different type aid they can get but it seems like one of the big issues is homelessness and how we can combat it and fight it in this state. >> i am the executive director of administrator. the most important thing in alaska is to get a sustainable plan in place, which has ongoing revenue outside of our nonrenewable resources. educators need to bill their stable so alaska is they can stabilize schools and most important for all of us is to educate our students and the

best way to do that is a stable school. 22nd.n us july 21 and watch alaska weekend on c-span.org and listen on the free c-span radio app. announcer: washington journal continues. is the united states ready to battle an epidemic? guest: i feel like it is not. i have been talking about this for a while. the u.s. has many strengths. ishas got the cdc but it disturbingly honorable. recent crashes with pandemics have shown that. in 2009, which was it

won and swine flu, the u.s. was caught unprepared. it's network was looking in the wrong part of the world, its ability to make vaccines were too slow. the epidemic after had peaked and hospitals were stretched thin as is often the case with our decentralized health care. there were vulnerabilities that could be exploited by a deadlier pathogen. host: what is the scariest thing you found out? world i think it is the -- just-in-time the economy. we rely on supply chains that could be fractured during the event of an easily spreading disease. hit puertoane maria rico, a knocked out a large proportion of the manufacturing

capacity for iv bags. doctors had use the ridges to inject fluids. we started having a shortage of syringes. a lot of the supply chain problems extend through our health care system and make us vulnerable to something that spreads quickly and causes large amounts of societal unrest. we have two lines open for you today. if you're in the eastern or central time zone, call-in. if you're in the mountain west -- or pacific time zones, call-in. what they do decide to concentrate on this topic now? guest: we are in peacetime. there is not a major crisis banging on our doors. it is now when people relax

their guards and this is part of history dealing with infectious disease. a crisis hits, everyone throws money and investment. crisis abates and everyone forgets. dooms us to this level of constant unpreparedness. now is the time when we need to be raising awareness of the threat and what we can do to fix it. this is not a problem we need to be that act but we need -- be bad at but we need to make investments now. host: what should the government be doing to prepare for that pandemic? guest: i would say more investment in public health. the basic things people do like training epidemiologists like getting -- epidemiologists, like

getting jobs in. they have been increasingly underfunded for a long time. money doing it hospitals to prepare themselves has been cut. that leads to increase. and we need to step up our game in terms of helping other countries to increase their health security, by investing in the ability of poorer nations to control the thesis -- diseases within their borders. that is the best way of ensuring the rest of the world is safe from diseases in an era of globalized travel. host: is this a critique of the current ministration or is this a problem we have seen with previous residencies -- presidencies? guest: this problem extends without -- throughout

administration's. the one we have has a few unique problems, firstly a lack of expertise. armscientific advisory administration -- and in this is desperate administration what to do are absent. time soome in all the there is this lack of expertise. we can look to how president past has reacted to outbreaks. was not seeking out scientific evidence and issuing, messages to people that provide the unifying spirit you need during an outbreak. it was probably the opposite and that is concerning in terms of how our leadership would react to the future disaster. med from baltimore is

going to join us. weler: i am so glad to see have a gentleman investigating this. to a group all for confiding malaria. out the mosquitoes in africa in no time by tree huggers who are worried about eggshell fitting. we lose a million babies a year in africa to malaria. it seems to be of no concern to anybody. i hope this gentleman will undertake the investigation and -- back how we can get into the system. we can save lives. it is the reason we do not have

malaria in the western hemisphere, for the most part. they were wiped out. the regardless of the details, i think this color highlights the importance -- this caller highlights the importance of health. you help countries deal with their health problems. everys important now when -- diseases can spread. they used to be diseases are one countries problem. they are everyone's problem. the most cost-efficient way of world ino protect the this country is to help nations improve their ability to prevent and control outbreaks. we see the value of investments

already in places like uganda where investments have helped them stand outbreaks of things like ebola and other diseases. in places like nigeria, when aola threatens to arrive in west african outbreak, polio investigators who were funded by the u.s. and other places who had been trained were able to keep it under control. evidencehistorical that our investments in global health have paid out in those investments need to be increased. they look like a are set to be in the future and that is going to be a problem. guest: -- host: kelly from west virginia. caller: i think it is a problem

that needs to be addressed just like all the other problems in the united states. our politicians seem to be grandstanding like with immigration and saying we need to do this for the immigrants while ignoring their own people and i think the united states needs to be taking care of its own people first and invest in money in the united states and quit trying to save the rest of the world. i do not think you can do that. , theyike with immigration do not grandstand like the democrats and republicans have been doing. i take the point of grandstanding. the problem is the threat posed by diseases extends over time scales that go beyond a

political cycle, which is why people get shortsighted. america hasay that to deal with its own problems before helping the rest of the world because the point of the world we live in is everyone's problems are shared. that drawing a border around the country and only dealing with internal problems will eventually leave us unprepared for threats that spread through flights, through all kinds of travel. that ethic of helping other countries, even if you do not buy the moral imperative, is important from a completely self interested perspective. it is the best way of ensuring outbreaks do not go out of control over here. there is a huge bipartisan history of support for this idea and it is an idea the majority of americans support from

different sides of the political spectrum, that health problems are easy to control if we help other countries. host: john, from trenton, new jersey. we are waiting for you. caller: i did not know i was on. thank you. me,he gentleman, before talked about it being a politician's deal. it is not. your neighbor shares your community and the world globe community has all the same problems. my question for the gentleman is to getat are we doing rid of the mosquitoes, the bedbugs, the tics and whatever transmits these insane mutating

germs that are going around the earth? it through an do asexual. we can get rid of them. guest: there are several groups of researchers who think about creative ways of thinking of dealing with the spread of disease by insects. --,y book, i write about which is common. stopst is in there, it those mosquitoes from spreading the virus is behind things like fever, zika, you fever. it is an interesting technique that is safer than insecticide spraying. it has got potential but let's be clear that is it -- a small

portion of the diseases out there. ebola and other diseases are not spreads by insects. like a disease. is found inthat birds, in poultry come in chicken and docks. it is found in pigs. it circulates around the world all the time. this is not something that is going to be dealt with dealing with one particular better like insects. it is something we need to think about holistically in terms of surveillance. in terms of getting our hospitals ready. as we talked about, in terms of getting politicians on board

with the seriousness. host: how much of a concern is there that a pandemic will happen in the u.s.? butt: it is cliche to say, the only thing we can predict is its unpredictability. the 1980 pandemic was one of the greatest disasters in history. something like that could turn up again. flu pandemics have happened. 2009 was mild. much milder than 1918. thename kind of deadliness -- if the same kind of deadliness then or to turn up in the modern era, it would be a big problem. bill gates takes this seriously. epidemic of that nature could kill -- a pandemic of that

nature could kill 1300 people. that is not taking account of the economic harms. it will be a problem. it is a question of when. wherewe covered a hearing disease experts came and and were asked about what they saw as the biggest threat. there are so many threats emerging and i wish i could take some off the table but they keep coming at us. they can change the biological threats we know today and something different we may not be prepared for. our greatest threat is our response capabilities and being able to respond to anything that comes our way. is there one biological threat that gives you the greatest concern? >> i think influenza is to be at the top of my list.

it can affect everyone rapidly and is constantly changing. all of the population can be susceptible. the threat of a pandemic has to be at the top of the list because it can happen fast. my number one and number two and number three is influenza. for the reasons dr. shipman has mentioned. when you have a respiratory virus that can be spread and then you have a situation, you can have a catastrophe. we have experienced those types of things. when we talk about is the 1918 pandemic. it is likely it would be an influenza but if not influenza, and influenza like --an influenza like respiratory

virus. influenza or something like influenza is the one that keeps me up at night. article says the next leg coming is america ready. is that the biggest concern now? guest: i think so. we never know what is going to come next. diseases have a history of taking us by surprise. it was sweeping around the world. the threat that keeps people of that night. just because of its ability to involvesnd the fact it . flu is an odd one. we can make vaccines. we have surveillance networks. but even in 2009, all of that

infrastructure was not able to prevent a pandemic. even this year, the regular non-pandemic seasonal flu stretched america's health care system fan. harbinger ofing what can happen. host: carol, what is your question? caller: i have a couple comments. jesse, i have not been on with you and i thank you for having me on. thanks for this program. my first question is how far along is the zika virus and its progression into the united states? how soon do you think it will be here? we are already receiving warnings in public health. texas. -- public health in texas.

you still my thunder on the 1918 pandemic but i know this killed 1% of the u.s. population. this affected my great grandparents back in their day. here in texas. about thened are you lack of support on science-based ideas and theories when in texas , our official position by our state is there is no such thing as global warming and they tend to ignore the signs for that even while we had record rainfall from a hurricane last year and we have sea level rise taking place, how concerned are you about the governmental positions some take in parties in the partisan influence? guest: thanks for those points.

on seeger, it is a great example of a disease taking us by surprise. everyone neglected it. we only recently realized it can cause things like microcephaly in children. incursions in florida. it is going to be a recurring problem. it is a sign of how diseases can take us by surprise. to reach into your question thet partisanship, when zika epidemic was manifesting, obama asked congress for appropriations and they devolved into squabbling. appropriationse for several months.

ebola or things like cancer or hiv. that shows how partisanship can cause problems in our attempts to deal with these diseases. i am concerned about the lack of appreciation for scientific evidence. we need science to show us how best to fight diseases and to influence effective policy and the lack of advice in the white house administration should be a cause of deep concern to americans. there is no scientific advisor in place. the office that provides this service is then. there were a few qualified people to provide that kind of advice in the event of a future disaster. host: the torilla from oregon. victoria from oregon.

nursed during the hong kong flu. people forget about that. we lost a lot and i became a victim but our hospital was quarantined. it was scary. concern is the inequality of access to health care from state to take -- states. i see west virginia has not expanded medicaid and their problems would be a real set up for some type of an epidemic. the state next-door expanded medicaid so people have better access to health care. when are we going to have more equality in health care and how someat going to impact type of pandemic? guest: this is a good point. it is something that worries

people. the decentralization of u.s. health care means there is variation in how to print states are ready to cope with these diseases. i went to the university of nebraska medical center which has the best hospital for disease, deadly infections we know little about and they already, because they have had thoughtful leaders who have had facilities in place long before we were able -- those threats are manifesting at our doorstep and they campus facilities ready , even though they were dormant. it is that kind of commitment in the face of other pressures and the absence of any threat that source is needed in the system

-- in a system in which it is difficult to get everyone on the same page. it boils down to whether this administrator is ready to take steps necessary to become prepared for threats. it is not the best situation but it is the one we are living in. from corpus christi, texas. the u.s. supplies half of the $4 billion to the world health organization. it probably should be helping with the virus in china. country,g a communist it is not easy for us to help things beforee they migrate here. good: china has pretty

history of late of addressing those threats. h seven and nine flu is the strain most worrying the world now. china has taken good steps to control it. successes of those steps this year but that does not mean the u.s. has no responsibility or how to deal with threats in countries in the world in parts of africa and asia and the middle east. agreement called the global health security agenda, which says all the stuff i have been talking about, that the world needs to come together to prepare for these threats. the u.s. put money into that program and helped create it in the first place. those investments are being scaled back by 67% according to

trump's budget. cdc and operatives around the world will have to pull back and scale back on work that is already begun to build the capacity of other countries to deal with threats. that feels like a foolish waste of money that has already been expended. far better to build on that solid foundation and expand relationships around the world. host: heralds from california. and doctorsrnments have been pushing on flu shots. are they breaking down our immune system and are we becoming dependent? what is going on? guest: that is not how flu shots work. harm the immune

system. they are meant to train immune system. flu shots are a great thing. it is fantastic we have them. they do not always work well because flu viruses evolve every year. authorities have to look at the strains coming up and make predictions about which to include in the yearly vaccine, which is why sometimes they have less effectiveness and others. but that does not mean we should be ungrateful that we have a flu vaccine. that is not the case for the majority of other diseases. , ifgs like ebola or zika anything we need more vaccines. we want a situation in which vaccines are available and can be easily made to new threats. there is research going on. international agreements to get

vaccines made for diseases that pose these problems in the future before they arrived. vaccines are important -- an important part of our defensive arsenal. we need them. host: we would like to thank ed the next plague is coming. we will talk about the farm bill with alan bjerga of bloomberg news. stay with us. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: the c-span bus traveled to juneau, alaska is

part of our 50 capitals tour. the bus continues the trip by ferry to a city ahead of our stop in fairbanks. 22 whenjuly 21 and july we will feature a revisit to alaska. on c-spanka weekend or listen on the c-span radio app. brad thor will be our guest on in-depth fiction addiction come alive on july 1. his latest book will be published on july 3. his other books include use of force, blacklists, state of the union, plus 14 more thrillers. interact with brad thor by phone. with other series brad thor, sunday, july 1 live

on book tv. >> this language of harm that by expressing an opinion, that people do not like, you have inflicted an injury. i found that striking and rather frightening if the truth be told and emblematic of the way the left is responding to any sort of defense and especially one that trenches on identity grievance, politics which is everywhere and has infected everything. ofouncer: university pennsylvania law school in the wax on the limits of free expression on college campuses in the united states, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span.

washington journal continues. host: alan bjerga from bloomberg news. what is in the farm bill? bill is a major piece of legislation. it covers all subsidies and programs for american agricultural producers. the larger part of spending is this not program, food stamps. that is politically contentious this time because of what the house republican bill does to the food stamp program. program has a shift in emphasis on benefits that used to go to consumers, folks who were recipients of the program would be moved to job training programs. the republican argument is we have low and climate -- no employment. wouldn't people rather have jobs? democrats say aren't you

creating a new progress the -- bureaucracy? there is struggling people out there. why are you pushing people off the benefit rolls? the senate agriculture committee has come up with its own plan. unlike the house process, where we saw rejected in its first attempt, narrowly passed friday, 211 votes. the senate has been a less process -- partisan process because it does not pass the staff program. they are going to be taking it up. they are going to bring up the house bill. they are going to substituted with their plan. host: we want you to join our conversation. the first phone line is for those who work in the agricultural sector.

host: what has been the response of the industry to the house bill? guest: you are talking about agricultural industry? looking at agriculture itself, they are pleased with the current farm bill. there are not major changes. our house version makes adjustments along the edges. there are changes to the dairy program in the senate bill but these are not bird shakers. that is why you had unified support in this bill. the battle has been over snap. the snap program is not a

discretionary program. if you are concerned about the changes made in the house republican bill, you are going to support the senate bill which makes minimal changes, or you have the incentive to have nothing happened at all. the deadline is september 30. that is when the current legislation expires. not many changes to the snap program in the senate bill. what differences are there between what the senate wants and the house has done? in terms of snap? guest: you have worked training requirements. you have more stringent standards for people who are able-bodied adults without dependents for them to be in the program. the range of people covered goes. there are more stringent

enforcement qualities. it is not that the senate does nothing. they create a national database to make sure no one is getting benefits into states. is and this was important, we are not going to put in anything that we do not feel has been improved. the criticism of the house republican bill is there is this expansion which sounds decent. they do not cut money from the program. the issue is the track record of these projects is not established. they have been in the pilot stage. christine from new york is going to join. what is your question? caller: i would like the guest to talk about the steve king amendment. it is bad for animal rights and consumer rights and what is its

prospects in the senate version? guest: you are talking about the interstate commerce amendment? steve king of iowa has an amendment that was put into the house farm bill that would preempt state rules in terms of animal welfare, in terms of treatment, commerce between the states. it is important to folks involved in animal welfare. california may pass legislation on page three hens. they can use market power to make other states follow their way. a lot of states do this. pennsylvania does that. we get into arguments about the commerce clause of the constitution. probably not going to get into the final version. this was included in the 2014 farm bl. it is controversial in

agricultural interests. steve king represents the number one and producing district. not likely to make it into the final conference report. host: mary from pennsylvania. what is your question? caller: how are you? host: i am fine. how are you? caller: good. i am calling about a program. host: what is your question? caller: is it a question or a statement? host: you tell us. mary? caller: just a moment. i would like to state i think the program would work if they operate it correctly. i think people who are on food --mps

lost mary.em to have we will go to an a from new york. in either question is the house or senate, proposals for the snap program, are there conversations about the benefits related to the types of roderick's that -- products that individuals purchase with snap? the reason i have that question working forrvation, a brief time in the retail setting and observing as i am doing my own shopping is the types of product that are are not products defined as nutritionally enhancing. if the object of snap is to get

individuals with food insecurity tocerns, the opportunity avail better products, fresh fruit, that type of fresh vegetables, that type of thing, what i see purchased is candy, and theygy drinks, access food pantries for food. the intent sure that orsnap is being followed actually resulting in a better health -- nutritional health for the recipients. guest: the caller brings up an excellent point. this is one of the biggest arguments that engulfs the program. this is one of the things that

makes people mad about the snap program. they go to the grocery store aisles and see what the caller described. a seaport food choices being made. -- they see the poor food choices being made. all americans eat junk food. you could see a lot of grocery stores and it would not be -- justnder the popular be people under the poverty line getting junk food. the question is whether it is good policy to subsidize the purchase of what our unhealthy foods? the grocery industry would say we could not limit foods under snap. another you look at program, and they do have limitations. from a public health standpoint, there would be reasons to make this a limitation from the

public policy standpoint. if you are going to give money people -- people money for food purposes, you cannot -- other foods, anything goes. there are lobbying interests who would like to keep it that way. it is a conversation. talking with alan bjerga. if you would like to join the conversation, call. we are going to go to frederick from north carolina. what is your question? is moremy question

fundamental than the farm bill itself. why have a farm bill in the first place? is or what i am be song is why altruistic? why are we supposed to sacrifice people this way? need is notmeone's a claim on my checkbook. can you hear me? yeah. what i do not understand is why we are doing it on -- in the first place. i own a farm. i do not ask for any subsidies. about 25small farm acres. my father-in-law at one time did

grow tobacco and that is heavily subsidized. my notion is let the market determine prices and i think it would make it better. people would be able to find jobs. guest: i love questions like this. my 92ndould not mind explanation of american agricultural law. in the great depression, you had a society needing help. you have production controls. milkre dumping rivers of and anything to make people prosperous in the great depression. 60's,world war ii in the you saw our policy where the agricultural population went down but there was an argument they needed support because farming is risky.

it is crucial for people to be fed. you read that with the food stamp programs, which is a form of food stamp program. now you have the modern farm bill. a lot of farmers do not get farm subsidies. if you are in livestock, you do not get payments. a lot of this goes to the major commodities grown in the upper midwest. they become used to this system and every country subsidizes agriculture. even if you let the market rent things, you still are dealing with a global marketplace where that is not the way it works. it is a programs that -- why can't we get out of this system where you spend billions of dollars on a healthy sector of the economy?

that is a larger question to ask. one final note, he mentioned subsidies for tobacco. those went away 10 years ago. tobacco is running on market forces. host: ernest from pennsylvania. what is your question? is i heardquestion this program exists and is it working? host: which program are you talking about? house'shat is the white position in the farm bill in the house for the farm bill in the senate? guest: president trump has sweet it -- tweeted his report of the house republican farm bill saying he likes the work requirements in the step program.

senate, that the is a red light flashing. can congress get a farm bill past? if history is a guide, it may happen. even though you have disagreements, you have bigger differences in 2014 and minister get a farm bill. now that you have a president who likes these work requirements, work requirements go away to get something to -- through congress. can you get that by september 30? huge question. host: caffe from oregon. caller: i had a question about the snap program. the gentleman said something about not being allowed to use them for hot food. i have been to restaurants. i think it was a wendy's where they were able to buy hot food like that, just fast food

restaurants with their food stamps. guest: i would have to check details. there have been hot food pilot programs. i am talking in a general sense. --t: bob from azeri missouri. caller: pertaining to the usda mortgage loans, and subsidize rents, what will happen to those programs and how soon will it happen? is a: the farm bill reauthorization of all agricultural programs. it deals with development, housing, deals with every sector of the royal economy because the usda is an expansive area. every area gets modified by the farm bill but that area does not have adjustments. i would not expect huge changes. host: james from kansas.

what is your question? states can the united learn from other countries in regards to food policy? guest: what can we learn from other countries? in subsidies, you have seen a lot of changes. new zealand going very export oriented. the european union is having a debate over agricultural policy, wondering if their supply limits are being changed. agricultural systems always become a big part of trade disputes. there is a lot to learn from other countries. how they get applied to the u.s. from bill depends on the situation. host: jeff from florida, a snap recipient. caller: i wanted to make a comment. first, i am a food stamp

recipient working at walmart. i see what people buy with the food stamps. i buy food to eat but i have seen it come through where halloween, they buy all their halloween candy on food stamps. things like that that should be restricted. you should not be able to buy pop, candy. you should be feeding your children good quality meat, milk, things like that. the other thing i will say is i am working at the wages paid is the reason why i get food stamps. i work all the hours they will give me. if i made a decent wage, i would not need food stamps. i think those issues should be addressed more than some of the other comments people are making. very: the color makes

salient points. on the one argument, you could have this is government money. you should spend responsibly. poor people celebrate halloween with their children. is a questiont about the structure of programs in america. one out of seven people is using the snap program. unemployment is 4%. people qualify for this program. what is happening to the wage structure? the government has to subsidize food. host: robert indiana. what is your question? caller: thanks for c-span. i think the republicans have a good idea. they are trying to get people to take responsibility and become

financially independent and proud. with snap program is it requires people to be honest. for the most part, people are not going to be honest. the fraud in the snap program is unprecedented. they do not that these people and look at what the situation was that led to the point where they cannot be financially independent. experience ofand the easy access without any questions. it is assumed somewhere down the ,ine things did not go well whatever it may be and you are down on your luck. -- theirhese people inactions have led to the point they cannot financially take care of themselves. guest: a couple points that the

color makes and the color is giving a moralistic view of how government should be working and it is talk of the deserving poor. when you have one out of seven people using foodstamp programs, there are people who are working walmart notat making enough money. folks you differentiate where you are working for a job that does not reach the threshold? that is a difficult question. in sog undeserving people as not to hurt people benefiting from the assistance. it is a difficult line. it runs through many issues. host: laura from south dakota that's snap benefits. -- gets snap benefits. but noti am disabled

declared through social security. this is the only thing i do assistancefar as any . i want at the foodstamp is tied in with the farm bill. as far as farmers getting their money regarding what their , ands -- their farms yield you have to follow the money regarding what the states receive just to advertise. new york receives $35 per person. south dakota receives five hours per person. keep in mind for states that did not go along with any medicaid enhancement for the poorest of , you have no medical

insurance coverage in south dakota. in 2016.de $5,000 guest: in terms of the snap program being part of the farm bill, it was south dakota senator george mcgovern who was a push in putting those constituents together. that is what gets the farm bill past. it is that coalition of advocates and world folk looking for of our policy that gets this through congress. host: steve from kentucky. what is your question? caller: all these folks complaining about not making enough money, might -- my question is you have to have a skills get -- skill set. burgers -- you are --

guest: getting to the republican job training plan, that is the idea behind what the republican proposal is. the idea is we have these unfilled jobs that require people with skills. we have people on the snap program. maybe if we move money to job training and gave people skills they would not need to have government dependents. it is a compelling argument and it is why you see support for this proposal is the question becomes how does it work in practicality. host: we would like to thank alan bjerga from bloomberg. we would also like to thank you for being with us today on washington journal. tune in again tomorrow when the show comes back on at 7:00 p.m. thank you for being here. ♪

announcer: on c-span, here from the developer of the at used by cambridge analytica to collect personal information of facebook users and its impact on the 2016 presidential election. that is followed by the hearing on the u.s.'s government response. and --here nikki haley announce why the u.s. is leaving the u.n. human rights council. lawmakers heard from a technology researcher who

developed the app for cambridge analytica. collectow the firm to information from facebook users. members of the senate commerce subcommittee looked into how that data influenced the presidential campaign. this hearing is one hour, 40 minutes. >> good afternoon. i apologize for our tardiness.