>> today, president trump is in las vegas where he will make a couple of appearances starting with a speech to the nevada state republican party convention. you can watch his remarks live at 3:20 p.m. eastern right here on c-span. >> c-span -- where history unfolds daily. in 19 79, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress,

the white house, the supreme court, and other policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite providers. week takes upext the 675 billion dollar defense department spending bill. leo shane with "military times". what are the main priorities of the house in this bill versus the president's request? >> it is pretty close to the president's request on a lot of different issues here. we are looking at the same level of military end strength. a boost of over $15,000. we are looking at the same level for the military pay raise. about 15%. and generally the same level of funding. it is a little bit lower than what the administration asked for. we have gotten a note from mick mulvaney and wants to see those operations and maintenance accounts fully restored. but it is pretty close. the two places that we have see

note administration send a over saying they would like to see corrected, this bill would purchase two extra lit oral ships with the administration we saying it's not what they asked for, and it's money better spent elsewhere. minor things in the larger scope of this and pretty much in line with what the administration was looking for. host: reading some of your previewing the debate for next week, militarytimes.com, you quote the chair of the appropriations subcommittee on defense, kay granger, saying last year, we took the first big step to he rebuilding the military. order the proposed improvements we are seeing in the chairwoman's bill yet the >> she is talking about this idea of rebuilding the military

we have heard so much from trump and the republicans. we are talking about healthy increases, another $16 billion and continued end strength and growth, so we will see more soldiers and more sailors and more airmen in this and seeing more investment in the accounts that started to get thinner. a lot of this goes to the issue of sequestration and budget caps and how much the defense department has felt restrained by them in recent years and how much they have been able to buy new equipment, get into new procurements, so we are going to see a big boost in purchases and of things like the f-35 and combat vehicles. lawmakers are hoping they will go even further next year, they will get another deal and go around the spending caps. host: the lines have been drawn in terms of the provisions in the bill but there are 100 amendments that have been filed

in the rules committee. two days of floor debate at least expected next week. what are the issues you are focused on? >> the biggest debate on the house floor in just about every topic now is immigration. we have seen quite a few amendments for money being used for national guard restrictions and money that may be connected to housing migrants on bases and that has been an issue that has come up, some of the questions about if jack officers will be assigned to deal with these immigration cases -- if jag officers will be assigned to deal with these immigration cases. so we'll have to see whether or not those amendments are ruled in order and how much this immigration debate spills over into defense appropriations. there are a couple of democrats who are pushing for ways to undo the administration's new restrictions on transgender individuals joining the military and there is a fight over f-35's

to turkey and a lot of concerns about turkey's latest actions in the region and just the u.s. with that nation, so there will be more intense to restrict some of those equipment sales to them. hoyerority whip steny said democrats felt shut out. how about on the defense spending bill? how do democrats feel about it? do they get a say? >> in the appropriations subcommittee, there was not as much consternation. there was back and forth and there were a handful of measures they were hoping to add it has not been as polarizing as it has been in years past. already agreed on the top line defense spending this year. it was part of the two-year. agreement.

what we've seen is a lot of back and forth, how much money will go to defense and nondefense programs in the budget. this year, that is sort of settled. a lot of those debates have been muted. host: where is the senate in the process of the defense spending bill? >> little bit behind but still trying to move their appropriations bill along, and we've seen a handful of appropriations bills starting to move over there. and a vote early next week on the construction bill which incorporates this military spending, too. the goal of lawmakers is to move these more quickly. typically this is taken late in the year and in this year's case, even into the next calendar year. we hear from a lot of lawmakers that say they think they can get this done before the election, before the start of the new fiscal year. we will see if they can actually

do at this time. witho shane, deputy editor "military times," you can follow his reporting on twitter as well , at @leoshane. >> 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's interviewed by donna brazil . >> he been a number of congress now since 2013. you have had an opportunity to work with democrats, republicans, but in the book, you offer partisanship that rewards vision. or anyink the president other elected leader in this country should effectively represent everyone, if they voted for them or not, and they should almost take a pledge

never to divide us. that doesn't mean they don't go out there and say why they should vote for me over the other person or why my ideas are better than the other person's -- why they there future they are envisioning is better than the other persons, but taking a step where you are cultivating a spirit of division is, i think, one of the things that has gone on in this country right now which is really insidious, and i do think if you have the privilege of serving, which i feel like i do, we should in addition to swearing to defend and protect the constitution, we really should pledge to the american people that we're not going to say things that divide us, that we are going to go out of our way to try to unify the country because the country is inherently stronger when we are unified. "afterwords" on c-span2's "booktv."

>> a live picture from las vegas where president trump is expected to speak this afternoon at the republican convention for the nevada state party. the president plans to attend a number of campaign-related events in the state today, including a tax reform roundtable later in the day. while we wait for the president to arrive at the nevada gop convention, here's a portion of today's "washington journal" on a recent supreme court ruling allowing states to collect sales taxes on online transactions. 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 -- wecision came out, we are t are talking to jes businesses. the problem with internet sales taxes is that they are anti-competitive, and we are t. 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 online and her personal >> he came for our convention when he was a nominee. he lived up to that promise at his own sacrifice. when he became president, he