jana winter joins us to discuss the tsa "quiet skies" program. which allows federal air ofshals to view the behavior airline passengers. ♪ senate judiciary committee chuck grassley pushback against democratic demands for additional documents from brett kavanaugh from his days serving in the george w. bush white house. grassley says the committee should stick to documents that reflect his record. in your time features of stories about how some republicans and democrats and western states are upset with having to come back in august, saying the shortened summer session leaves them less time to take care of constituent needs. this "washington journal" for august 5. in our first hour we want to get

your thoughts on a recent announcement from the justice department. the formation of a special task force to deal with the issue of preserving religious liberty in the united states. the attorney general jeff sessions saying this task force is needed. critics say it will favor some religions over others. we will look at the tangents of it in this hour, but want to get your thoughts on this idea of a task force to preserve religious liberty in the u.s. if you say it is needed, 202- 748-8000. if you say no, it is not needed, 202-748-8001. you can post on our twitter feed if you want to give your ourghts there @c-spanwj and facebook page. at facebook.com/c-span. .com, that is the website that reflects news from alabama

highlighting jeff session on the formation of the task force that was announced in late july, saying that a.g. sessions says the just apartment is forming that task force as a response of a 2017 executive order of president donald trump. it is charged with ensuring the justice department is upholding the administration's guidance "in the cases they bring and defend, the argument they make in court, the policies and regulations they adopt and how we conduct our operations. that includes making sure our employees know their duty to accommodate people of faith." he said, all speaking and 'reigious liberty summit, "we going to remain in contact with religious groups to ensure their rights are being protected." the full statement from the president speaking at this religious liberty conference coming confine on her website at guestcspan.org. fundamentally if you think a task force of this type is

needed and you say yes, it's 202-748-8000. if you say no, it is 202-748 -8001. and you can post on twitter and facebook. find a complete statement from our website. here is jeff sessions thinking on why a task force is needed. of religious freedom, there can be no doubt it is no little matter. it must be confronted intellectually and politically and defeated. this election, this past election, and much that has flowed from it gives us the rare opportunity to arrest these trends and confront them. such a reversal would not just victoriesth electoral however, but by intellectual victories. we have gone to the point where that moralityld

cannot be the basis for law where ministers are fearful to affirm holy writ from the pulpit and where one group can actively target religious groups by labeling them hate groups. this president and this department of justice are determined to protect and advance our magnificent heritage of freedom of religion. is,dom of religioun indeed, our first freedom, being the first listed right in the first amendment. in reporting on this task force said that attorney general sessions said the guidance he issued back in fundamental out 20 principles for the executive branch including the principle that free exercise means a right to act or abstain from action and that government should not impugn people's motives or beliefs. if you go to the website of the justice department, they have

posted there, and we'll send that out as well, some of the statement from october from the attorney general sessions. i'll read portions. the first statement from this october memo saying as point number one "the freedom of religion is fundamental right expressed and protected by religiously that but he is enshrined in our constitution and in numerous federal statutes. it encompasses the rights of all americans to exercise their religion freely without being coerced to join an established church. a religious test as a qualification for public office and encompasses the rights of all americans to express the religious beliefs subject to the limits that apply to all forms of speech. the united states the free exercise of religion is not mere policy -- to be traded against other policy preferences, it is a fundamental right." more from that statement during the morning. the lines you call in. we'll start with donny and kinetically said such a task

force is not needed. good morning. tell us why. got leaders -- don't care. jeff sessions is trying to use the bible to contradict what he is doing. to get on their knees and pray for the lord to forgive them of their sins. but donald trump and jeff sessions, there is nothing to them. you can tell by their actions and what they do. comesspecifically when it to the task force, why do you think it is not necessary? caller: i just don't think it is. i think we should get jeff sessions and handcuffed both of them -- host: let's go to cynthia in tyler, texas who says yes. good morning. caller: hello. i think it is needed because we need more emphasis on the religious, the freedoms, and the things that are already in place. and that's just the only reason.

it comesyou think when to religious liberty it is being curtailed in america or people are working against it? caller: i think they're so much against it. we do need a force to enhance or promote it more. host: when you say there is so much against it, what do you mean by that? what do you see as far as an example is concerned? caller: i have one example. making it ok to do certain things that the were founded on, christianity was founded on like homosexuality and marriage. if it's done, being that it has been done, it violated our christian beliefs, by letting them use our same marriage license. if this is going to be done legally, then let's do -- don't let them use the same one as

ours. we believe one way and they believe another. host: that is cynthia and texas. carl from pennsylvania saying a task force is needed. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i definitely think it is needed. i'll give you any sample that . my wife a couple of years ago at her job on her lunch break in regards to somebody that shared a need offered to pray for the person. this owas on their own time, not when they were clocked in. and she was called to task by the director of the daycare where she worked at that time. host: just for offering to pray with the person? caller: that's right. host: what became of that ultimately? caller: because my wife had a good director -- record and

nothing came of it but she was very uncomfortable just, just -- do not push it, did not anything like that further but was looking for another job soon afterwards, where she could express yourself. in whatever way on her own time. host: steve in maine says such a task force not needed. go ahead. caller: no. it's definitely not needed. my money to start all these agencies? where is it going to come from? host: specifically when it comes to the task force, why is it not needed? caller: it is a tremendous amount of money. it is an argument in the constitution for the freedom of the religion. why do we need a task force for that? host: one of the credits at al.com talking about the

creation of this task force, the announcement of it. writing this. but offeredted -- no examples, only renting we have gone to the point where courts have upheld that morality cannot be the basis fo law." held that some colorado commission members did not display " requisite religious neutrality" in their reasoning against phillips.

it does not seem to support the justification of a religious figure task force. goes on from there. if you want to read mr. johnson's column that appears at al.com. sergio in schenectady, new york, you are next up. myler: thank you for taking call and i appreciate the opportunity for people around the country to express their views. i understand, it's freedom of religion. i don't remember the last time i recall that there were people outside of churches or synagogues denying people the right to enter those buildings. i think that this is the basis of our country was freedom of religion. we also have the right to freedom from religion. people like jeff sessions and the people that support donald trump feel they have the right to force their beliefs upon other citizens of the country. and i don't think that is right. as far as the task force? this is just another example of the trump administration

forming another commission, just like the voter fraud commission, to put forward an agenda that really is not supported by the majority of the citizens of the united states. thank you for taking my call. host: the national review, write s in support of it, saying these types of blindly partisan reactions revealed the sinister expectations on the left. gain political points with the progressive base. the democrat national committee called sessions announcement the latest us out of this administration's campaign against lgbtq people and accuse the attorney general of shamefully doubling down on bigger treat. -- bigotry. planned parenthood insisted that religious liberty is another right to discriminate. while thise saying observation is outside the mainstream, progressive

politicians are increasingly intent on coping with the trump presidency -- by exploiting for their political rhetorical advantage. the new task force is further proof the republicans continue to push for an agenda completely out of step with the american people. ignored religious americans targeted by policy such as non-christian, nonconservative americans are equally defended by policies defending religious freedom. edward in jersey city, new jersey, who says this formation, this task force is needed. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. i have mixed feelings about it really, but i do stand on yes now, just basically to bring clarity to help us just basically discuss religious freedom. and but, i do agree with a little bit of what you read in that piece igniting cultural tensions. i don't think the right, the

gop, the republican party is basically for liberty. i disagree with the supreme beingruling where the -- able to deny the gay couple the wedding cake. in the name of religious freedom. i thought that was very unfair. we do need a discussion. the caller who mentioned the gay marriage and the differences and licenses, i think we need a discussion because we have not finalized it yet. generally, i generally don't trust government and the interest that might be involved, so i do not think -- i think we have to have an honest discussion about it. host: if you want to participate in the twitter poll, a response poll, most of responded, 85% saying such task force is not needed. that is including the statement of john smith saying that trump helping out the religious groups

promises made, promises kept. in all caps. back to the document that was released in october. this is point seven. government may not target religious entities through to scrimmage or reinforcement of neutral laws, saying although government generally -- criminal provision of certain time, place or manner, restrictions on speech, government may not apply these laws indiscriminate territory -- in discovered a tory way. - in a discriminatory way. religious nonprofit under circumstances it would not enforce an amendment against the secular nonprofit organization. the justice department's website has redefined as document that was released in october, a template for the task force that will be formed.

the specifics of the force few at this point. we are asking if you think overall if such an entity is needed. this is fort myers, florida. bruce, hello. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. the most disconcerting thing about this whole subject is we are an the 21st century talking about religion as if it is a real thing. as if anybody in this country has their, is not allowed to practice whatever religion. like the previous caller si aid, it seems like it is more like people shoving their religion down other people's throats. nobody's being told they cannot practice the religion. it's something that should be done in private. it should not be done in public. like i said, this is 2018. the answers to any question a person can possibly have are right in the palm of your hand or on your computer.

so if you still have a belief in a bronze age myth, then you need to keep it to yourself. it's amazing that this is even a subject for debate. amir, forts go to washington, maryland. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call and for c-span in general. i'm a graduate of theology student. i'm against the formation of a religious task force. i do have some mixed feelings. there's i do feel that just difficulty defining what beliefs are driving the leadership of the institutions and particularly,j the organization of the task force because there's often time people are very religious even if it is not hourly expressed so

much. everybody believe something. formation ofe any kind of organization, you are going to have certain police that -- certain beliefs that are motivating those actions. and that can lead to, i believe, history does show that that can lead to religious persecution in various forms. host: when it comes to the mixed feelings portion of it, what's top on that list? aller: my mixed feelings is -- something the previous caller mentioned about general awareness. that's what i mean. small,uld be i guess a the fact that this is now even a subject. this is my first time calling in. this issue is creating the situation that is causing people things.e aware of these forcet sense, this task

being created creates that any could create that for a little while and then after a while people might begin to realize, this might not be a good idea. then the task force would be removed. in that sense, it could maybe spark things. but i definitely would lean towards it being, if it did come up, to be removed and maybe another way of doing this would be to actually just be more open about, as a government and a country, just putting these issues out there to make sure there is a separation of church and state. host: gotcha, thanks. james from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: hi, pedro. hi, c-span, hi, america. i'm a very religious man. don't push my religion on you. don't push homosexuality or by

section rally on -- or bisexuality on you. i'm not really for the. i'm very religious. i will not push god on you. host: you are saying is such a task forces needed. if that's the case, why? caller: homosexuality has gotten way out of hand. bisexuality, it is out of hand, pedro. the cake guy -- host: from wisconsin who says, no. fran, h i. caller: i know there have been a lot of callers previously. said exactly what i'm thinking so i'm not going to take up much of your time. i thank you for letting me call in getting through. i just one essay that as far as i'm concerned,, no, to this religious liberty task force.

i think religious people, the religious right and these conservatives should keep their noses out of other people's lives. conservatives as far as i'm concerned are nothing but a bunch of dictating group of people that want to just put their noses in everybody's business. it comes to religion, that's personal. when it comes to pro-choice, that is a personal decision and they should keep their noses out of other people's lives, worry about themselves. host: you think that religious people in the united states have a freedom to practice their religion as they see it, they are not curtailed by government in any way? caller: no. i think anybody should be able to practice the religion and any way that they want. they want to be religious, that is their right. but don't push it on anybody else. host: ok. the attorney general, again, more of the event were the attorney general spoke about the creation of the task force and

the larger issues of religious liberty, that is available on our website at c-span.org. if you want to see the whole thing. here is a portion of it from the attorney general talking about the justice department's work defending religious liberty. soon after taking office the president directed me, the department of justice, to issue guidance foral all executive agencies on how to apply the religious liberty protections in federal law. our team embrace that challenge. i got to say our team was enthusiastic about that challenge. we had some great young people and others who have experience in these matters that went to work. i issued that guidance in october. 20 fundamental principles for the executive branch to follow. those include the principle that free exercise means a right to act or abstain from action. they include the principle that government should not impugn

one's motives or beliefs. we do not give up our rights when we go to work, start a business, talk about politics, or interact with the government. we don't give up our rights when we assemble or join together. we have religious freedom as individuals and as groups. in short, we have not only the freedom to worship but the right to exercise our faith. the constitution's protections don't end at the paris parking lot, nor can our freedoms be confined to our basement. administration, the federal government is not just reacting to these challenges. we are actively seeking, carefully, thoughtfully, lawfully, to accommodate people of faith. religious americans are no longer an afterthought. host: so, that is just, again,

the portion of the attorney general. find that it c-span.org. he talks about the creation of this task force to preserve religious liberty in the united states. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 48-8002.ents 202-7 for those of you watching satellite gives us the ability for c-span to be seen and larger parts of the world, including the united kingdom. if you want to give your thoughts on what is happening in the united states regardless, specifically when it comes to religious liberty, you can call 02-748-8003. steve is next from south carolina. good morning. caller: i do have a comment. be patient with me. i want to ask your next guest if we are headed for a single-payer system. ok, back to religious liberty. it depends really on how you

define religious liberty. i'm a southern baptist. i go to a nice church. we never discuss politics or partisan politics or campaign stuff in the church. we do discuss politically sensitive issues. an example would be abortion whi ch the catholic church is interested in. when it comes to campaign time, if churches from the pulpit are supporting candidates, whether it is democrat, independent or republican, i do not believe it has a thing to do with religion. i do not think it should be permitted from the pulpit. if churches are taking part in partisan politics, for one th ing it fractures their congregation. they should lose their tax-exempt status. i do not know if that is part of the definition of religious liberty or not but that is an opinion. host: what about this idea of a task force, religious liberty, when it comes to personal practices of religious belief? do you think that something is needed on that front? caller: that is a tough call.

if this can be defined in so many ways. there are some religions out there, i mean, obviously that are subversive. and i just -- i mean, i hate to see a estoppel like unit investigating everybody -- a unit investigating everybody. maybe there are things that are not good for this country. maybe it is needed. the: the thoughts of tim of saying, of, course, people already have the right to worship. what "freedom" and " religious seeking toans restrict the freedoms and equality of those whose lives, as a christian person, you disapprove of. that is not in her size of fate. it is an exercise in prejudice." one of the thoughts on the daily beast website.

from missouri, mona says no. tell us why. caller: i feel like it is just like the man from the daily beast said. it is for the white conservative christian. they say religion. but i do not think they would like for anybody but the christian, christian conservative ideas. that is what i think. host: dennis in texas someone who says no. this is sylvia, hi. caller: hi. i was calling because i think that a task force is not needed. and i also object to the use of useterm faith, because they that term interchangeably with conservative christianity. and threre are lots of people of faith who are not christians. muslims are people of faith. jews are people of faith. there are other religions that are people of faith.

and this business of equating a person's lifestyle with their religious beliefs is wrong. i have more problems with people who call themselves people of faith who do not obey the 10 commitments where they lie, where they practice adultery, they covet other people's things. and i cannot see anybody out there who is complaining about the fact that we do have a liar in the presidency right now. and the other thing i would like -- host: back to the task force. give me a specific why not. caller: why not? manyne thing we have too secrets and his government. if there is a task force, i would night to know who is on the task force. host: let's go to john in wisconsin who says yes. hello. caller: good morning. just so you know, i am catholic.

if anybody wants to be mad at me, they can be. i think it is more of an idea of haveve to follow -- we catholicism, judaism, muslims. they all have a slightly different voice. they believe in the same god. it is more about forcing people to accept, if you're religious and you do not want to do a certain thing, you should not have to. that should not be forced upon you to be servant to the st ate. that is the issue with the cake. he's religious, he says no. there are other cake makers. to go to a person and to force them and say you have to accept a for what i am. that is the reason why we have these separations in the nation. it is not really so much ism, because muslims are not going to accept those same things. it's about the individual person me.

if i was another type of person, and i wanted to force my beliefs down on you and say now you have to make this and do this. now you have to do that. and now that it is a good short against your faith. you and slave that person to go against their moral obligation. host: ok. that's john in wisconsin. the national review talking about the efforts of this administration on religious liberty, saying the promise to protect religious liberty. the beginning of the trump administration in january of 2017, the doj served seven convictions for hate crimes involving attacks against places of worship, the majority of which involve non-christian houses of worship. it was on to say another group that figures to benefit from the commitment to religious land use concern is the muslim community. who serves as a senior

scholar and faculty with the religious freedom center of the freedom form institute. its proactive stance on behalf whyhe doj is -- it is people come from all over the world, either from other liberal democracies to breathe thea i ar of freedom in this country. jerry from silver spring, maryland. good morning. caller: can i get in here, please? host: you're on. go ahead. caller: i study history. the dull subject. that is what my college friends used to call it when i was in college. the dull subject. and george washington, madison, jefferson, franklin, they were -- would turn over in their graves based on what sessions has said. ihomas jefferson once wrote "

tremble for my country when i think that god is just." when jefferson and adams were in their 80's, if memory served correct, they both died on july 4. toferson and admams used correspond with each other. it would take mail from the washington area to massachusetts there.ks tog e get host: appreciate the history lesson but all that and how it applies to the task force, please. caller: very simple. this is a secular nation. the framers created as a secular nation. it's a secular nation. it was supposed to be free from any religious influence whatsoever. host: let's go to jan in portland, oregon. caller: hi.

thank you for taking my call. i do believe in a religious liberty task force, but i think that that should include like, for example, if you walk up to pillour birth control refill, that there is a sign above the pharmacist that says, i will not refill your birth control prescription, then you can go to the other pharmacist. there is choice in this country. thing that melissa cake with the gay couple. there should be a sign on the door that says we will not serve wouldouples, then that resolve the problem or they had it on their website or whatever. i do not think there is anything wrong with that. i think, let the free market prevail. if these people over here, don't want to, for some reason, religious faith, serve a certain type of customer, they need to

advertise that. they need to make it clear. the free market, excuse me, the free market that will do its work, why the need for a task force? caller: well, i think that the point i'm trying to make is that that task force needs to include in there the fact that you need to make it very clear that you won't serve certain types of customers. host: ok. jan in oregon. we will continue on with this topic on your thoughts on this religious liberty task force. that was announced by the attorney general jeff sessions. c-span.org.deo at we are getting your thoughts on it for the next half hour. 748-8000 > for those of you who say yes. no, 202-748-8001. we will look at other stories as we go on this half hour but

continue to call upon the religious liberty task force. this is cincinnati.com, a story stemming from president trump's rally. the headline -- i think it could be are red wave. if you like president donald trump, you will like tori balderson, that was the message at high school saturday night. talk of a democratic blue wave. a special election and reliably republican congressional district in central ohio gives the president that chance. the full rally available as c-span.org. portion from last night. president trump: talking about this blue wave. i don't think so. i don't think so. maxine waters is leading the -- maxine. she's a real beauty. maxine.

a seriously low i.q. person. seriously. maxine waters. she's leading the charge. you know, all throughout like countries of 100 years, 125 years, whoever has the white house, that party tends to lose the midterms. i don' tknow why. may be it is complacency. may be you fight so hard for the presidency and you win and you are complacent but that was two years ago. i said, why? but we have the greatest economy in the history of our country. we have things that have never happened -- the democrats get in, they are going to raise your taxes. you are going to have people pouring across the border. blueould that be a wave? i think it could be a red wave.

that this is srt saying visions is the only religion in the united states. king saying religious freedom is another push to allow churches like question to push candidates from the pulpit. if they do, they should pay taxes. on twitter, you can make your thoughts there, facebook as well. this is costa mesa, california. john says no. hi, john, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. it is a contradiction separation of church and state. theliberty should be liberty from government interference in religious, any religion. a religion to create today, i should be allowed to defend it as long as i am not hurting anybody else. we have had, how money years have we had an example of -- the radical islam, the

terrorism? as an example. in afghanistaniban beating women. that is where the protection from people -- when sessions was talking, you got the sense he was talking about christianity mostly. and people should be free to be agnostic or atheistic if they want to, if they want to be atheist. you know, as far as funding goes for the little sisters of whatever that is -- if you recall, where they were required to, you know, fund certain programs. host: charles. de ritter, louisiana who says a task force is needed. caller: yes, sir.

a task force would be needed so that everybody has a right to their own fate. ith. i believe christianity is the only faith, the only true one. the bible has not been proved wrong. they have discovered thousands of things on it. with a task force they should not force anybody to believe in god. he didn't put a fence around the tree of knowledge of good needle. hand eil. vil. he loved them but he gave them the choice. you can choose the right rejected.r host: more stories when it comes to the november elections. the headline, rainbow wave. lgbt candidates than ever. -- finished a white house

fellowship in the early months of the trump administration. convinced that hard-won issues like a rights what he wrote under mr. trump. herthought kansans and districtwide supporter as a counterforce to the president. she said, referring to scott davids is among more than 400 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender candidates running for office this year. a record number. mostly aboutlks issues like health care and only had one exchange with a voter who questioned whether a gay person could win. go to the pages for the new york times for that. if you go to the washington at senate looks

democrats that will be working in portions of august were normally they are on break. king writing the coalition of the cranky. saying for the first time in decades, senators are scheduled to spend most of august working on confirming president trump's nominees and passing the annual spending bill. majority leaders have been issuing threats to postpone the august recess for 20 years but eventually cooler heads prevailed and senators joined their house colleagues. visitcess allow them to voters back home and have some down time with their families. se broke july 26 for a full five-week break, senators left on wednesday for just two weeks. they will go back and forth the rest of august. and then be given weekends to go home to their states. the decision came under a

taunting twitter pressure from president trump and other gop senators who tend to follow the president's lead. veterans veterans on both side of the isles are angry about the decision. long vacation in congress is a lazy institution that needs to work harder. there is more available on the website at the washington post. taking a look at senate legislators and the august break. district heights, maryland. this is john, hi. listen, this thing called task force, just the name itself right and's me. as an african american, the one thing i'm afraid of in this country the most is these white evangelical christians. jeff sessions, donald trump is nothing. the man is a liar, unrepentant, don't apologize for nothing. host: tell the way task force is not needed. caller: like so many other

callers have said, number one, this is a secular nation, number this is not a christian nation. number three, you can right now, everybody who wants to go to church can go to any church they want to go to. if you take a look at it, who has been doing the most attacking in this country on the muslims on the synagogues and african american churches? it is your so-called white christians, the very ones who jeff sessions wants to start this doggone task force for. host: eleanor in new jersey, go ahead. caller: hello? in morgantown, new jersey, a very small little town. i know exactly what is wrong with our country. i would like to make our i, i, me president face-to-face because i would like to debate him on morality and every kind of religion in this country.

this has all been said before. host: to the idea of the task force, your thoughts on that, please. caller: freedom of speech, freedom of religion. you can choose what god you choose to worship. choose whoever you like. host: ok, emmanuel is next. he is in colorado. caller: thank you. i go back to what you of your previous callers said about an example. the colorado case of the back or you have a person the because of the religious freedom chose not to serve these two people because of their personal belief to be gay. now, if that is not prejudice, what is it? the other caller said they should be able to advertise. we used to have signs, remember that? blacks only.

that is what it is coming to. this is an inch by inch creep towards fascism. host: ok, that is emmanuel's thoughts this morning. stories to show you. this takes a look at brett kavanaugh, the president's choice to become the next justice of the supreme court. on the front page of the new york times saying at 32 mr. kevin i had wrapped up a three-year stint working for ken star. the inquiry was finally winding down, mr. kevin i believed it was deeply flawed, telling his audience at georgetown university a makes no sense at all -- looking at the conduct of the president. capital, months, mr. president trump's -- mr. kavanaugh worked for mr. starr. despite his objections, helping to assemble a case that the president had an affair with monica lewinsky, and obstructed justice by trying to cover it up. mr. kavanaugh pressed mr. starar to aggressively question on the

details of his sexual relationship with miss lewinsky. mr. kavanaugh's decision to return to mr. starr's -- the brutal ways of washington combat. the -- epithets republicans used to describe the efforts of special counsel robert mueller. if you go to the opinion section post" thishington morning, it is the senate judiciary chairman chuck grassley who writes about a document request from democrats about mr. kavanaugh. kavanaugh's record is enough. saying we have a nominee with an extended judicial record that provides for more insight into his philosophy. the judiciary has

requested up to one million pages of documents from his time as a government lawyer. all told the volume of documents to be reviewed could be more than the last five nominees combined. than 17,000to more pages of material that have been submitted in response to the most thorough and robust committee questionnaire ever required of a supreme court nominee. the democratic leaders are arguing that this is not enough. democrats also are too many to kavanaugh's record as staff secretary .2 comments it was a formative experience. mr. grassley adding that these revealnts -- don't mr. kavanaugh's legal thinking. the thoughts of chuck grassley this morning in the pages of the washington post. bronze, new york. bronx, new york. caller: yes, i think it task

force is needed. sessionsn is that jeff seems to be focusing on the judeo-christian religions. i'm pagan, and i want to know that the task force is looking at the non-judeo-christian religions for protection. the hindus, the food is, even t agreeanists, i don' with them but that is the religious freedom. i would like to know that this task force is looking at protections for those minority religions in our country. host: from lincoln, nebraska, dan, hello. caller: hey, i appreciate your taking my call. i'm catholic. try to keep this brief. we have a catholic governor. guess prior to the -- ahead.an, you are on, go caller: i'm sorry.

i thought you were talking to somebody else. host: continue your thoughts. caller: on have studied hinduism, i studied buddhism. i am rather agnostic at this point. -- the evangelical and the christian terrorists i guess i call them with mike pence involved are hypocrites. the death penalty, they are for caging up children away from their parents. like mr. trump. he is after one thing and one thing only. he worships money. host: how does all of that apply to the task force specifically, please? evangelicals on board, prior to the election, there was a debate in the evangelical thing taken washington, d.c., where they had gone to hillary, pro trump. pro.

and one of the ladies that was debating was pro trump. she basically said that they would like to get in bed because some of the things that trump was for these christian right-wing theories on how government ought to be run was to get that leverage and get tha t like kavanaugh and gorsuch. in the supreme court. host: dan from the brisket. some of our facebook comments . you can participate in our poll. this is a lane saying it will need to be in place for the democrats get in power. christians were persecuted under president obama. little sisters, bakers and taxpayers who have to pay for abortions. then there are individuals who wrote books and spoke out and went to jail. rob saying when we do not attend force, will the task

visit us sunday afternoon or monday to liberate us? you can leave thoughts on our facebook page and also on our twitter feed. you can call us on the lines. , for those who say a task force is needed. if you say no. east northport new york. hello. forer: hi, pedro, thanks taking my call and i appreciate c-span. i definitely do not believe you should have a task force for religion. obviously, the task force for the voter fraud is very similar. way of dividing us and making a political statement. that has nothing to do with religion.

host: yearly there is a conference that is put on line netroots. one of those things coming up or was discussed in the less conference was that of democrats, their role in the upcoming elections. attendance was up, high profile politicians were on stage but something was missing from this year's. conference nobody got interrupted by a loud angry protests. in its 13th year, the largest annual gathering has reclaimed his place as a showcase of candidates from the white house on down. for activist to see this as a life or death chance to dismantle the conservative movement. of presidents talk trump and of the republican party's agenda and funders of the nomination of brett kavanaugh for the supreme court. presidentialential

candidates were senators elizabeth warren, kamala harris, and cory booker. and tim ryan of ohio. the only elections they discuss with the midterms. they talked up a 5.5 million people that have joined campaign to impeach president trump. he was greeted with polite applause. when non white congressional candidates such as a new mexico -- and gina ortiz jones came on stage, the democratic party -- a source of concern for some washington-based and what state groups -- red state groups was taken for granted in new orleans. that whole event, the netroots nation conference is available at our website at c-span.org. you can see some of the speeches he writes about. there is the front page. schenectady, new york. this is mark. go ahead. caller: i think there should be

a liberty task force because the religious freedoms are being attacked over this country in en commitments are being taken away from public property and school prayer has been eliminated. these are one of the few ways we can increase our level of mora lity and improve on that in our nation. so these are areas i think the task force will protect when it comes to this new implantation. thank -- new implementation. from dallas, virginia. go ahead. caller: this will just be another expensive exercise in futility by the government. they already endorse one religion over another. missouri whoom says yes.

caller: yes, sir. our declaration clearly says we are created by our creator. un on a label we do need a task force to protect our declaration of independence. a specific task force even though it is enshrined in writing already? caller: yes, sir. we need a task force to protect that. host: kelly in west virginia. go ahead. you're next. i don't think there should be a task force. the government in anything they do just seems to go awry. and i just think that would be one more thing the government would mess up. host: let's hear one more bit of tape from the announcement from of this task force from jeff sessions. >> in recent years the cultural climate in this country and in

the west generall has become less hospitabley to people of faith. many americans have felt that their freedom to practice their faith has been under attack. it's easy to see why. we have seen nuns order to buy contraceptives. we've seen senators pass judicial and executive branch judicial andsk executive branch nominees about dogma even though the constitution prevents, prohibits a religious test for public office. we've all seen ordeal faced bravely by jack -- americans from a wid variety of backgroundse are concerned about what this changing cultural climate means for the future of religious liberty in our country. president trump heard the concern. among thethis unease american people is one reason he was elected.

in substance he said he respected people of faith and he promise to them in the free exercise of that faith. say merryd, we would christmas again. news, thenternational washington post about events at speakingtary of state at a conference in singapore concerning north korea. saying diplomats from the united states and north korea shook hands and lobbied for -- saturday. in what appears to be another roadblock in the path to negotiations aimed at ending pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs. in a day of head snapping twist of tone at the annual conference secretary of state mike pompeo warned russian not to help north korea cheat on you and sanctions that moscow had voted for. then just a few short hours e northpompeo and th

korean foreign minister approach each other for a public handshake and exchange promises to according to the state department, pompeo said they would talk soon. the spokesperson adding that the -- the exchange of the group photo, pompeo and ri did not have a more formal meeting. he said, "this is a. step in the right russian" direction." diane from macon, georgia is next. no against the religious freedom task force. this is not about religion. i'm a pastor. this is clearly about racial discrimination. so-called christians who support a morally bankrupt a man who claimed that he is christian now but dolls all kinds of egregious segregated and divisive things need to ask themselves what actually would

jesus do? how do youfically, connect the actions that would be with the task force specifically with discrimination? what about the announcement tells you that or suggest that to you? caller: because they are already saying that they are into people saying merry christmas. are now saying merry christmas. there again, people in elected asked abouteing their religious beliefs. but yet, they are using the same platform to discriminate and to do all kinds of things and saying that it is from the evangelical community. host: let's go to lewis. how can you have so much hate and say you love the lord or you know god? i wonder, with this task force

they are trying to put together, with they have right roles and caps riding on a horse and the neighbor and across in your yard? are these the same people because we have done been there and seen that an we were worse dead. up, we are going to have a discussion taking a look at what has been known or described to the medicare for all system, seeing if it could work in the united states. two guests burning up -- joining us for that discussion. charles blahous and emily gee. we will also learn about the tsa surveillance of passengers. i first want to type about our newsmakers program. we interviewed the director of a key republican group doing opposition research on candidates. talkingalexandra smith with reporters on how many potential democratic candidates

are in the america rising pack. who they are rising and writing in a position research. >> how many books are you looking to come up with? how many candidates are you looking into as we head into this endeavor? what does that look like? >> i think as a baseline proposition, we're going to look into anybody who expresses interest in running, that includes traditional and nontraditional candidates. 2016 taught us anything, it is that president trump was able to claw through an otherwise there he traditional group of politicians. ultimately to win the republican nomination. i think it would be unwise of us to simply just look at elizabeth warren or cory booker. i would say at this point, we are really eyeing about a dozen books that will be looking to seriously produce. we are not limited to that number, certainly. if interest fades in certain

candidates, or interest perks up in others, we are certainly interested in expanding that. we announced our 2020 initiative to make seo. -- two weeks ago.we are going to be going around the country asking donors to contribute to this effort because it 2016, the lesson we really took from that was defining hillary clinton early and often was the key to making her an absolutely unacceptable alternative. host: that interview with alex smith you can see on sunday, today at 10:00 right after this program.you can see it at 6:00 this evening on c-span. also listen for it on c-span radio. watch it online at c-span.org. we will be right back. >> monday night on the communicators, a look at the

general data protection regulation, the new european privacy laws and how it will impact technology companies like google and facebook. joining us on the program, the president and ceo of bsa, the software alliance. also the president of the center for democracy and technology. >> we all need to think of our data custodian spots ability. in the digital age, every tech company is the data company. people are using and amalgamating data about individuals. i think this law speaks to the rights of the individual and his or her data and that that person has ongoing rights, even when the data is used legitimately by good corporate actors. that is a conversation everyone needs to have. infante want all of the -- innovation that the united states is so good at, if we want

that to move forward in a positive way, we need to have the right roles and legal underpinnings under that. watch the communicators monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion on medicare for all. emily gee serves as a health economist. charles blahous from george mason university.he is their senior research strategy . to both of you, thanks for joining us. let's set up a definition, even if there is one possible. what medicare for all should be or at least the context. guest: i think a number of things are on the table. the most popular and most talked about planned lately has been which sanders' plan

would give universal health care to everyone, but more importantly put everyone on a medicare plan. sharing.ms, no-cost there would be no other options besides that medicare government run plan. in this debate, it is important to distinguish between actual single-payer coverage, in which there is only one option for getting health care, and that would be from the government, versus other options which do give universal care. forward, it iso important to think that there are many different flavors of having public coverage and universal coverage. charles blahous actually, i think that is an excellent way of putting it. in many respects, this bill would differ from what we know of traditional medicare. you have people paying premiums. you have deductibles, co-pays.

a lot of different things going on. this would provide a first dollar coverage of a wider range of services that medicare would. obviously, you would get very different numbers if you're looking at different approaches to creating or expanding universal coverage. standard to the sanders medicare for all bill. host: what does a cost factor show you in your study? the finding is basically if you interpret very literally the language of the medicare for all bill, i show in addition to federal costs over the first 10 years of about $32.6 trillion. a couple of important copy at about that, that is not the total cost. caveats about that, that is not the total cost. a normtext, that is on is number of people have difficulty wrapping their heads around it. this would be an increase in federal obligations that would be greater than we can finance,

even if we toured -- were to double all corporate income taxes. it is a very transformative qualitative change at the federal government. the actual number is probably substantially bigger because my study literally interprets the bring allent to health care providers down to medicare's payment rates. those average about 40% lower than they are in private health insurance. the center for american progress did its own study, you can tell us about that, but what about the cost factors? emily: but we produced was a plan -- what we produced was a plan called medicare extra. as far as my reaction to his study, i think it was very transparent, there he clearly written study.

if the federal cost estimate is very similar to what others have put out, including the urban institute as far as what the plan would cost over a 10 year window. for the center for american progress proposes is a bit different from a bed -- bernie sanders' medicare for all plan. main goals of expanding coverage and bringing up coverage for everyone, so that using and having health insurance is affordable. extra.ose medicare that is a plan that would streamline all public coverage underneath the medicare umbrella expanding upon and extending the program as we know it today. still preserve a role for private insurance. host: the big question becomes sustainability. have you keep paying this? emily: today, we spend a lot on health care. it doesn't all come through federal tax dollars. you have states that spend billions of dollars on health care. payof our own pockets also

our own health care. we don't always come face-to-face with those costs because they come out of our paychecks. today, the kaiser family foundation reports that an individual plays at roughly $7,000 for individual coverage and $19,000 for family coverage. the question is how you want to pay and whether you can do it equitably. op-ed, a structure currently covered for medicare and couldn't even cover the cost for such a program. charles: i think that is correct. i agree with the way it was framed here in the sense that we are spending a lot of money on health care as it is. we spend it in a lot of different ways. out-of-pocket, private insurance. this particular way of financing it, the medicare for all bill would basically say that with

minor exceptions, we are going to pay for it all through federal spending. we are going to take all the money we are spending and send dollarsshington as tax in the federal government would pay for everything from the first dollar. point, which a number of people have publicly commented on the study have pointed out, is that yes, this would be an enormous addition to federal expenditures. the vast majority of spending is occurring already. that is an important point to understand. on the other hand, it doesn't follow that even though we are paying a certain amount of money now, we would necessarily become people with our taxes going up that much. i don't know how people would feel about that trade. people should be aware that that is the trade at the basis of the medicare for all approach. host: we will continue on with our conversation, but if you want to give us your thoughts,

202-748-8001 for those in the medical professions. 848-8002.s at 202- dot is medicare for all for spending? charles: there has been a lot of distraction -- discussion of my study. first of all, i'm grateful for all of it. happy to have people talk about the study from different policy perspectives, causing more people to read the study. i would caution about the interpretation that some have put forward that my study shows total national spending going down under medicare for all. that is not what it says. what it says is that the additional spending that would arise from expanded coverage, not only from covering the uninsured, but expanded utilization for people who already have insurance, would be

much greater than potential savings from an administrative cost or a very aggressive reduction drug prices. where the question of total national spending it comes in, at what rates we pay providers? the literal language of the bill says that we are going to bring everyone down to medicare's payment rates. those are about 40% lower than in the private sector. if you cut payments to providers by 40%, that is going to reduce national spending. there are other scenarios in the study in which we assume those cuts don't happen in total spending rises even faster than it would under current law. it is not medicare for all that would cause spending to go up faster or slow. it is the question of do we cut payments to providers? host: senator sanders also organization.ur what do you make of that criticism and how does it affect the impacted your research? chalrserles: not at all.

i do my own research. obviously, if anyone has any disagreements with aspects of the analysis, i'm happy to listen to that and explain why i assumed what i assumed. i do all my own work. had ally speaking, i've very please reaction, not only to the reactions from but others. i did a show where i appeared after sen. sanders: other day, and he was making the case for his approach. and other people have reacted to the study and a good way, in the sense of taking away from it what they can to argue from their perspective. host: part of the proposal the center of american progress has goes beyond basic services. how does factor into the cause structure? also the feasibility of making

that thing happen on the larger nationwide scale? emily: the american extra plan would continue having medicare as a public hybrid system that people could opt into the government plan, and a government plan would become that medicare extra plan. people could also choose private plans like they do today. that is something one third of seniors do today. insurancextend health to beyond what medicare covers today. integrated drug programs, unlike today's part d. we would also extend to vision and hearing, also dental benefits because we believe those are a part of the health care people deserve. host: let's hear from senator sanders talking about his plan. >> people say taxes are going

up, federal government is going to expand. that is true. what my conservative friends do not talk about is that if you , you family of four today are now paying $28,000 a year for private insurance. the medicare for all program ends all of those premiums and deductibles and copayments. very substantially lowers the cost of prescription drugs. host: those are just particulars . in the larger issue, what happens to private insurance? emily: what we want to do is ensure that we solve the problem of uninsurance, there are over 28 million people in the united states who don't have any health insurance at all. even if you do have health insurance, you would barely be able to for the premium.

what we would do is an sure that everybody has a plan of at least 80% actual value equivalent to , 70% which would be a silver plan today we would costhave income-based could useme people that insurance. the $28,000 premium he is talking about is something we would not have lower income people facing under a plan that is not pure sanders style. host: what happens if such a plan comes into place? charles: it depends on the approach. under the medicare for all bill, you wouldn't have that. you would basically have the government acting as a single health insurer. one of the things i point out is

that countries abroad that have done this, often have retained something of a role for private insurance, even as they have gone to a national player system. going back to senator sanders' comments. one think that pleases me about the discussion, in different ways, those involved are making similar points. there is a trade-off from the additional cost facing federal taxpayers. on the other hand, you have a side lifting those out of payment pockets off the shoulders of individual payers and health insurers and the like. that is an important trade-off, but that is the essence of the trade-off. i think there are two important things to understand. one is the magnitude. if you're comfortable with the idea of people paying less out-of-pocket and doing more than for their tax dollars, we have to understand how much we are talking about. we are talking about doubling taxes.

even people if they were comfortable with it in concept, they might not become brittle with the sheer magnitude. we second point is that don't know how comfortable people would be with that trade. on the one hand, you could say people are paying for a lot of this out-of-pocket anyway. does that necessarily follow --n, that they would be able willing to have their taxes go up that amount and lose control over how to spend it? i don't know the answer to that. maybe some people would, but many would not. host: what about that trade-off? emily: i think there are a lot of trade-offs that need to be addressed. dimension.t one i think when you move to a system where there is no private insurance, you're also talking about is there a trade-off between leaning too much on a system that has one insurer

versus having more room for competition and innovation. we believe in a system like medicare extra, where there is a firm that can offer better quality care, that firm should be allowed to compete and offer health insurance coverage. , our guest who has served as a former economist from 2013 to 2017, charles also served at the former medicare security trust fund. for guest joining us conversation on medicare for all. could it work in the u.s.? james is first. what is your question? caller: the comment is this. we find money to spend, we just spent $700 billion for the military to kill everybody. we can't spend this money on people to make them healthy. just like bernie sanders said, it is going to be a trade-off. kill all the agencies we have.

this will cut down administrative costs. basically, the republicans don't want health care. they didn't want medicare, medicaid or health care. taxes.n cut taxes is spending. you're just giving away money from the deficit. the money is going into individual pockets and raising up the deficit on poor people. put that debt clock up there. it went up under reagan when a cut taxes. host: thank you very much. this idea of we spend money on other things, but how come not this issue of health care for the united states? mily: we cannot think of this as a black-and-white issue where we go all in on medicare for all or do nothing. i think there are serious questions about how much you want to spend on a health care system, what the role for private and public payers is.

others have said it would cost about $30 trillion in federal dollars. there are ways to bring that price tag down, whether preserving a role for employers to still have some skin in the game and provide insurance for their employees. there are other things you can do. we can bring down administrative costs. i think if you look at the european system, which all have european -- universal health care, there are a variety of different ways you can do it. not only the national system in england, but also netherlands, where people have a choice of private plans. charles: i do hear similar versions of james' comments frequently. i think it is important to understand that this is a question of priorities in a sense. but in another sense, i would say it isn't. it is a question of the magnitude of dollars we are talking about. here, we are talking about in

addition to federal cost, something around 12% of gdp. on defense, we spend less than 3% of gdp. even if we were to dismantle the defense department completely, we would still be looking at an additional cost here more than four times that size. as it is, we already spend more on federal health care programs by a fair amount then we do. discussion,ave a should we spend more on defense unless on health care, but it is important to understand that we can't fund this by getting rid of the defense department. host: the centers for medicare and medicaid tell us that 3.3 trillion. $ 4.7%.al spending grew we will talk about those numbers in a little bit. one more call. this is from ann in tennessee.

caller: thank you for taking my call. blahouso know if dr. has figured into all of his studies the enormous profits that are made in the private health care system. i just do not believe that exorbitant profit should be made off the backs of people who are sick. pille still paying $600 a that it costs the pharmaceutical companies one dollar to make in his studies? profitse reduced the that are astronomical in the medical field today? host: thank you. charles: basically what i assume

under this study is very substantial administrative cost savings. basically, under medicare for all, you would have people going into a successor federal program from whatever they have now. i assumed that the ministry of costs, which include profits and overhead and other things are substantially reduced, relative to what they now are. i would say they are an aggressive assumption with respect to what medicare for all would be able to achieve. the bottom line is that the additional cost arising from the expanded coverage and increased demand by people who already have coverage is a couple of times larger, at least, then the potential administrative savings there. this is still a very expensive proposition. emily: we definitely do pay more than the rest of the world for our health care, not just in

terms of volume and cost, but in terms of prices. what we call in our plan, medicare extra, is bringing down health care rates, but also ensuring providers can make ends meet. if you take down rates too far, you can also squeeze providers to the fact that hospitals can't operate. host: we have of you are on twitter saying, taxes would have to increase to pay for medicare for all. wouldn't individuals and companies save in the long run by not paying for health insurance? emily: i think you have to member that we are spending a lot for health care today. about 20% of gdp will go towards health care. i think a lot of the debate needs to be about how are we going to pay for it? do we want a lot of the to come out of our paychecks the employer payments? all of it from the government? a combination of state and federal taxes?

and our plan, we believe we should preserve a role for employer-based health insurance. about 150 million people get their insurance through their employer. depending on what you believe about payment rates, there could potentially be, there certainly are administrative cost savings for bringing down costs and rates. dr. blahous, if you were to take ds, youators standar would save about $2 trillion over a 10 year window. thates: i would just say the tweeter is getting to an important question. does this balance out? one point is whether you do somethingas -- view matters. if you were to say to someone we

are going to total up everything you spend on food throughout the year and give you food for free but charge in taxes that amount. with the person be indifferent to that choice? many people would say, even if it is the same amount of money, 1% or 2% less, i still don't want you to raise my taxes. i want to decide how much i am spending on food. that is important. i don't think we can pretend that everyone is going to be indifferent to that change. second, we have the sheer magnitude of it. the fact that the federal government, even if it is to be washed on a national level, is still have to be able to finance it. we don't know how to finance the current level of federal spending. it's not really a relevant consideration must we are certain the federal government can do this. third, with the numbers balance out in terms of national averages? it depends on what you assume.

me the presu government could do that, we will reduce spending. host: this is jane and florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. comment and has always been that we have a sickness culture in our country. we don't have a wellness culture. i am 69 years old, i am on no new medication, i have my annual checkups, i bike and swim and take care of myself, and there has never been any incentive or no healthy person's pool that i could be put into when i was working. it seems to me that we could save a lot of money if people would understand that 80% of all

disease isn't linked to being obese. issue, is not a social it is a medical condition. if people could maintain a proper weight, eat reasonable food, and take care of their health, we wouldn't need all this. host: thanks. the preventative aspect of --lth care p specifically when it comes to long-term care. emily: i think the caller made an excellent point about preventative care being more than extra care. dental benefits in vision and hearing need to be part of a universal health care package. at the same time, i think we shouldn't kid ourselves that all prevention is cost saving. things like diabetes management is something that is very costly to keep in touch with the person. at the same time, we shouldn't just be thinking about costs, but also value.

there are a lot of preventive things we can be doing that the current system doesn't support that would be high-value. we should be paying more for face-to-face physician visits. primary care visits are not reimbursed as well as very intensive surgical or other medical intervention. ifhink we need to flip that we are going to be able to afford and want good universal health care. charles: i agree. again, we spend a lot of time talking about health insurance, how much insurance we are going to have an pay for it and the light. the color is absolutely right. that is only one part of the picture. that is basically how we finance a given method of providing health services. and how we finance the health care that people find they need. perhaps we do spend too much of our time arguing over that as

opposed to making changes to our health behavior and health policy that might reduce the need for some of these services. having said that, i completely agree with dr. gee. prevented is a good thing, but not always a cost saving thing. host: we have a viewer who just says i am completely happy with my medicare as it is. i can't imagine others would not like it. how cost effective is the medicare program? charles: i'm happy to answer that. trustee, ande often find myself as someone on the conservative side fatally defending the administered of efficiency of the medicare system. ways, i think in many administratively successful, with problems. there are definitely fraudulent and proper payments. there are a fair amount of

difficulties that system faces. i do think the medicare system has an overall administrative track record it can be reasonably proud of. having said that, there is a lot of exaggeration out there about how much administrative cost savings you would actually achieve their medicare type system. to carry people with private insurance. frankly, the administrative cost rates in medicare are low, in part because they are a percentage of per capita health expenditures. you wouldn't be able to cover the non-medicare population at administrative cost rates anywhere close to being as low. plus, there is also things on the other side of the coin, which is that as you have lower administrative costs, you sometimes have a trade-off in terms of a greater likelihood of improper payments. final point, despite the slogan and the name, the medicare for all bill does not simply extend

medicare to everybody. it changes the federal health care program and called it medicare for all. her health program would change a lot, relative to what she currently has. you see much lower administrative costs in medicare when you take that percentage. one of the benefits of expanding a medicare like program for the greater population is you also have less administered of cost because you have less turning. toyou are someone with low moderate income you make a little bit more or less one year, you may have to go from the exchanges up to metal kate -- medicaid or employer insurance. happens, there is some administrative cost to be determining income, signing people up, finding new doctors. also cost for patients when he have to be searching around. i think there are benefits to

both the government and those who oversee the program when you have one streamlined program that you can opt into over the course of your lifetime. host: let's hear from a medical professional in las vegas. caller: good morning and thank you for the great discussion. i wonder if the speakers have read the preparing for continuous quality improvement. in this book, authors offer methodologies to decrease the cost of operations for health care organizations attempt to set to 20%. no one but these speakers spoke regarding the cost of operations within health care, which is basically, through my experience, there are a lot of ways and disorganization, and

lack of alignment of the prophecies that create this high cost for a lot of parents. host: what kind of medical or do you do? caller: redesigning the hospitals. i used to be a nurse, but not anymore. host: i appreciate it. emily: how can you lower cost, that is a great question. cost of thatp the -- tying this back to the previous question about how efficient is medicare? think there is a lot that can be done in the current system. my ideal would be to have a universal system. i think there is more that we should be doing to make medicare even more efficient as it stands today. the center for medicare and medicaid innovation is a program that allows

policymakers at to experiment with different ways of bringing down cost and hospitals. for medicare overall, that is something we should continue doing and continue having, trying to spur innovation and how we pay for health care and hope that we can bring down the cost. for example, you could institute some kind of system for competitive bidding to try and bring costs down. you see markets that are not very quick -- competitive have higher prices. the short answer is no, i haven't read that book. but my study did is it said where are we now and where will he be under this bill? bill?be under this callerinly take the 's point that there are deficiencies in the current system.

many ways, we are paying for quantity and reimbursing for quantity. unimportant point i would make is that we wouldn't really fix that problem. basically, the way the medicare for all bill would work by providing first dollar coverage of this widened range of services, you would induce a tremendous amount of health care demand and utilization. at the same time, cutting 40%.nts to providers by that creates in on his squeeze and we don't know what would happen if we were to increase demand by 11%, and decrease reimbursement by 40%. there probably would be substantial disruptions in supply and quality of health care, we just don't know what they would be. host: from massachusetts, this is becky. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i called because i am listening to this and i am still rather confused by the term " medicare for all". i think the younger generation, especially and those people not yet on medicare, think that it is a free program. over senior pays a little b200 a year for their part medicare. that thefiguring expenses and what medicare would , i am wondering if the amount that we pay that gets paid to medicaid, the chip program, planned parenthood, other health programs that the government subsidizes or pays -- if, is that considered

we had medicare for all, it would seem that we would no longer need any of those programs, so those moneys could be figured into what the overall cost would be. host: thank you for calling. charles: great question. i will answer the second question first. yes, it takes into account all existing subsidies. when we say that the official cost of medicare for all be trillion between $32.6 and 36.8 shall in dollars over four years, that is already above with the federal government would be paying. trillion atout $6.9 the end of a tenure. . the total cost would be much

higher than that $32.6 trillion --38 toy and dollar number $38 trillion number. seniors pay premiums if they are in part b. they paid to dr. bowles and co-pays. there are a lot of things that seniors pay for. that would not be the case under this medicare for all proposal. in many ways, it is a bit of a misnomer. it has been seized upon because many people like medicare, but the reality is that it would be a very different program from the one seniors are currently in. not only seniors, but younger people would be in a program that differs. emily: i think we need to be care about the study we are talking about today as one that looks at the cost of the program. i think it is a very transparent job of laying out the possible savings and cost.

-- if we were to take an actual proposal on the hill sunday, you want to look at financing and cost. there is a cost of making changes to increasing health insurance, both as generosity and the net of the savings. you also have the separate issue of net of the financing for the program, whether that comes from taxes or some sort of maintenance effort. that would give you the true impact on the deficit. i think there are a number of things you can do to avoid doing something like that, like the payroll tax or income taxes. -- haveple, you can use states use money currently dedicated to chip for that program. you can also impose other sorts of taxes or have employers pay for a share of health care that goes to their employees. host: emily gee serves as a health economist, also an economist at health and human

services from 2013 to 2017. charles blahous with george mason university, he is a senior research strategist. we have the ability on sunday to be heard across the world via the positioning of certain satellites. james is on with our guest. i can't remember if it is morning or afternoon there. host: it is morning. caller: good morning to you. i wanted to remind your guest, you're talking about detail. the mechanics. i just wanted to say to you guys, i'm always puzzled has such a progressive country 1948, they said it couldn't be done in the u k, doctors, hospitals apparently were all against it. within two years, we had a

national health service. us antly, it only costs percent of gdp. it should be more. there are things that could be better, but the fact of the matter is, i am active in the health economy, and we have a very good consultation and involvement strategy in the u.k. for ordinary people. that also needs to take place in america. the bottom line is, it works, it's cheaper, its popular. if there is anything close to a religion in the u.k., it is the nhs, particularly the right and left will not touch the nhs. to democratize our system with elements of yours around accountable care organizations, terms such as this affordable care, that word affordable, when it comes from america here and at first to

housing or any other service, public service, it turns out not to be affordable. i would say to you guys, take the plunge. do not try to do this in baby steps. you need to take a comprehensive view, and politicians need to have the courage as ours did after the war to say everybody said we are broke, we carried on and did it and we achieved, as far as i'm concerned, humanity got off their knees when the nhs was created. host: thank you for the perspective. emily: he makes interesting points. all, health is treated as a right in much of europe. aside from questions about the minutiae of cost, we also need to be asking questions of ethics when we talk about universal health care coverage. i do believe that health care is a right. there are lots of different ways we can achieve that.

whether it is some sort of standard style single-payer or hybrid system. the current system is not working and we need to do something bold to attain coverage. developed our plan at the center for american coverage, we were cognizant of the fact that america has a different trajectory than much of europe. half of americans get their insurance from their employer. if you look at polls, that is something employers like to do. you also see that most americans are satisfied with their personal health care. employees are also relatively satisfied with what they have through their employers. insurance need to be more affordable, i think people would appreciate more choice. i think when we talk about how to overhaul the health system going forward, we need to be cognizant of the fact that many people are getting health

insurance through work. there is a long history of why that is, also related to world war ii. we have tried to preserve an option for employers and employees to get their insurance through work. charles: this is a perspective that comes up a lot. many times i will be asked why can't we do what some of the other countries have done in terms of the national healthcare system? i try to gently say it, that there is a limitation to just how instructive the international experiences. we do have a different history and we are starting from a different place. you can say, suppose you can make the argument we would have a much more efficient national government if we didn't have all of these state governments and local governments and everything was done on a national level.

how relevant is that now? not very. the process of getting from here to there would involve the federal government taking over all of this -- functions now performed by state and local governments. it is a process not practical to enter into. regardless of what other countries experience has been, hours now is where we are. we have hospitals and people working in drug companies. we have doctors and nurses. all of these people expect to be paid. there is a certain amount of money inherent in the federal government taking over all of it. i'll be very cautious saying that country x did it, we should be able to, too. we can't just rewrite history to make things happen that way. host: from pennsylvania, elizabeth, you are next. caller: thank you for this excellent discussion. i have a question about the economic impact of reform. if we offered a baseline medical

coverage to all citizens from cradle to birth and moved to people off of employer plans. wouldn't that free up trillions of dollars for corporations, and that his company that could go into our economy and increase our growth, and even take a small portion of what employers currently paid to help offset the cost of the federal? wouldn't that just be of tremendous boost to our economy if employers no longer had to pay those costs? charles: i think i would say yes and no. is, intudy of knowledge most studies with a knowledge, the other side of the coin is if you are paying additional taxes to washington to have them provide these benefits, you are no longer having to pay for them yourself. as the study notes, that would increase wages. the employers wouldn't be

providing those benefits. -- fxke those oe into the study, you could, in theory have some of those sources that have been freed up to finance this. you can say wages have gone up or the employer is spending less to provide this, can we earmarked that in some way and send it to washington to finance a part of this? in terms of economic impact, i don't think i would anticipate an improvement for the simple reason that whether we are freed up on a national basis from our total amount of health expenditures, really depends a things.ertain for example, whether we pay providers a lot less than we are currently paying. that would reduce national health expenditures, and in theory, free up more money, but then all of those people would have less income. again, i don't think there is a magic alert whereby going to

--gle health care is expensive and we need to pay for it one way or another. ,. if it is not going to be employer is going to be workers i don't think there is an option on the table from sanders or anyone else that we simply add $30 trillion to the deficit. we need to have serious discussion. we need to talk about what happens to current state and local health care spending. what financing mechanisms we would use, whether that is having employers continue to have a share of paying those costs or having a larger burden of taxpayers. to talk about equity, who is paying for the health-care system, is it going to be affordable for people with lower income. to your point about corporations

getting that money back to workers, i think you see with recent tax plan that came out of the congress this past winter, you're not seeing wages go up. you are seeing wages are still pretty stagnant. even with a big tax cut, i orldn't expect a big tax cut letting employers off the hook for paying insurers. someone still has to pay for the health care. host: john in columbus, ohio. caller: thanks for taking the call. i think this is directed to dr. gee. i want to start by saying that i am shocked by the fact that the center for american progress is factoring in the idea that employers are still going to have their hands in this insurance companies are still going to be playing a part.

i would like to comment from the guy from england who talked about not taking baby steps, that making this a major. policy change we simplify the system, get the middleman out of it, and make it more efficient? understand taking half steps. gee's refer back to dr. comment that said they have done surveys that say people enjoy getting their health care through their employers. i don't think there is any validity to that. i now think anybody enjoys the system that developed after world war ii where employers and middlemen have their hands in all this money. emily: i don't view this as a half step. i think this is what we see as a way of keeping -- achieving the broader goals of getting

universal coverage and assuring that people are not under in short and are able to access the care they need. polling on at the single paired, once you start to and asked him questions about whether they would be comfortable giving up their current insurance, if they , thistand the drawbacks is a conversation we need to keep having. the kind of system would want to have. to the point about could we just have one pair? if you look at medicare today, it is not a completely public system. you have a system where one third of seniors choose to have private plans, even though they have a purely public option available. i think twice is something americans want.the ability to have competition and innovation is something americans value. the system we have today, the

country we have today is not the u.k. and our history is different. i think we want to achieve universal coverage, but also don't want to cause major disruption onto people who are unsatisfied with health care coverage they have today. charles: with respect to the caller, the question john asked i think was founded on a couple of assumptions i wouldn't agree with. one was the assumption that if we cut out the middleman and have the government doing this, we will create more value for people. i don't think that is the case. it assumes a very substantial administrative cost savings from going to national and still shows a net increase after that swap of total national health expenditures. we have to remember that even if can, throught economies of scale have lower administrative cost, there are a lot of cost decreasing dynamics

that begin once you go to a government administrative system. for example, if you don't assume that the government is going to cut providers by 40%, you're going to see a net increase in national health care costs. we also look historically at how government is tending to behave with health care programs. we have not generally seen them willing to bite the bullet and resist political pressures in a manner necessary to hold down costs. the medicare program is currently on a trajectory to work toward insolvency. they have not taken the steps necessary to fix the problem. the initial legislation establishing it was filled with all sorts of dell shall not -- thou shalt nots.

even if you look at the text for the medicare for all bill itself, there are things in it, you would see a lot more than if they were actually implemented. there is a program in the bill to provide training and benefits and other assistance to displaced workers. people displaced as a result of going to medicare for all. want to start doing this, you have a government allocating money wherever there is political pressure to deal with political -- particular struggling constituent. charles from illinois. considering the cost of the medicare for all, what you deduct the cost of our present system from that? not everyone would have to be on it because all of the people over 65 are already on it. is disabled are covered, your

veterans are covered, politicians and federal workers are covered. public aids are covered with medicaid. your family members of people that are under the government employed insurance would be covered. you would just have the ones outside of that group that would have to be added. when ali cutment, out all foreign aid and use that towards paying for something we really need? host: thank you, charles. charles: the cost under medicare for all, these are over and above what we are currently paying for all of the things the caller mentioned. the total cost of medicare for all would be much larger than those picture -- figures. emily: i agree with that. even the people have coverage,

many proposals we see out there, whether it is standards or -- sanders or jeff merkley's plan would also bring up the level of coverage. we are talking about taking people who currently have medicare or medicaid and making plans more generous. host: what factors have to be in place to make this a serious reality? what do you have to see as far as the way our government works or economy are other factors to know that perhaps we can move in this and make it a reality? emily: i think we need to talk about financing. to haven't really been talking about how this plan would be financed. how much additional, do you want to add to the deficit? folks have been talking about orply doubling income tax how much additional payroll tax would it take? maybe 18% if you are two final

additional, existing medicaid and chip money into it. i think we need to thoughtfully discuss how much we want to spend. and how we would finance it. who would bear the burden? i do think it is a discussion we need to have because it is not right that nearly 30 million people in this country, the richest nation in the world should be uninsured. asking mef you are how can we make medicare for all of reality, my answer it would be much more skeptical. we are talking about an additional 12% of gdp added to the federal cost. we tended to have knockdown drag out fight over changes of 1% gdp. realistic. really tinkering around the edges of that is not going to make it realistic. if you are asking the broader question of what can we do to make sure people have the health care we need, i think that is a very different discussion.

my personal view is that we should be spending more time discussing what insurance can do, which is to ensure people against financially ruinous health treatments, and not have a bidding war how we will have a government pay for expenses that should not be pay through insurance, and frankly, it drives the cost of. -- it drives the costs up. we have to have a discussion about how to get people the health they need. blahous' information can be accessed online. progressr american information is available on their website. network online for both of them. thank you for joining us. we are going to talk to the

onston globe's" jana winter the tsa's "quiet skies" program. first, we want to tell you about c-span cities' tour. we travel to new mexico this afternoon on american history tv. visit the chilly pepper institute learning about the chilly pepper industry and the culture within its state. peppersw mexico, chilly is one of our main -- llies are inherent to the tropical rain forest. we have adapted them to this climate. we had ate 1800s, professor here that was our very

first graduating class and our first cortical trust. his mission was to find new crops of the farmers to grow, and at that time, they were growing cotton, corn, alfalfa for cattle, and that was it. so he began to look at a lot of other crops. he looked at fruit trees, sweet onions, seed from spain which is , a basis for the chillies major crop, and he also look at chilly peppers. at that time, chillies were only being grown in gardens. he thought if he made them milder, he would get non-hispanics chillies. he began a breeding program for chillies. released news, he mexico number nine. a new type that farmers began to

grow, farmers liked it and began a whole new industry. we began to can it so we could ship it back on the trains. it began a whole process of building up a whole industry. make sure you tune in this weekend to booktv and american history tv as we travel to las cruces, new mexico. you can also see all the videos -- you can also see all the cities we visited. go to c-span.org/citiestour. joining us is jana winter from the "boston globe," who is one of their writers. talking about surveillance done by the tsa. what is the general rule that tsa plays in surveilling people who travel? guest: in an overt way, basically we know that they are known for the blue shirts who screen all of our stuff.

they are responsible for everything really in the aviation area. so, under the umbrella of tsa, which is under the department of homeland security, you have the federal a marshals service, who have been placed on site since 9/11 to prevent similar attacks. and now, with this new program, "quiet skies," that we have been reporting on, they are enacting pretty intense surveillance on ordinary americans. host: how does this "quiet skies" program work? in an if you have flown aircraft since march, you have been surveyed. if you have been in turkey for a certain amount of time, that is enough. you may have another pat down or go through a body scanner. out of that group, smaller percentage of 5000 by now, have been assigned a team of armed, undercover air marshals to

follow them around airports and on the plane. and write down every single thing they do in note all of their behavior. if they are fidgeting comes sleeping, going to the bathroom. last night,boston and i was hyper aware of everything. i know what they are looking for. but it is everything. host: you can associate these activities with normal air travel -- the sleeping patterns, the nervous patterns. guest: i am already fidgety. why are the commercials looking at this as potential signs of danger? people --y think that they think they can mitigate a potential terrorist attack or a threat by broadening the pool of people they look at closely. host: just if there are five, these are people flying in from other countries into this country. does it deal with anyone flying within the country? guest: no, you get screened for

the program if you fly in. if you have been to places where there are known terrorists, then you are flagged. for the next two or three domestic flights you take, you will be surveilled. upt: so if your name comes on a list, you will have a specific air marshal assigned to you to observe you? guest: yes. host: tell us, does anyone know they are being actively surveilled? do you get notification? what is the transparency to the passenger involved? guest: absolutely nothing. our sources within air marshal service says they are being placed near the seat near the person, sometimes next to the person, and are just watching them the whole time. staringaring -- i kept at the woman sitting next to me yesterday. wondering, what are you doing? i was shocked when i found out about this.

guest: how did you find out about this -- host: how did you find out about this? guest: i got a tip and i thought it was so ridiculous that i said, no way. but we reported it out and the more documents we got, we found out that this program targets u.s. citizens who are not under investigation and who are not on any terror watch list. host: jana winter will be joining us a talk about this "quiet skies" program. for frequent flyers, 202-748-8000. all others, 202-748-8001. you can also tweet us your thoughts. here is a statement from the air marshals' associations. it says they believe that missions based on recognized intelligence are in support of investigations. skies" program does not meet the criteria we find acceptable. the american public would be

--ter served talked to your marshals about this program. -- about this program? guest: for quite a few years, the air marshals have conducted the surveillance missions on behalf of the fbi usually. if the fbi has an open terrorism investigation, and all of a sudden, the target is on the move, because air marshals are waiting at the airport, they are assigned to go follow the subject. of theirke up the tail target, and then, report everything they do, write down everything they talk to, what are they doing on their computer? are youv time, and who talking to, and what are you drinking, or are you drinking anything? and a million other things.

program is now doing the same thing except for ordinary americans who are not under investigation. and the information is being collected. tsa thing it could host: as far as the air marshals themselves, has anyone express what they are doing and thinking? guest: they think we should not be treating ordinary americans like terrorists. there are more than 40,000 domestic flights a day. every time a team of air marshals is deployed to follow someone, most of the time, they are pulled off lights already deemed as a potential threat -- they are pulled off lights already deemed as a potential threat. marshals will air get deployed is many are flagged on a list? guest: it is more than one

person. it is a team. host: for all of the surveillance done, what has been done as apprehension of potential terrorists? thursday know that on after some bipartisan outrage, i should note, a bunch of tsa officials briefed some committee staff and said, there have been 5000 of people surveilled and there have been zero threats so far. and they think that the program is great and they will continue it. host: those are teams of marshals assigned to people not doing other things that a marshall should do? guest: correct. they followed 5000, probably more now, and found no threats, no suspicious activity double suspicious enough to merit any follow-up. host: have we heard any response from any of the federal agencies that deal with this and their

specific thinking on this program? mean, i will deal with the tsa since that is to i have been speaking to. they are defending it without being very specific. aboutdon't want to speak what other agency said because i have not spoken to them on the record, but there was a lot of surprise because tsa told me that they briefed congress, and progress was like -- and congress was like, what? you did not brief us. that is an issue i don't feel like a lot of people were informed about. the people who needed to be informed about it were not. i don't know what other federal agencies are thinking. tsa: here is part of a statement, saying the purpose of this program is to ensure passengers and flight crew are protected during your travel. the program does not take into account race or religion and is not to survey ordinary

americans. information prevents the need for watching deterrence. guest: we are using really minimal resources to focus on the wrong people. parknk sitting down at a cop is sitting next year and record everything you are doing, it is in a public space. the interesting issue that will be tested by the courts is at what point is it intrusive? noting everything that you are doing on your computer screen. that seems to exceed the level of observation. host: jana winter from the "boston globe" talking about the surveillance program. 202-748-8000 four you frequent flyers. all others, 202-748-8001. this is jackie from idaho, a frequent flyer.

you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: good morning. idaho tost year from do was, and all i had to pre-checkr the tsa where i don't have to go through the long line. just stamped it ended a little background check. i am a federal retiree. vetted by the fbi, but that cannot make a difference. but this time, i am flying from a little town in idaho to a little town in montana. now, they want me to go in and get fingerprinted. it is going to take up to a month to get this done. why.did not tell me

i mean, it has only been a year since i was approved, and now, all of a sudden, i mean, if i was flying into a big, giant airport or overseas or something like that, but this is just plain ridiculous. host: thank you very much. to her point -- guest: that is interesting. i was in the pre-check line yesterday. the person in front of me in the pre-check line had a pocket knife in their bag. anyway. so tsa did a good job with spotting that. i know they are still going through people who have been pre-checked pretty closely. but i never heard of that and that is something i would want to ask them about. host: does this affect people flying into major airports across the u.s.? guest: it is wherever people are going. your flag fly in. it could be myrtle beach. there were flights in and out

for their surveillance team. host: leo from new york is next. caller: good morning. my question is, there is a old list of -- there is an old list that the federal government has of terrorists. there are one many people on this list. it is known at this list is outdated. has this been corrected or has it remained the same? guest: are you talking about the main terrorist watchlist? i don't want to speak to that because i am not sure. i know that the "quiet skies" program goes outside of that. so it targets those not included in the database. host: the tsa response highlighted concerns those with race and religion. here was a response from the group care. the arbitrary surveillance of innocent people and airports guarantees muslim passengers will be disproportionately harassed by officials based on race and religious profiling

with no benefit to the traveling public or nation security. factor the race and religious matters. guest: they are not saying much about what merits this kind of scrutiny. we do not know yet. there are a lot of potential issues here, legally and otherwise. the aclu also filed something. i mean, we don't now. i don't want to say that it does, but they have been able to say what they are doing with this information they are collecting. is this being used over time? what is that about? and if that is based on profiling people, then that is a problem. host: and you said this before just to clarify, ultimately, the collection of information, we don't know where it is going? guest: we know it is being collected by tsa and not shared by partner agencies, unless the air marshals see significant

derogatory behavior. it is a lot of information. what are they doing? ifsources explain that someone tries to do something on a plane. an actual crime. host: let's go to new jersey. kurt is next. you are on. caller: thank you, c-span, and thank you for your guest. officeesident obama left there is no reason why they don't share tsa and the fbi and the cia because they are all one. can you explain what president obama did? thank you. guest: i am not sure i am qualified to explain that. i do know that tsa falls under the department of homeland security. and they have been pretty vague about that information and being

shared in the same database with different databases. we don't know if that is a combined intel situation because they will not tell us. and that is what is pretty outrageous because we don't know. host: when the government targets individuals without probable cause rather than observe the public's square, that is a violation of the fourth amendment. is that a base for some of the court cases you're talking about? guest: the sources we spoke to said this could be an interesting legal case. and fairly unprecedented in terms -- we look at surveillance , or the courts due largely, in terms of electronics and wiretaps and that sort of thing. and not so much the physical surveillance. and how much privacy are you affected if any in a public space? when you are in the secure parts of airports, you have gone through the screening. doesn't mean do you have any

rights for anything? host: for those of you frequent flyers out there, it is 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001 for all others. we are talking to jana winter from the "boston globe" taking a look at the "quiet skies" program. as far as congressional reaction, this was a reaction who one of the legislators responded saying -- i am troubled by reports that tsa is tracking u.s. citizens who are not suspected of any crime, and then monitoring and oculist behavior, such as a person using the bathroom were obtained a rental car. guest: yeah. that is pretty much -- it is interesting because the outrageous coming from both sides of the aisle. trey gowdy is calling for the to call forair hearings. it is a lot of, you know, national security -- is this our

best? what is this doing and how much is this costing us? host: do you know that figure? guest: we know that the most recent figure that i could find to be honest, was from the government accountability office that came out in the late 2017 that the tsa spent 800 million on the air marshals' service in 2018. there is just a proposal to reduce a lot of that funding. sort of everything is up in the air right now. i do not need to make a joke. [laughter] host: when it comes to the actual tsa program, what have we gained from having these marshals? is there measurable evidence of stopping activity before? guest: part of the problem is in this report that was ordered by congress, they determined that tsa is unable to really quantify or give any information about the effectiveness of the air

marshals' service. their job is to deter acts. so what do you use to measure deterrence? they -- a bill was introduced in december that passed the house and is awaiting full consideration in the senate that would wire tsa to report back in detail about what methodology they used to do for people on planes, and how much that is costing, and all of the other details they don't keep track of is ast: our guest spotlight fellow. what is that? guest: you apply for something that is really cool and you hope to get chosen. you pitch one project, this is not that object. host: new york is next. this is from tom. tom and merrick, new york. go head. you're on with our guest. caller: have you heard of a program called viper? host: in the airport? viper teams were posted

on the rooftops and notify federal agencies that work with the police department. this was a super swat team that was supposed to be able to do stops and inspections on the roads and provide special support. tsa has absolutely gone out of control, i believe. there seems to be nobody watching what they do. and if they are watching, it is not for a purpose. i want to thank you for doing this. it takes a lot of guts. i hope things go very well for you and the people. host: what reaction from tsa did you get wants this was exposed? guest: they were not thrilled. but they were serving prepared. we knew -- they knew were doing this. they did not even can from the program existed. and then they finally told us, yes, this is the program.

so, they have been doing a fairly decent job at trying to spin this story in other outlets. it is interesting because we have all the documents that show , their documents, to show what they are doing. there will be much more reporting from us. host: is the person that gets surveilled, how are they subject to what is nervous, drinks too much, how does that look? guest: when are marshals are assigned to someone, they get a packet. there is a photo of the person with information with their place of birth, and sometimes with more details like, you went to turkey. the team locates a person at the gate. note the time when identified them, and then they follow them around. at the end of the mission, they submit a report -- they submit a behavior report that is, by all

accounts, interesting. there is a lot of stuff on their -- a lot of stuff on there. thesleeping, the fidgeting, bathroom, did you talk or text on the phone, did you have the computer open, describe all electronics and what they look like. then you have to fill out a separate after action report, which is time coded like at this time, this person wearing this talked to this person wearing this. this unidentified subject was standing next to the security camera, and the name bought a breakfast sandwich. it is pretty intense. host: let's go to alexandria, virginia. maranda, hi. caller: thank you for being on this morning. i have a couple of questions. my first one, will the number of increased forhe this program? and my second question is, are

these employees, air marshal employees, intervene with other crimes in the sky like sexual harassment or assault, or are they only differ surveillance? guest: thank you for your questions. whether doing in terms of mothers is something they keep quiet. but i do know there have been a bunch of incidents where near marshall happened to be on a an air marshal happened to be on a plane where there was an altercation. if anything happens, they are on the plane and they will not continue to surveilled people and not stop and help . host: from chicago illinois, hello. caller: yeah. be, why am iould being profile because of my

collar and name -- because of my color and name? host: are there direct connections as far as color and name? guest: i don't want to go too far in terms of what we know. i have been told by some air marshals that there -- that they received a passenger target based on the name being similar to someone on a watchlist, or the fact they might know someone on the watchlist. i don't think we know yet caffe with a are doing. host: let's go to phil in florida. you are on with our guest. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a little concerned about this issue, and i am glad it is being investigated. i want to ask a question to the guest and then make a comment, if i can. what are the origins again of the tsa? how do that, about? guest: after 9/11.

caller: ok. concerns ashe same the other fellow, and all of the surveillance, our fourth amendment being attacked. our freedoms are being given up. it is common sense that we revisit the reason we were given for this tsa, i would like everyone to go back and take a look at the official story of 9/11. find the truth. host: thank you. guest: i do think there is a point about what the actual mission and mandate of tsa and the air marshals' services is. and that is sort of why so many air marshals have comes -- have become for today. they feel like, they may be

participating in something that is illegal, and this is way out of their lane. they are not supposed to be collecting intelligence on regular travelers. host: as far as your reporting on this, is there a next step coming to the "quiet skies" feature reported it? what can we look forward to next? guest: more stories, for sure. we will be keeping track of what is going on and who is calling for what hearings and the follow-up afterwards. looking atwill be things more in depth. we have done a lot of reporting since then, and my editors may not want to keep blabbing about everything, so i will say, just look toward to stuff. host: let's go to robert. caller: thank you for c-span and for the guest. i strongly feel that i would like to vote for support for tsa. i support tsa, the law enforcement, fbi.

i have no problem if someone wants to follow me around and look at my mundane day. no problem whatsoever. means even if that someone is pulled off of a flight. caller: what is that? i'm sorry, ma'am? guest: if you are being followed, they have probably been pulled off another mission were there is someone on a watch list, or someone around, the place them on a different flight. if they are watching you with your latte. if we had indefinite resources, i could understand your point. lookr: management-wise, i at it like any other group of people in corporation, there are limited resources and funds. they need to do the best job they can given the mission, but in terms of the actual mission, i have no issue whatsoever with them doing what they need to do,

and i support them. host: outside of tsa, outside of the federal government, what about the avenues of support? seen any? guest: for this program in particular? not really. support frombe highlighting with the program is doing, is not the same thing as attacking the purpose of the agency, or the federal law-enforcement community at large within tsa or outside of it. we can look at this as a civil liberties potential problem or a national security problem because the resources that are getting pulled from elsewhere. and frankly, both of those are huge issues that need to be dealt with. in terms of issues being dealt , there are not many in support of this program. -- haveere had been

there been mistake since the program started? guest: i would not speculate on that. i talked to more to a dozen air marshals who have been involved in this program. and they think that some of the people that they had been assigned to target appear to be ridiculous. and it is up to the individual operations' people to take the name of the person who is supposed to be assigned a team of the surveillance detail. they could these, probably be removed from the list. host: don from phoenix, arizona. go ahead. caller: i don't know what surprises everybody. after all, we have a presidential deal brokered by the fbi. i cannot see what people are

surprised about? host: that is don in phoenix, arizona. when do you expect the well,? -- when do you expect the next story will come out? ideas or you have any information, please talk to me. host: jana winter with the "boston globe." she has a story on the "quiet skies" program. thank you for your time. we will go to open phones until 10:00. facebook.com/c-span for republicans -- 202-748-8000 for republicans. 202-748-8000 four democrats. today on oral histories, we continue our series on women in congress former democratic congresswoman pat schroeder. >> when i first got elected, i

was in this really idealistic mode of this is wonderful. how long do you think it will be until half of the house is the now? so, i asked the library of congress or somebody what they thought. and they said about 300 years. [laughter] i am thinking -- [laughter] it has been very incremental. very incremental. >> and in the weeks' ahead, we will hear from multiple women. watch oral histories today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. monday night on the communicators, look at the general data protection regulation, the new european privacy laws, and how they will impact technology companies like

google and facebook. joining us on the program, the president and ceo of the essay, the software alliance, and lowell o'connor, the ceo of the center of technology and democracy. >> we all need to think of our data custodian responsibilities. in the digital age, every company is a data company. people are using and amalgamating data about individuals. i think this law signals a real key change in our thinking in the private sector and government about the rights of an individual and his or her own data, and that that person has ongoing right, even when the data is used legitimately by good and corporate actors. that is the conversation every company needs to have. >> if we want all of the innovation of the united states and has done so much for the world, if we want that to move forward in a positive way, we need to have the right rules and right legal underpinnings and get to a local consensus.

>> watch the communicators monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. washington journal continues. host: open phones until 10:00. you can tweet us and post on a facebook page. you can always call us. 1 for republicans. 202-748-8000 four democrats. independents can call 202-748-8002. the latest president tweeter feed, fake news a complete fabrication and i am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son had at trump tower. i did not know about it. when it comes to the first lady, on. trump, she reported

recent statements that president trump said about lebron james, saying, looks like lebron james is doing good things for our next generation. the first lady encourages everyone to have an open dialogue about issues facing children today. this coming from that interview that lebron james did on cnn. open phones available to you and we will go to matt to start things off in nebraska, democrats' line. go ahead. you are on. caller: good morning. i answers about this operation dragonfly. , and shadow banning donald trump. i mean, i mean, all are they doing is getting the news articles out. alex jones does the same thing as cnn and reports on the news. both sides spin it. it is really nothing wrong about that. every side has been through a story.

host: michael is next from louisiana. republican line. caller: yes, sir. good morning. the tsa, what i read is that they have to tweak their program. if they are using normal citizens, they have to make all of these profiles. so they have to tweet their technology to be able to identify a potential threat. you think how talented these people would be that would like to blow up plane out of the sky. they will check everything. if they are using you, they -- the database have to get more intelligence. the artificial intelligence program is second to none. they have to use the technology to get their base down and see what a total profile is to allow them to hone in and tweak their profile so when a threat comes, they will know what they are looking for. it should not offend anybody. one person -- you cannot let one person slip by with a low explosive. it can cost as a couple of

airplanes. ohio,here is laura from democrats' line. caller: yes. i am calling in reference to the medicaid issue earlier. what they don't realize or willing to admit is if you went to a national system, you would eliminate the necessity of insurance agencies, which is the biggest cost the doctors. that is the biggest cost to everyone. make it all the way for everybody. eliminate the insurance companies. you are limiting of the cost for everything. thank you. host: in the business journal of the washington post, the tribulations of oligarchs number 27, writing at a massachusetts, time --allentine the 70 79 is assist. he is chief executive and founder of a fast-growing company that makes specialized lasers and employs nearly 2000

people and the united states, both on a large campus -- he is number 27 on a public list of 96 russians. it was unsettled by russian interference in the u.s. election and searching for potential sanction target. he says he does not belong on the list, which is identical to a forbes magazine list of russian billionaires. the treasury version is commonly known as oligarch's list. the department says there is no way to be removed from it. while russian oligarchs are mayory and close to the putin, not every wealthy business american, executive is an oligarch or politically-influenced, yet members of congress are using the list as a tool to apply pressures on the kremlin. a letter writing initiative by lawmakers in to get financial institutions to identify the

assets of people on that list is another form of leverage that could make the banks skittish about doing business with them. more of that profile at the washington post if you want to read it. minnesota,, jonathan, democrats' line. you are next. caller: good morning. first of all, thank you for the conversation, and i like your tie. i want to wish president barack obama a very happy birthday. we certainly do miss you, mr. president. we need a little more stability in this country right now with the crazy we have in the white house right now. my thought is basically, with the health care, "medicare for all," or whatever they are calling it, i find it will actually not work, and this is coming from a democrat. what they should do is overhaul the whole system and get good people income and make sure you

vote november 2 because we need to get president crazy out of the white house. louisville,artin in kentucky. hello. caller: that tsa is going to do nothing the get bigger because it gives people jobs. theonly subject that democrats and republicans have agreed on since 1980 is the government should give people jobs. when people get out of the military, if they don't have anything lined up, they can apply for that. the bottom line is it becomes a quagmire for the conservatives. conservatives like mitch mcconnell and george bush say they enforce -- they support law enforcement and rand paul says they support individual liberties. host: you may be familiar with egal.ctor stephen so-cal in november of 2016, stephen segal visited vladimir putin at the kremlin to receive an

unusual gift, his very own russian passport. the actor and putin share a passion for martial arts, but segal has received criticism for his bromance with putin. on saturday, russia honored him again with a position as special on boy the united states. the russian foreign ministry announced he had been appointed to the new role which will be unpaid. to responsibility will be help with the humanitarian effort. next up, ohio we will hear from tom. go ahead. caller: yes. hope you are well this morning, pedro. i would like to make a comment or two about your previous segment on "medicare for all." i and the fiscal manager of a daycare non-profit organization that we abide transportation to

people over 60 years old. my experience with this environment is we have a lot of people that need the help. but we have some people who basically use our service and medicare for social causes. we will have people do 30, 40 trips a much. others are decent people and will take only what they need. the other issue i see is when i had a shoulder replaced, they 15 me through -- about months of 15 -- about 50 months of physical therapy. i am a medicare. after two sessions, i said i can do what they're telling me to do at home. but i find most people almost abuse the system by demanding all of those visits. i used to think that national healthcare was a good thing, but i look at the city is and in the country, and it really scares me about how they are not self-reliant enough to abuse the

system. just have given up on national healthcare or "medicare for all" because i don't think it could self-sustain a poor citizen base. host: let's hear from yorktown, virginia, independent line, cheryl, hello. caller: good morning. my comment is on the tsa and checklist. we need to be receptive in receiving everyone. the program is all being done to protect us. and the young lady who called in about how she was already pre-checked, i am quite sure it may be an inconvenience. i am a frequent flyer. i don't mind. i rather be secure. do their jobs and secure the aircraft i am getting on. let's the receiving of the program and support tsa.

they do a great job as well as the pilot and the airlines. ok.: 15 minutes left. for republicans. four democrats. and for independents, 202-748-8002. if you come to washington, d.c., there is an exhibit called "the museum." says,ad a picture that you are very fake news. the museum in washington caused a stir after selling the teacher, nothing on saturday he was when the t-shirts from it gets shop an online store. but we made a mistake and apologized to the museum. statement, it is part of our democracy and journalists are not the enemy of the people.

it does become a rallying cry for us and trump and his supporters who contend the news media present a distorted view of the president and his administration validates fact and has repeatedly called the press, the enemy of the people. jim acosta had been a frequent target about the shirts at the museum, saying if they are that strapped for cash, i am proud to make a donation. dave in california in irvine. hello. caller: i just want to comment about health care. first of all, you need "medicare for all." a lot of people don't have health care enough to go to the emergency room. and then we end up paying for that. so that makes health care costs go up. ," we had "medicare for all" people would have health care.

when you have to go to the emergency room, everybody goes up and somebody has to pay for that. if you go out and commit a crime and go to prison, you get all the health care you want for free. so why not have "medicare for all?" insurance companies love people going to the emergency room. pass it right now and get it on the books. and let everyone have health care. host: all right. reggie is next in arizona, democrats' line. caller: i am just curious. i am not hearing in the main press talking about the bailout for the farmers where they lost $12 billion based on president trump's policies. and he can write a check for $12 billion to give it that? and no one needs welfare? host: lisa from cleveland, ohio. many push the button. cleveland, ohio, independent's line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i wanted to make a comment that i used to work for tsa, and i cannot go into detail after the training that we went through, but i would urge people to really not focus so much on the fact that we are telling people that we're protecting them because that is the baseline as to what tsa's responsibilities are. but if you were to do basic research, go online, and see what the other regularization -- and see what the other regulations and requirements are coming goes into the purpose -- and requirements are, it really goes into the purpose. host: what do you think about the revelation of his "quiet skies" program we talked about in the last segment? caller: that "quiet skies" program is changed names over the last couple of decades. it has been implemented in several ways. it was on the ground.

i think that story really, really is a beginning of what i'm urging people to do, which is to do research because you are going to find in the next five years, there will be so many changes to how you fly, where you are able to fly, even stamps that will be issued on passports in and out of the country are going to change. and it is all going to be proposed as being safe and protecting citizens. and again, doing the research, it does not come down to that ultimately. if filters over into something else. i would just urge people to be very careful at allowing them to tell you that it is for protection, which is supposed to be. but it becomes diluted. this is why your last segment was what it was. host: ok. gary in indiana, democrats'

line. caller: i am the voice of the common man and i'm here to take a stand. just like the one gentleman if you call his back said, it is about time this health care will get addressed. what else needs to be addressed? infrastructure, people. our roads, bridges, dams, levies -- all of those structures are crumbling before our eyes and the government doesn't give a damn. and if you are going to visit uncle joe or on maria one of these days, there is going to be a -- there is going to be an incident like the bridge 11 years ago will happen. a dismal situation that is looking us in the face right now. we have got to repair our roads it all tos, damn

hell. host: ok. got to, gary. foruple of statements medicare" saying, "medicare for all" is the future. americans pay more and receive less than any industrialized nation. most people would actually pay less health care than taking profits out of it. another viewer says everyone feels entitled for the best health care, but most people over their lifetime will never be able to afford it. you can post on our facebook page, too. those conversations usually carry-on all afternoon. from fairfax, virginia, democrats' line, this is john. caller: hi, pedro. this is john. i have to suggestions -- two suggestions. -- send a reporter to the truck rallies and a trump

supporters, you have to realize you are being played. you are falling a man who lies to you, doesn't care about you, listening to the lies, tries to brainwash you. you need to understand that you are being played, and you should pay attention to what is really happening, not pay attention to the people who lie to you, like the government. -- the government, trump, and fox news. host: on the market watch website, there is a story from the wall street journal taking a look at that special house election that is rated as a tossup. this is president trump heading to ohio to campaign for that election. that whole event available at c-span.org. here is a portion from yesterday. pres. trump: they are talking about this blue wave. i don't think so. i don't think so.

maxine waters is leading it. ]boos pres. trump: maxine, she is a real beauty. maxine. a serious low iq person. seriously. maxine waters. she is leading the charge. throughout, like 100 years i guess, 125 years, whoever has the white house, that party tends to lose the midterms. i don't know why. maybe it is complacency. maybe you all fight so hard for the presidency, and you win and your little complacent, but that was two years ago. so, i just said, why? we have the greatest economy in the history of our country. we have things that never happened before. [applause] president trump look -- pres. trump: look, if the democrats get in, they are going

to raise your taxes, you will have people pouring across the border, so why would that be a blue wave? i think that maybe a red ways. [applause] state,ashington independent line, mark is next. caller: hey, good morning. i would like to address the federal government's approach tote wildlife -- approach to wildlife. on the columbia dam, they are shooting the sea lyons because they are eating salmon. but the salmon used to be 10 times as high, but again the government uses a rifle. they just launched a whole colony of -- that were at the mouth of the columbia and it cost a collapse of the entire colony. in yellowstone national park, they shoot 1000 bison a year. on the peninsula -- on the olympic peninsula, they said

mountain goats are non-native, even though they are capable of offering the puget sound swimming, or crossed on the ice. are using high-powered rifles and a national park to kill beautiful animals. host: ok. let's hear from mary in massachusetts, independent line. good morning. caller: hi. i have to express some disappointment with your "medicare for all" segment because you did not have a true "medicare for all" representative like dr. jill and will hander. and those people really know how l.'siscuss "medicare for all but nobody really represented a true "medicare for all," and that was disappointing could host: that was mary for massachusetts calling in. about five minutes left.

this is from venezuela this morning, reporting, this is their headline -- an attack on the venezuelan president. it was nicolas maduro making a speech saying it was an attack that seemed scripted for hollywood. both lines exploding in midair. the first lady ducking for cover. people fleeting and a stampede that was broadcast through the country live. rodriguez, the communications minister said the attackers used several flying devices that detonated near where the president was standing. during the president's speech that was broadcast live on state television, the camera began to shake and mr. maduro looked into the air as his wife reached for another official to brace herself. then it showed figures dressed in black raking through a barrier. the sidelines of a white street where guardsmen were information.

the figures in black ran toward the guardsmen. people fled in panic and then the transmission cutoff. michigan state. this is where, i'm sorry, i pushed the wrong button. don, michigan state, republican line. caller: hello. i will like to make a comment about the fellow that just called them about the money for the farmers. has he forgotten about the millions and billions of dollars that were spent a bailout auto industry? they broke themselves. he wasn't any kind of government -- it wasn't any kind of government program that broke them. we gave them billions and billions of dollars. all the big shot executive got to keep their big raises and bonuses and whatever else. peanutsers thing, it is compared to that. i hear a lot of calls about trump being a bad man. well, i would like those people to get on their internet and

type in kennedy, vietnam war. and then type in kennedy, the president of south vietnam. and then typing kennedy, the bay of pigs. then type in kennedy, fiddle battle. texas,omingo in independent line. caller: i would like to solve the problem, this problem of droughts and fires. this comment of mine is addressed to president trump. amendment, the fifth -- host: we will take charlie in new york, independent line. caller: how are you doing? i want to comment on the "medicare for all." we should realize, it is not free health care. we get this from our taxes.

it should be coming out of our taxes. and they steal our taxes, ok? this "medicare for all" will definitely work if it comes out of our taxes. host: i apologize, caller. i did not need to cut you off. here is what is on tap for tomorrow's show. we will have mike lux, and author -- an author. he will talk about his book where he sees the democratic party making more gains in congress and winning the white house. stephen kotowski of the white house free begin and the future of 3-d printed guns is his story, and lieutenant colonel ralph peters will talk about trump administration's foreign policy in his perspective. all those conversations, plus those phone calls that plus your phone calls on washington journal tomorrow 7:00 in the morning.

>> coming up, a look at opposition research and upcoming midterm elections thousand or smith appeared she is the executive director of out -- america rising. is followed by a senate intel hearing on social media. then, a discussion on russia's involvement in the middle east. later, secretary of state mike pompeo and commerce secretary wilbur ross talk about u.s. engagement with india in the asia-pacific region. joined us from new york on c-span's news anchor program as alexandra smith, executive director of the political action mm