while saying his cautious avoids mistakes. what you think of his administration's foreign-policy today? you can also send us a tweet. comments on facebook and e-mail. we will get your thoughts in just a minute. " pieceshington post starts off by saying this. here's what the president had to say. >> typically, criticism of our foreign-policy has been directed at the failure to use military force. the question i think i would have is, why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force? after we have just gone through a decade of war at enormous troops and to our budget? exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished? my job as commander-in-chief is to deploy military force as a last resort, and to deploy it wisely. frankly, most of the foreign-policy commentator set ed our policies would go headlong into a bunch of military adventures at the american people have no interest in participating in and would not advance our core security interests. if you look at syria, for example, our interest is in helping the syrian people, but nobody suggests that us being involved in a land war in syria would necessarily accomplish this goal. i would note that those who criticize our foreign-policy with respect to syria, they themselves say we do not mean sending in troops. well, what do you mean? well, you should be assisting the opposition. well, we are assisting the opposition. what else do you mean? well, perhaps he should've taken a strike in syria to get chemical weapons out of syria. with doing that without initiating a strike, so it also are talking about? at that point it trails off. >> president obama yesterday in the philippines taking on his critics of his foreign-policy. we're going out of washington today. would you think of the president's foreign-policy today? will go to ruben first who is in philadelphia. what are your thoughts? caller: i'm just thinking that the president's foreign-policy is not stable right now. we have so much unrest at home between congress and the house fighting, the senate and the house fighting. they cannot vote on the minimum wage right now. i think he really needs to concentrate on events your home. would like him to spend less time focusing on foreign-policy issues? caller: caller: on and less time immigration. page of theont paper sanction russia, don't arm ukraine. that goes by more than 2-1 the idea of sending arms and military supplies to ukraine government to bolster defenses against russian forces. the survey was released monday as a white house announced a freeze on assets. steve in chatsworth, illinois. steve, what do you think? caller: first, i think russia wants a vote in nato. number two, we have a lot of u.s. companies in russia right now. ford, adm, monsanto, boeing, and other things, other interests that our country needs , and are corporations need over there. third, the largest supply of natural gas going into germany, and other eurtugal countries, they can't handle the tough sanctions if russia puts a stop to their natural gas. forthhough poland and so is tracking -- fracking a lot more. russia is the main gas supplier. we have to learn how to trade with them. of the gasesng rid from syria. they are trying to help. buy people with uneven vinegar. congress is thinking the old , back in theods 50's and 60's. it is a different time now. we are doing trade with china. but we are not doing anything with russia. they are the second strongest power in the world, and they could nuke us right off the planet. steve, what are you proposing, then? more diplomatic outreach with russia? more trade? caller: give the more say so in the g-8. wantger trade ties that we in the far east. things they want in europe and so forth. it is basic math and principles. let me bounce a few things off of you from what you said. here's daniel sanford. he covers russia, moscow for the bbc. he put this out. map of the day from the shell brochure. look at the map that he tweeted out. steve was talking about the american companies that are in russia. tweet from bbc breaking news that says russia is responding to this new round of sanctions saying russia condemns new u.s. and eu sanctions over ukraine as revival of the iron curtain. what you make of them saying that? caller: first of all, you have to consider that there are more russian speaking people in ukraine, especially along the eastern border. customs, that has a when we send americans over to the middle east and they get captured or something, we are going to go ahead and bomb them, nuke them, whatever we are going to do, right? anything to retaliate. that is the first thing that we do is retaliate. we want to blow the crap out of them. put sanctions on them. our politicians have a mindset of blowing people up and controlling everything. host: ok stephen, we will leave it there. president obama said we should focus more on domestic issues. from that usa today poll, americans prefer a focus on domestic policy. 13%.aid that versus on those sanctions, a lot of the is in thats on who list and who is not. the latest sanctions announced monday by the u.s. and europe target russian high-tech and defense companies, but not major presidentmake vladimir putin changes course in crimea and ukraine. then there is this headline in "the new york times." greg in harrisburg, pennsylvania, and independent. greg, what you think of the obama administration's foreign-policy? to thinkeople seem that we're the only country in the world. ourave to work on relationships and especially our relationships with our allies. obvious,int out the but the asian countries are right there on the border, kind of new europe and towards russia. i think, especially now at a time of crisis, or at least some kind of involvement, we need to look to our allies in the region , rather than send our troops and our money, we support our and have them make the first step. i believe that it is necessary for him to do these things. of course, we have to worry about ourselves, but we are going to be a stronger nation if we have stronger allies and a stronger world trade and so forth. we will move onto jerry in rhode island, what smith. portsmouth. we have a president who to be quite as ready involved as quickly as others have been in the past. negotiations are much better, i think. another thing i see is i have a science. political silenc foreign things relating to foreign-policy. i don't think there's enough of that in the universities. negotiate and do business with them, we have to understand where they're coming from a little more about their the culture, the language and so on. the other thing we do have to be careful about is, i think in the russianswhether the are in fact backing some of the insurgents in the ukraine or are they doing it on their own? that is something we really have to take a good look at on that scale. you studied political science, let me bounce this tweet off of you. a ranking republican on the foreign relations committee. what about this perception? his criticism of the president that he appears we? caller: i disagree with it. it is employed by republicans to gain more support from the american public. it is a political ploy that they're using. i don't think it is tepid. when we analyze foreign-policy in any country, we have to be very aware of how fast we're going to go and make a decision that could actually hurt us in the long run. i was also a soldier in germany during the vietnam war. a lot of times the politicians, when they say yeah, let's go over and there were going to do this and that, they are not overseas like the american , facing problems of politicians coming up with and saying ok, you're going to get involved with this. we are putting our lives on the line. i think they're more or less playing politics. obama is one of the first presidents in a long time does come up with a more sensible foreign-policy. as far as republicans, i did like kerry kissinger. me move onto steve, he's a republican in texas. what do you think? caller: i cannot believe i have talked to guys twice in the last two months. i think we are becoming divided nation. abraham lincoln said that a house divided cannot stand. we have never been more divided. even problems that enables our african-american society has been enabled to our leaders. politically divided. we have become weak. host: what does that have to do with the president's foreign-policy? caller: we have to come together as a nation. there'll always be wars and rumors of wars, but the fact of the matter is, it is written in the book. i am a christian. i believe that god's word is the word. we will always be israel's ally. there will always be enemies until the return of jesus. ofhave had all types misinformation. this is been a great misinformation age. we have been duped by dividedans reared and by politicians. we have to come together as a nation and understand what god's word is. that is the truth. " ran "the washington post this opinion piece by john mccain and others, all variousans representing states. that is what the critics, republicans, in the senate, have to say. obama hadat president to say. >> in the ukraine, we have mobilized the international community. russia has never been more isolated. a country that used to be clearly in its orbit, now is looking much more towards europe and the west because they have their arrangements that existed for the last 20 years were not working for them. russia is having to engage in activities that a been rejected uniformly around the world. we're been able to mobilize international community to not only put diplomatic pressure on russia, but also we have been able to organize european countries, many of whom were skeptical of doing anything with us. what else should we be doing ? we shouldn't be putting troops in. that is not what we mean. ok, what are you saying? well, we should be arming ukrainians more. somehowhink that sending additional arms and ukraine could potentially deter the russian army? or are we more likely to deter them by applying international pressure, diplomatic pressure, and economic pressure that we are applying? president obama in the philippines talking about criticism of his administration when it comes to ukraine. is at asked by fox news henry to explain. the cape said, i do time to lay it all out. then he took about seven minutes to answer the question and lay it all out and we can show you more from the press conference yesterday. give us your thoughts. you can send us your thoughts. them on facebook.com/c-span. we will keep taking your thoughts here this morning. we're joined by staff reporter for cq roll car to talk about michael grimm's arrest. has pleadeded -- he not guilty. he was arrested on a 20 count federal indictment which includes charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax fraud. what is the back story here? tothe back story is, prior coming to congress, congressman graham opened, operated and owned a health food store called thalicious. authorities allege that he doctored the books, had a second set of payroll numbers to disguise employees he was paying under the table. he filed false tax returns, he knowingly hired undocumented he basically withheld close to $1 million from the government over the course of a for you. year period. there is a two-year investigation by the justice department into another matter, allegations of campaign finance fraud. the news media started reporting last friday that an indictment to becoming yesterday for congressman graham, i think the was that we were going to hear about the campaign finance allegations. this is totally separate and caught a lot of people by surprise. sure how long has been going on for this point. . congressman graham could push for a speedy trial. he might want to wrap this up before november elections if he thinks he is innocent. he wants all the facts on the table. he can push for that. the other option is to take you more deliberate approach. this is a complex case. currently -- it could be to everyone's advantage to move forward. graham is all for taking another chance. he could be reelected in the fall with his constituents still not knowing whether he's guilty or not. whilecan remain in office under indictment and he can run for office, is that right? >> yes, he can. people have done it before. rick lindsey in 2008 said he wouldn't resign and would run for reelection after he came under federal indictment, but ultimately he chose not to run for reelection when the pressure became too great. if someone like william jefferson, who also in 2008 was under indictment. that was one of the biggest upsets of that election cycle. michael grimm, a republican of new york. our viewers may find that name familiar. he got into a heated argument with a local reporter. remind our viewers. yeah, that was around the time of the state of the union. reporter wase actually asking graham about the finance fraud allegations. congressman graham did not respond well to that. he felt he -- he said now he and taken by surprise by this reporter. he threatened to throw them off the balcony of the rotunda and said he would break him like a boy. a bit of flack for that. he did apologize and the new york one reporter said he accepted his apology. that was definitely what he was most famous for perhaps until yesterday. what has been the response from the gop leadership? guest: we're going to find out what the formal response from the gop leadership is. everyone was telling me after a two-week recess, the leadership really needs to talk about what to do and have a united front. everyone was very quiet yesterday. there was a scheduled press conference at 10 p.m.. is there weekly press conference , political scandal or not. he will surely be asked about this by reporters during a question-and-answer session, if he doesn't bring it up first on his own. lastly, congressman graham can speaker boehner if he can be removed from the financial services committee. it was a goodwill gesture michael grimm's part. him spoke to the press. that is what we have so far. emma dumaine, thank you for your time. mr. mcallister said he will serve out the remainder of his term. the married father of five children had been in the office fewer than six months. he is from louisiana. the headline in the times-picayune has a picture of the congressman. the video showed him kissing a married staffer. there are a couple of other pieces in the paper related to this. here's one from jonathan weisman " taking aw york times look at how the party response to ethics violations, criminal allegations, despite ethics pledge. the response of the gop ve varies depending on the circumstances. that and the papers this morning about members of congress that emma the news dumaine talked about. what you think of president obama's agenda? used in the office for five years. what you think of his foreign-policy? , thecomes as a president white house announced another round of sanctions on russia. the eu is backing the sanctions. here's another tweet from someone on further. -- on twitter. we have a democratic caller. arlene, what do you think? i'm totally in favor of the way mr. obama is handling foreign affairs. i don't think you need to come down with an iron this on top of them would sanctions. do it in increments. that way they learn that we are not going to sit again take the garbage. the next thing that needs to geten is that we need to mr. mccain and his ilk to stop thinking that the very first action that needs to be taken is war. this man was a prisoner of war in vietnam. bitter, angry man. that bitterness has spread to his cohorts in congress to the point where we have been at war for 10 years. we've got hundreds of thousands of young men and young women back in this country that have no limbs and are blind and have brain damage because republicans want to go to war. .he war machine has got to stop this is ridiculous. there is no other country in the world that carries a kind of war machine money that we do. it has to end. if we need to put fences around the entire country in a five feet high, then let's do that. but we have to stop this crap. we have to think about the american middle class and the poor in this country. host: all right, we will go on to todd in rockville, maryland, a republican caller. today, our best foreign-policy is domestic policy. one of the reasons why china has been so successful is that they go into countries, they bargain for deals for natural resources, they build infrastructure. a lot of that helps our domestic economy back home. our foreign-policy seems always be very disparate. at her ownbe looking geospatial area of influence. if we start focusing more on south america and central america and mexico, work with these countries for job development programs, our job policy becomes domestic policy because it will affect domestic policy. that is what i wanted to say. host: let me bounces off of you from "the washington post." oh, we lost our caller. we can't get a response. let's listen to chris from new haven, connecticut. isler: i think the president pretty much right on target. we would like him to be dealing with domestic policy, but the contingencies of or politics have led us into foreign-policy. i think his approach has led to very good decision-making. i think you yourself made the mistake when you read the opening statement. if you go back to videotape, and stumbled when he made your opening statement. advice that you the i would give the president, because i've known him since 1992 and have offered him advice. i think when he stood to the president, you should share what you share with him. i think other things he could be doing that he hasn't done yet. we'll see what he does in the future. let's listen to what the president had to say on this idea of a cautious approach. wherethere are occasions targeted, clear actions can be taken that would make a difference, then we should take them. we'll do them because somebody n office ina washington or new york thinks it would look strong. that is not how we make foreign policy. if you look at the results of what we have done, is fair to say that our alliances are stronger, our partnerships are and in the asia-pacific region just to take one example, we are much better positioned to work with the people's here on a whole range of issues of mutual interest. sexy.ay not always be that may not always attract a doesf attention, and it make for good argument on sunday morning shows. errors, you hit singles, hit doubles every once in a while. we steadily advance the interest of the american people and our partnership with folks around the world. wak'host: host: the washington post out this morning with a new poll. just 42% approve of his handling of the economy, 37% approve of how he is handling the implementation of the affordable care act and 34% approve of his handling of the situation involving ukraine and russia. they also have the story in the .ashington post more on the president's foreign-policy. many of you know, secretary of state john kerry yesterday had to apologize for remarks that he made about israel, saying that the country risks apart has. this from the new york times. that is what the secretary of state had to say in response to criticism. senator ted cruz came to the senate floor yesterday evening and said this. every member of this body has expressed our bipartisan commitment for the united states to stand resolutely with our friend and ally, the nation of israel. , and it is right overwhelmingly in the national security interest of the united states of america. it was therefore with great sadness that i read this morning about the comments of secretary of state john kerry. he reportedly suggested that the trilateral commission that israel could become an apartheid state in his proposed two state -israeli to the peace -palestinian process fails. secretary kerry has long experience in foreign-policy. he understands that words matter. in strictly associated with one of the worst examples of state-sponsored discrimination in history. the apartheid system in south africa that was ultimately brought down by the resistance of nelson mandela inside the country, supported by conservative campaign of diplomatic and economic sanctions by the international community. there's no place for this word in the context of the state of israel. >> in the new york times this morning, they have a piece, to near times as saying that the secretary of state. some of the blame. -- the secretary of state bears some of the blame. ryan in georgia, an independent, what do you think? now you all see why obama made a mistake when he pushed the health care bill through. you have a situation where republicans are all ticked off at obama over his health care bill and it is causing economic issues that are leading to these kinds of situations. for example, the military situation with russia is not going to stabilize right now s as farobama is a wus as vladimir putin can tell. try somegoing to stuff. if obama thinks that the world is going to be quiet and go away nicely, you have to be kidding me. host: darrell on twitter says this. this is the "washington times." bobby in fairhope, alabama. what are your thoughts on president obama's foreign-policy? caller: unmitigated disaster. look around the world. are perceived as extraordinarily weak. we say chaos reigning in asia see israel,e. we syria, around the world, chaotic week nesters with a hallmark of obama has been. we moved to drone strikes and the killing of innocents. obama claimed there is currently openness, human rights watch and amnesty international have called for more openness. the american people and the world cannot see the indiscriminate killing of innocents. absolute disaster of foreign-policy. the washington post says more half measures. vladimir putin has little to fear from the u.s. expanded sanctions. " saysall street journal this. that does it for that discussion. coming up next we will talk to senator ron johnson, a republican from wisconsin about the affordable care act. in a look at the racial wealth gap in the united states. we will be right back. >> i stand here with my colleagues from the arizona delegation, both senate and house. we are very close friends with congresswoman gabrielle giffords , to remember a tragic event that took place three years ago today. on january 8, 2011, at 10:10 a.m., in just 19.6 seconds, 19 congressmanuding giffords and myself, were shot. this event with democracy his body,a member of a people's house, was meeting one-on-one with their constituents. 614 people died that day. including my friend gabe zimmerman, go to guy. guy. go to people in tucson have not been defined by that terrible act. by how, we are defined our community responded. the compassion, the love, the prayers and the goodwill that toward out, have helped all of us view our broken hearts. organizations have been established to help with the educational needs of children to prevent bullying to prevent the stigma of mental illness and improve those services. congresswoman giffords continues a remarkable recovery. her perseverance and determination give hope to others. she is a true inspiration to the country and to the world. you might have noted that earlier today, she jumped out of an airplane and took a tandem dive with other skydivers. this woman's resilience knows no bounds. years,in the last three other communities have been struck by similar senseless acts of violence. memorial wouldg be to take action to prevent another such tragedy. ,s a shooting survivor grandfather, a member of congress, i am determined to do so, and another many others in this body and in the senate have the same aspiration. those are for six people who died that fateful day. nine-year-old christina taylor morris, u.s.y district judge john rolled fillet schneck. doran stoddart. my friend and colleague, gabe zimmerman. she speaker, i would like to ask that the house has a moment of silence in her members of -- in remembrance of these good people. >> find more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook page. c-span, -- not to buy a local cable provider. 38 other gop lock pickers have signed -- lawmakers have signed on. let's start with ukraine in this latest round of sanctions, the fourth round. is it enough? not, butobably sanctions are going to be difficult to have an effect, anyway. it is difficult to target sanctions that don't also heard western interests as well. you'll never have european signing onto really strong sanctions. do in easternd to europe and ukraine is have a more robust strategic response, first of all recognizing what gives vladimir putin strength. you have to bust up the monopoly in terms of the supply. customer really ought to be in control of the situation. here we have the supplier and control. we have to open up world energy greatestn the single strategic move the u.s. can make is open up our supports with things like lng. let's approve permits for lng terminals. andave to capture demand stop wasting it. let's make that available to europe. is probably the single greatest long-term strategic move we can make. vladimir putin is massing tens of thousands of troops along the eastern border. he has agents in eastern ukraine already. he arty has a mini invasion. we need to show some military strength. it is simply not enough. i'm not recommending tens of thousands, but we certainly should be supplying ukraine with some defensive weaponry so they can defend themselves. host: you think we should be arming ukrainians? guest: absolutely. the people rising up in the streets thing slaughtered by a soviet-backed government. when they are now asking to be able to extend themselves the needed help. host: 20 say about those who were polled by usa today who said sanctions against russia but not arming. guest: i disagree. i think sanctions will never have enough teeth where it will hurt russian interests as bad. we will never have the types of sanctions. you need sanctions in the types of countries it can right back. it is much more difficult against an economy as large as russia. nobody is calling for u.s. or nato combat troops on the ground to engage, ob are talking about divided -- providing things like antitank weapons and to change the calculus. the ukrainian people are chance to stabilize -- their government to stabilize the country. host: i want to ask you about what secretary of state john kerry said about committees peace process. one of your colleagues said senator kerry should step down. the comment was probably unfortunate. it basically betrays the that we on the west should blame the u.s. first. until we get that concession out of palestinians, i think all of these peace negotiations, i don't see how they will ever bear fruit. it is unfortunate. again, obviously, israel is not an apartheid state. it really was a stupid comment. should he step down as senator cruz recommended? cruz recommended? guest: there is nothing in the constitution that grants the president. enactlly, trying to policies. this president is out of control in terms of extraconstitutional types of actions that he is taking. this case will be a landmark case to highlight and bring back into balance our checks and balances of the three branches of government. host: how to get your? guest: we bought some in wisconsin privately. the fact that the plaintiffs are unmade the eligible for coverage is not enough by itself to establish standing to challenge the regulation. guest: i am being forced to engage in a scheme that i believe is unlawful. it does create an administrative burden. there is a standing issue the john boehner got in terms of congressional pay that basically showed it was harmful to the member of congress when he was getting unequal treatment or it was being imposed on him that created -- for him and his constituents. this is about something far more important than that. of course, that is what president obama is doing now. ou have an executive that is engaged in activities. andesident could come in basically cut everybody's taxes in half. it harms nobody. i don't think anybody believes that the president has authority . that is what the president is doing time and again. amending, changing and suspending all these aspects of obamacare. congress refuses to enact into law. that is what is at the heart of this case. a law professor here in washington gave powerful testimony to the house judiciary committee saying that he has crossed the line. we have to have a judicial review of the government by this president. host: how do you plan to pay for this lawsuit? guest: either personally through -- personally or through my campaign funds. i honestly didn't quite think anybody would be crazy enough to pay for it personally or you could utilize campaign funds. this is such an important constitutional issue. wisconsinlleague from was chairman of the judiciary or committee for some time. he has urged you to not proceed with this suit. he said it was a fruitless attempt to stop the law. he called it a frivolous lawsuit and unfortunate political stunt. >> he found out the public popularity of what i was trying to do. i think hopefully he now understands. it is a knot about this narrow regular state -- narrow revelation, it is about the overall constitutional issue. which is why i have 12 senators and 38 house republicans to join in that lawsuit. a letter tossuing all of my colleagues, encouraging every democrat in congress to stand up for congressional power and pushback on this. this is a unique moment in history. opportunity with this lawsuit to reclaim the power congress has lost over the decades that have threatened our freedom and constitutional form of government. >> you are using your -- this was noted, you are using your campaign fund to move the suit, a move that will likely help you identify new financial donors for your 2016 reelection, which is expected to be an uphill climb. is this about your reelection? guest: absolutely not. to have to use those funds because there are limits on how much people can give. given to those funds reelection and use those for a lawsuit, those are not available for reelection. this is not a campaign strategy by many means. this is a deeply held belief i have that we are losing our delicate constitutional balance and there is an issue that must be addressed now. this is a pretty important issue. this is not a stunt, this is a serious constitutional question. >> caroline is in georgia, a democratic caller. go ahead. caller: good morning. steve had a show on the other day about the content of your show. if you wanted to have a than that we see -- senatorain johnson. no disrespect, i don't mean any to you. greta, if you want to get the truth out of him you need to have somebody in his steam statue sit in front of him because he is not being truthful because the thing is he knows it is a dead dog he is eating with this affordable care act. all the republicans want to do is beat a dead horse. there when youit know his lies in about using the -- if he wanted to use his money he could use it for this lawsuit he has got to raise money for his campaign. lose.ing he called president obama deceitful. you wentare running bankrupt and made a hospital go bankrupt. pet -- the pot: the pot calling the kettle black. let me respond about c-span -- i heard that show you are referring to and what steve said at the time. we often try to have roundtable discussions with two members of congress who have different views. it doesn't always work out with their schedules but we have roundtable discussions a lot on this show and we will continue to do that. the beauty of the program is you get to call up and challenge members of congress like senator ron johnson and put your opinion forth. so let me turn to you. whenever i get in front of a bipartisan audience i can only can't that generally start a conversation with what we agree on. i hope you agree that we share the same goal. i am concerned about every american. we all want to give every american the opportunity to build life for themselves. weill be first to admit that have different ideas in how to achieve that kind of prosperity, how to make those available. we have enormous challenges facing this nation. i don't think it helps a whole lot to call people liars or question each other's motives. all of this government is massive. i think it is causing a lot of problems. i will admit most of it is very well-intentioned. --re were negative contents i don't question the other side's motives, i would appreciate if people wouldn't question mine. i came here to solve these problems for every american. i want you to address what the senate majority leader had to say. harry reid talked about republicans continuingly going after the affordable care act. [video clip] >> the wall street journal reported the republican party has a newly adopted campaign strategy. their attacks and fabrications regarding the for the care act have borne little fruit. republicans will avoid the issues that matter most americans and instead try to focus attention on the senator who is not even up for election. how about immigration? that bill was introduced a year ago. it passed the senate many months ago. legislation that the vast majority of americans think is a good idea. instead of explaining why the bipartisan bill sets -- sits idly, they want to change the subject. the speaker of the house of representatives refuses to allow a vote. that is a good piece of legislation that is not only also would reduce the debt by one chilean dollars. -- $1 trillion. house republicans prefer to talk about anything but what is relevant. why? because their billionaire sugar are not-- sugar daddies interested in giving americans a fair shot. he says you focus on attacking him instead of focusing on issues like immigration. guest: i think obamacare is one of the problem -- part of the problem. you don't know where to start. senator harry reid is running the senate -- pretty much a one-man dictatorship. he is accusing us of targeting him and he is demonizing some billionaires. that is what the tactic is. somebody, demonize them, rather than talk about the real issues. we need to make america a track -- an attractive place for expansion and job creation. how do you do that you go i think the consumption is simple, we have to have a competitive tax environment. less onerousve a mitigatory system. r.am a manufacture we need the power to make things. how about making manufacturing in america more competitive? we are not going to do that enacting capping trade do that enacting capping trade regulations. i am not questioning harry reid's motives but he is questioning the conservatives motives. host: we will go to mike in rockford illinois. caller: thank you for everything. you are a beacon of light in the mid-unity -- in the community. the employery of , i feel like a widget -- --y back in canada backing a candidate. shift oflso a corporate manufacturing overseas where they can write off 100% of expenses. they can hire illegals at the same time. mandate takes off folks who are no longer able to pay insurance. i am wondering what is the employer mandate in paying for why is the care? company taking the power of the vote by eliminating funding of the candidates? loyalty -- there is no loyalty to the candidates and more. guest: the laws clear the employer mandate should be implemented after december very -- after december 31, 2013. just took it upon himself through presidential edict and decree to change that. that is the heart of my lawsuit, to and that unilateral governance are the president. in terms of companies willing america, i am far more concerned about an all-powerful federal government than i am about the influence of thousands of different companies. reason you should have. sure in terms of campaign -- they can make the thesion whether or not decision by the officials is being influenced by the contribution they gave them. i think that transparency is valid. the other contributions primarily came from donors in wisconsin. we have enormous challenges facing this nation. americans. -- educate americans. the first product -- the first part of solving a problem is admitting you have a problem. sayingesident obama medicare requires modest reforms over the next 30 years. medicare will have a deficit of $35 trillion. all titans before his myself. -- all i can speak for his myself. kurt is, a republican in massachusetts. the laws of physics did not change in 9/11. flawed industry poured in building seven has really stunted america's understanding of what happened that day. why won't congress launch an actual criminal investigation and takeevents of 9/11 into account the scientific evidence that demonstrates explosives were used to take out building seven as well as the towers? was part of akirk group -- senator, curtis part of a group who asks members of congress to take this up. you are serving in your first term. you were around. there are so many in him as problems facing this nation. we need to be incredibly sick -- incredibly concerned about the security of our nation. the face and asymmetric threat. but if the problem with 9/11 is for a decade al qaeda declared war in america and we did not want to admit it. with 9/11 we realized they were really at war with us. may have damaged core al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan but now it is in isthern africa, syria, it metastasized pit it is an asymmetric threat. as much as we would like to say , the moves that vladimir putin is taking show from my standpoint a fair amount of strength. i think vladimir putin is engaged in a cold war. head in thep our sand about these things. host: joseph from california, an independent color. caller.endent going to tell you t now about -- host: got to turn your television down. let'sg go to rebecca in virginia, a republican caller. caller: i was hoping we would stay away from ukraine. isn't itture -- true that we have a weak president and the reason that putin is getting away with what he is getting away with is because he has had years of watching what is going on. after years of being weak it is too late to all of a sudden send troops and weapons. our best bet is to stay away and take care of what we can take care of. we can't take care of russia and can't take care of china. host: senator johnson? guest: she is right in that what gives vladimir putin strength is showing weakness. we unilaterally canceled the .issile defense the fact this president draws redlines and does nothing about it, what is happening around the , people that depend on the united states are questioning whether we would our treaties. we enter this budapest memorandum with the u.k. and russia to basically ensure the sovereignty of ukraine. advocated their own signature status to that memorandum, nothing has happened. will continue to do this, as will north korea, as will iran, as will china. ther nations will sense lack of strength in america and they will start expanding. it will make the world be a far more dangerous place. see it with china. they are declaring these flight zones and sovereignty over these islands in the south china sea. i am with ronald reagan, you achieve peace through strength. if you are weak it is going to be the exact opposite. i don't think america is in a -- weon where we can just ignore the fact that al qaeda was in the dish was in a war with us. -- was in a war with us. johnson sits on the budget committee and he is on the transportation and science committee. here are a couple of tweets on health care. guest: there were two or three primary problems with obamacare. we are going to ensure all the uninsured of 30 million americans. 27% repeatedly uninsured. somewhere between one million to 2 million previously uninsured americans are not taking advantage of obamacare. he did not meet that goal. president obama repeatedly caused a few if you enact obamacare, the cost would be less than that would be up to $2500 less per family. be up to $2500ld less per family. we have witnessed americans losing their health care plan. those are just the facts. i am tired of the debate. i wish the health-care law would but wet been implemented have only seen the tip of the iceberg in terms of damaging effect. politicizedg and medical device tax. medical device manufacturers are not investing in equipment. the second tweet was about if proper health care is a human rights. we are a compassionate nation. i think everyone agrees they want a strong social made -- social safety net. part of what the democrats are proposing to make health care more affordable is now a comfortable to have the thoughtful plan. when take care that is with the high deductible major medical type of plan that is certainly more affordable. if you cannot afford that it should be the social safety. you also take care of pre-existing conditions. host: let's go back to the lawsuit he filed against the office of personnel management. what is their role in this and what have they done that you think hurts the health-care -- the delivery of health care? guest: it is the fact the president obama took his actions without the constitutional authority to do so. the law was debated very clearly. i would like to repeal the entire law. i think this was a stupid part of the law. i don't disagree members of congress should be able to show up and say, this is great. let's talk to my peel employer contribution -- let's not deny people employer contribution. voted against that amendment to allow employer contribution into those plans for loose change. this was debated. that was the will of congress. i don't agree with that but that is the law. if president obama doesn't like that -- now senate democrats hated. ruledhough opm originally that there should be no employer contribution were members of the staff reducing insurance through the exchange -- that will send democrats panicked. they went to president obama, asked for relief. resident obama said, don't worry, we will come up with a will to circumvent the law. gives thetution president's no power to enact, amend, or repeal laws. it's really not about the health-care law, it is about unilateral governance by this president and power growing incredibly powerful. it has been increasing during my lifetime. this president has taken it to new levels. we will go back to joseph in california. you're on the air. ok, senator johnson. i'm going to help you. building number seven was half a mile away. we have already addressed that so we are going to move on. linda, a republican,. -- republican caller. i want senator johnson, to thank you for standing up for our american people. i think our country is in a lot of trouble. host: is that it? guest: i agree. as i saw the passage of the health-care law, i knew the assault that would be on our freedom. to date every american share of the debt is $50,000. ,hen i talk to young people figure 10 years in the future 150 thousand dollars for your grandparents share. that is not going away. do you understand what we are doing to future generations, the prosperity and opportunity? you're depriving them by not admitting we have a problem, not properly diagnosing it, and doing virtually nothing. i have been in office for more than three years and i have taken tough votes to solve these problems because we really don't have a willing partner in the white house who is willing to take the political risk like myself or paul ryan or members of congress want to do to save these programs, save medicare for future generations. host: dean is a democrat in virginia. caller: in the words of carly simon, nobody does it better than c-span. senator johnson, a couple of quick questions. the senate bill on immigration that was passed, do you feel that today it would pass if it was brought before congress? it would pass in the house. i voted against it even though i want to solve the immigration situation. we can't afford the benefits we have already promised, much less offer more. according to cbo it would stop only 50% of illegal immigration. it did not solve the problem. it was comprehensive. that is a word i would take out of our vocabulary here in washington dc. we don't do comprehensive very well. i think we need to do ,tep-by-step, secure the border but not militarize it. you need to eliminate all the incentives for illegal immigration. we need a test worker program. there are a lot of things we can do. at ied against it immediately went over to the house and worked with the people who are serious about immigration reform. i hope the house passes the individual components. i know the individuals here are living in the shadows, that is not humane for anyone. we need to have a functioning immigration system. host: did you have a follow-up? caller: in regards to health care, do you feel that before the aca became law that health care was a major issue? sure. i was buying health care for the people who work for me at my business. we are moving in the right direction. maybe not quickly enough but with the passage of things like welth savings accounts, saved a lot of terms of premiums. i did not pocket that money. i took the premium savings and gave those to the employees. my businessee at had $5,000 and health savings account. they are going to start spending it more wisely. bringing the free market discipline to actually control costs, improve quality in customer service. the me give you a free market reaction to that, places like walmart, walgreens, cbs, the established walk-in clinics. a bad way to have that first visit. let's say you have a child with a potential ear infection. rather than cook -- then go to the emergency room, he go to walgreens. the free-market is a marvel. we need to reduce it in a far more robust way in terms of health care. i'll health-care system is a long ways from being perfect. -- our health-care system is a long way from being perfect. host: on this issue of immigration and what the speaker said when he was back in his district during the break, the national review, the editors weigh in on this. their peace talks about speaker offering a mission for white house is not moved on the immigration bill, saying that some of his republican colleagues just don't want to do anything that is "too hard. "too hard your co--- "too hard." what did you make of his comments? the speaker has been right, one of the real stumbling blocks is first and foremost the senate bill that is so flawed. and also does president's lack of enforcement. nobody trusts this president to enforce the law the house has passed. we are not going to be able to pass immigration reform through the house while this senate is still alive. andvised marco rubio lindsey graham because i wanted to solve the problem. it had a bar -- a far better chance of passage. i house but it would be dead on arrival in the house. -- i thought it would be dead on arrival in the house. from -- i'm not sure the exact count. i know leader mcconnell talked about a few votes early in the year. , in the most deliberative body in the world republicans have had four votes on amendments. four were invented on -- four were voted on in the 96. the senate is being run by a one-man dictatorship, harry reid. we are not utilizing the community process. we can have discussion with colleagues across the aisle. these verying all political bills, just drop it on the floor of the senate. he fails the tree. he doesn't even allow amendments to be filed. this is all political. reid is not looking for the senate to pass bipartisan bills. about politics. united states and this has not passed an appropriations bill -- the united states senate has not passed an appropriations bill. we haven't done that in two years. it will be interesting to see if we passed any appropriation bill this year before the election. we are going to be talking about income and equality and the racial wealth gap. minimum wage vote, the senate is expected to vote on a minimum wage bill. what is your stance on that issue? if youthe cbo shows that increase the minimum wage the president is proposing you will lose half a million to a million jobs. rung ofaking the bottom opportunity away from people. the way to increase americans wages is have a robust economy. you have to make america an attractive place. ander than demonizing engaging in class warfare we should incentivize business expansion and job integration. it is very political vote. you are not going to increase people's wages. you are going to reduce the number of jobs available for those entry-level positions that are just crucial for people to get on that bottom rung. once you show a business and show you are dedicated and contributing to the success, not many people stay in that wage all that long. the most successful businesses -- the wage levels are far above minimum wage. host: go to c-span to our coverage. gavel-to-gavel of the senate. thank you for talking to our viewers. next we will examine the racial wealth gap in the united states and later look at new net neutrality rules being proposed by the sec. but that after this update on c-span radio. the pentagon reports that russia's defense chief has an -- hashuck hagel that assured chuck hagel that russia will not invade ukraine. also gaining the release of seven inspectors from the organization for security and cooperation in europe. in other phone calls, josh rogan of the daily beast tweets this our that the u.s. court of moscow's phone calls to its ukraine spies. an apparentraq and effort by militants to discourage voting continues. todayst 11 people died and 19 people wounded in back-to-back bombings northeast of baghdad. parliament three elections are tomorrow. here in washington oral arguments are scheduled in the supreme court today. civil liberties groups say the information contained and smartphones poses no danger to officers and steps can be taken to ensure the phones are not damaged and evidence is preserved until the warrant is obtained. >> c-span's newest book, sunday at eight, a collection of stories of innovation with top storytellers. >> to have someone who comes from a sophisticated, civilized family. to the camp.n all their relatives are killed. they have to behave in an inhuman way to survive. and then they come out and tell their story about a dissent into hell and then survival. shin's story is different because he was born in health. harden, one of many unique voices. c-span, sundays at eight, published by public affairs books. now available actual cold bookseller. available at your local bookseller. >> we bring events directory from washington to you, putting you in the room of congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. all as a public service to private industry. you created by the table this by the cable -- we are created by the cable tv industry. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. >> we are back with dr. maillot rocco more, who's the president -- dr. maya rockemore. what is the center for global policy solutions? guest: we are a think and action tank, focused on people and their environments. it is an initiative that is very much focused on how much net worth people of color have and how we use asset building strategies as a way to fight poverty in america. host: what is the headline from this report? guest: we are hearing studies saying that households have fully recovered from the recession. they regained the wealth they lost pride to their great recession. what our study finds is that is not true, especially for communities of color. communities of color are likely to have the highest loss of their net worth. african-americans, asian-americans, and latinos lost more than half of their net worth as a result of the prime mortgage crisis and the great recession. one of the most stunning findings refound his african-americans and latinos only have six and seven cents -- findings we found is african-americans and latinos only have six cents and seven cents available. suchtenable that we have financial disparity in our nation. latinos hardest hit by the housing crisis. hispanics featured the largest drop in net worth. a checking account is their only liquid asset. for african-americans and latinos over twice as likely as whites to hold no financial assets at all and have no or negative net worth. one -- what last does that last one mean? that means that these households are barely holding on. they are struggling in the margins of the economy. weare talking about what need to do in order to really build economic security in these communities and what needs to happen policy wise to make this happen. a big wealth summit on capitol hill this week, that is called the 2014 wealth summit. that is the engagement dialogue with policymakers about this critical issue. host: what are the policy solutions? guest: this is such a big problem but the nature of the policy solutions have to be very. -- be varied. when it comes to housing when he direct financial release. the has been no transparency with regards to the mortgage settlement. we are calling for more information. from future mortgage settlements -- based on gender, race, ethnicity . we also think the administration and congress should allow fannie and freddie to do principal reduction and other things. these african-american, latino, and asian american communities were hardest hit. people always talk about the gender gap in pay. a racial and ethnic gap in pay. we call for wage fairness. we need to be looking at making work pay. need to wage workers we be talking more about how advanced policy pushes a living wage. retirement security is critically important because many of these households, particularly asian and african-american households, to not have any private retirement security. all they have to rely on is social security. with that we talk about expanding social security. of these households did not have access based on the jobs they have to private retirement accounts. the company becomes important to the financial equation. >> wise at minorities don't have access to wealth. >> there was a long history in this nation. neck systems for 238 years. if we use the civil rights act as the point of which we achieve conclusion in this nation, 288 years of that -- excuse me, when --dred 88 years of that 238 -- whetherf that 238 it was slavery or oppression of or interment of asian-americans or marginalization of latinos. were formal policies of government that structurally excluded people of color from the u.s. economy. 80% of our time in existence these people were excluded from the population. policy created this cap and policy has to get us out of this cap. host: paul ryan recently in a radio interview on friday said tale --"we have this said this. "we have this tailspin of culture -- guest, i think what many conservatives and democrats fall --y to is this notion is notion that it is the consumers fault. o'brien has been very much focused on an agenda that paulns the structural -- ryan has been very much focused on an agenda that worsens the structure. if you are talking about his proposals to cut medicare and privatize it, that has a direct negative impact on people of color. and actually white people, too. o'brien carries a conservative agenda that is very much influenced by the notion of personal responsibility. the facts lie in the face of that. the structural factors prevail. host: he writes -- is there anyone not blinkered by i will -- by ideology or and principally ignorant of social science disagrees with this? the characters and traits that allows people to seize opportunities. family structure is a primary predictor of an individual's life chances and family disintegration is the principal cause of the intergenerational transmission of poverty. guest: let's talk about family structure. i just talked about slavery. what does a nation do after the institution of slavery, which was formally supported by the , to promote,nt strengthen, and encourage family structure in these communities? whites are having birth out of wedlock. this is basically something that is an american issue, not an issue that is actually focused on people of color. i do think that is the tail atging the dog, looking family structure issues, personal responsibility issues. we really need to be looking at the policy and the structural issues with regards to our nation's institution. host: we are talking with the president and ceo for the center for global policy solutions, out with a new report about the racial wealth gap. here the numbers for you. income andust equality. look at the unemployment rates. african-americans and latinos earn significantly less income than whites. the median wealth of white households is 20 times that of african-american households and 18 times of latino households. cecelia in mississippi, democratic caller. caller: i think inequality is based on people like europe is guest that feels like it is better that based on people like your previous guest -- based on people like your previous guest. $10 will barely get you a place to stay and food to eat but he does not want that. if it costs you more to get to the job than you are going to to supply food and resources for your family, it is going to end up costing you more. i think the republicans in the house have been the ones to cause problems for this economy. everything the president has tried to do they have knocked it down. i believe we would have gotten -- of recession much quicker and our tax system the below that. if you work for a living, they tax everything. if you have all of these cuts a poor of these breaks, black person or hispanic person really cannot get ahead. up -- ngs cannot get ahead. she brings up a really good point. we have so many of your .opulation concentrated on jobs there are political forces that don't want to raise the min wage to $10 per hour, much less a living wage. that is structural. it is structural in many ways. toy of these low income jobs not come with friends benefits like retirement accounts, like health care. fortunately now we have affordable health care insurance so you don't actually have to have it tied to your job. for much of our history it was. that is a barrier we need to focus on. the wages for americans have been stagnant for the last three decades. these are all issues that are important in -- important and contribute. 47% thatre is the don't pay taxes. what about the tax structure and how that impacts the way soul -- the racial wealth gap? guest, they get huge benefits, so many benefits that it is mind-boggling. yachts, planes, you have it in the tax code to underwrite the benefits of super millionaires and billionaires. in terms of corporate tax loopholes, we have so many that we can't even pretend to talk about who's not paying taxes. corporations who are getting tax refunds at the end of the year. cecelia is really on the money. host: from twitter -- that is all structural, two. he probably has a nice job with their our incentives for savings. he takes advantage of that. of the nations people of color do not have that access to those kinds of retirement accounts. with that i would say policy is a very important part of this conversation. and personal behavior. on financialcus literacy and education but we also need to make sure the structural elements are there some people do have incentives for savings. host: wealth is more than just crucial tog jobs is income equality. to close the racial wealth gap must address other economic inequities. of latinos are homeowners. access to workplace retirement plan rates. 62% of whites have access to a retirement plan. maryland --l hills in temple hills, maryland. i appreciate your fashion and you always have good fashion. into your guest, i appreciate you. we talk about the taxes and all these other things, homeownership. i am african-american. a medicaleran and retired police officer, federal police officer from the navy yard. as americanslack is the ability to had out into communities. you rarely see african-americans on anything but barbershops. as it relates to the fact of wealth and the generation in the black community, and also with this family structure. us thatrnment teach teaches us you don't need a man, we will put them on child support. instead of having a family home that would augment each other as it relates to taking care of the family, paying the bills, and being a homeowner. they will be social -- there will always be renters. a company has to rent their home and departments. -- and apartments. guest: our research actually finds that the median net worth of business owners, the racial wealth gap has declined. ofyou are a business owner color you are more likely to have a higher median net worth compared to your counterparts were just employed in jobs. drafting americans, the median net worth for business owners -- for african-americans, the median net worth for business $90,000. that is 10 times higher than the media -- then the median net worth of their working counterparts. even there we have a ways to go. host: what is happening? about we are talking business ownership being a relatively new phenomenon. people were excluded throughout history and now we need to have .ore engaging entrepreneurs exposing them to things that allow them to have the training and the attitude of wanting to be a business owner. also access to capital is critical. african-americans and latinos documented they have less access to capital to start these businesses. that is why we have this other conversation about homeownership. that is why homeownership equity continues to be important for these communities because the use that equity to start businesses in some cases. >> a minneapolis paper had this headline recently. stilling report, thanks hurting nonwhite homebuyers. was going to a certain neighborhood or zip code. cook some of the had a subprime mortgage bills and so you. know banks targeted african-american latinos and it turns out asian households for the subprime mortgages. they are moreed likely to get these exploding loans and other things that were on the states -- unsustainable. we have seen a decline in home rates amongst african-americans thelatinos as a result of subprime mortgage crisis and the great recession. these declines are still continuing. the rate of decline has been 32% for white, 46% for agents that -- 46% for and 56 asians, and 56% for latinos. were in these states where they lost a lot of home value. host: we are reading these numbers put up a center for global policy solutions. if you are interested in it, go to their website, gl obalpolicysolutions.org. we go to tim on the line. caller: so many of these problems can be solved as far as labor and wages and more money to the government. taxes and get rid of the 10,000 pages that obama has .ritten if we have dropped to 17 for the , people are closing businesses. is not about health care, it is about a way to tax people. it will destroy the middle class. people have to realize that socialism, everybody suffers under socialism. the only ones who make up an socialism by the people at the very top of the scale. guest: we are far from a socialist country. obamacare is nothing like socialism. it allows the insurance companies to thrive and flourish and make profit. we don't have a single-payer system. what it would have been legitimate if we have had a major system. we have a business that embraces businesses and health care company. i disagree with him in this one point, and that is that health care is very important to people. ask people in states where the governors actually refused to , and the mother who said she would have breast-cancer. thisnk we need to get past notion that health care isn't important to individuals and families, because it is critical. it is critical to the health of not only individuals and families but to our nation. host: what about pocketbooks? guest: and their pocketbooks. nobody can save enough to come up with these very high-cost procedures. bypass, what heart average american can afford to come out of pocket and pay for these procedures? host: the jury part look at access to health care? this idea of who accesses the health-care system more and are there numbers that look at race? guest: there are. our report is not covered. prior to the implementation of -- itffordable care act insured a majority that african-americans and latinos and asian-americans are only 30% of the u.s. population but they are slightly over half of the nation's uninsured. the latinos are leading the pack in terms of access to health care. and this has a direct effect on the pocketbooks. what are you doing? you're coming out of pocket for these health care costs. if you need a critical procedure, you're going without. i disagree with him. important it was people have access to health insurance so people can hold onto the money they have in their pockets and help stabilize the economic situation. host: from detroit, michigan -- when you have a person that owns businesses at the attitude that donald sterling has about minorities and blacks, you have the despair and see in wages. do not like really my minorities. they own one or two percent of the population. that is why you get high -- in thent and what minority community because white folks that own the power and manipulate people's lives and income. but that kind of attitude, that is where we are at right now. [indiscernible] host: he brings up an interesting point. if you actually look at many economist have been touting the view chart that shows the great depression we had a gilded age and the u.s. economy where the titans and berens owns all of the wealth and wealth inequality was at its greatest. now through the 1980's and 1990's we see the wealth inequality increasing again to unsustainable levels. the fact of the matter is, all shiftt shift has been a of wealth among whites because african-americans and people of color have been excluded or much of the history of the nation and have been at the margins of the u.s. economy. hear and talkto about in that way. at the same time, that is not to there arehe fact that many white people struggling. i am very concerned about new data that shows low income white women without a high school education are experiencing the lifest declines in expectancy. their decline in life expectancy has been five years over the past 20 years. in a nationible that is the richest in the world. many of the nations that focus on people of color, the recommendations help all people who are low income. mentioned thear los angeles clippers owner. the headline in " usa today" -- >> charles of illinois. independent collar. caller: topic.y appreciate this i am an african-american. -- my comment first. i am a state government worker. we have a preferred comp plan. a veteran as well. from one point in a sense the mind or the difference as it relates to investing. long story short, what suggested you havegestion would an modest line of behavior. plan were onlyp so many people are actually invested and can understand the pretax savings. i will take the response off-line. guest: thank you for the call because it gives me the opportunity to talk about what is happening with tensions in the nation, and another sad story that deserves to be discussed. when charles talked about preferred comp, this is a savings plan that those who have access to retirement savings as a part of their job, some use. there are disparities in contributions. an data shows african-americans and latinos have access to these plans they are less likely to contribute to the plans. more likely to take out loans. especially on the 401(k). but there is another story here, and that is what is happening to pensions. if you are lucky enough to have a public job at the state or local level, for many years you have likely had to find benefit plans. meaning you go to work for the government and they will guarantee you an amount upon retirement for as long as you live. now many of the states and localities are saying they cannot afford the liabilities. they are looking at actually 401(k) style the accounts. this would be unfortunate because 401(k)s have been a failure, a disaster for the average balance less than $70,000. that is not enough to take you through a lifetime of retirement. it places the risk on individuals. we need to look at how to preserve and strengthen the defined benefit retirement accounts. or go to a blended version for you have something that is defined and have an option for investing. so what charles bring up -- brings up, investments are important. we believe having these accounts matters for the economic security of families. we need more access. one way of ensuring they contribute more is automatic enrollment. when they come to the job they are automatically enrolled in the pension plan so that there is not a question about whether they can opt in. research shows when you have automatic enrollment people do not even missed the money. host: jean in wisconsin e-mails best -- -- emails this -- our report doesn't but tom schapiro has done the study. they have looked at the data on -- what to see how accounted for and drove the wealth gap. is not the things we're talking the racial disparity is the second biggest driver of the wealth gap. found thehey experience was unemployment, african-americans having more higher rate, starkly higher rates of unemployment than white. then they found the last big driver was inherited uses that whites were is most likely to have financial family wealth that they can pass down to children to finance education whereas african-americans had none. so with that, those of the primary drivers of the wealth gap. >> recently tweeted this about the fairness act. it harder to pay workers based on merit. guest: let me tell you, i'veming, and of course run the center for global policy solutions, a non-profit. employer youan should be hiring people based on what you perceive to be their best skills. if you have similarly situated people and have hired them to the best of your ability, there should be no justification for paying them differently based on race or gender. yet we have a situation in this country where women who are similarly situated as men get paid less than their equal counterparts. withame situation african-americans and latinos being paid less than their equally situated counterparts. ort is not an issue perception of merit but sexual discrimination. host: mike in texas. republican. caller: good morning. thank you. i am hoping before the week is out we will hear from, soul -- will bring inwho a profoundly different perspective. slavery ended over 100 years and had nothing to do with personally. -- black parents were as likely to be married in the 1950's as white parents. the stability of black families in the 1950's was not that much different than in white families. you watch black inner-city kids or inner-city kids in general, if you watch them go home from school am a i wonder how many of them know where the public library is. i wonder how many go home with a house -- to a house with magazines to read. government run schools do not enforce order. i have two sisters who are teachers. anddisorder and threats file language in any given day is repulsive. it is a monopoly, government run school. if you want inner-city kids to grow up and be marketable, they have to learn how to read, write, communicate and stop with the tattoos. stick to the policy part of this. isst: what is interesting that if he was talking about government run schools at large, i would challenge him, but he just clarified inner-city schools, which i would argue there are structural elements that are driving the inequities with regards to public education in inner cities. it is unconscionable that as a nation we continue to rely on the relative wealth of the old property tax base to fund near by schools and school districts. we have is for people and poor kits going to schools that have a poorer tax base. then we wonder why they do not have books in their schools, libraries, stethoscopes or telescopes that have science classes. mike sounds really indignant, and i certainly understand that. that, we have to address the structural elements in order to get to the place where we have educational and witty. mentions is the notion of family. this is something near and dear to my heart. he mentioned slavery was over 100 years ago, but my parents grew up k-12 in segregated schools. i am only the fourth generation from slavery. jim crow is like yesterday. only 50 years away from that. theare trying to tell me last 50 years we have achieved parity and equity in the nation so much so that we need to get rid of the public education system and need to focus on individual responsibility, i beg to differ. aboutron wants to know your personal story. what government structures were necessary for you to be successful while the same failed so many others? guest: thank you very much for that question. i point to two policies that are being sittingme here across from you today having the conversation. one was the integration of the u.s. military and two, affirmative action. my father served for 20 years in the united states air force. i went to integrated school systems that work government run. interactopportunity to with children from diverse backgrounds, many of them white, but many from filipino heritage or different places from around the world. so with that, that experience enabled me to escape what would be the racialized public education experience that some --er cities you'll schoolchildren face today. that being said, affirmative to my situation as well. cu, a historically black college for undergraduates. for graduate school, i went to purdue and was part of them minority fellowship program. i got summer research opportunities that were affirmative action programs. i was a woodrow wilson fellow. color.eople scholars of i want to a summer research opportunity program. a big ten fellowship. affirmative action. disturbing the supreme court made the decision it made last year because basically they are saying we're 50 years into this. even though african-americans and latinos yvon have five or six seven cents for every dollar help other white family, 50 years is enough. cannot let them get too far ahead. and theperah president of the fact of the matter is the data is different. host: phd in political science from purdue university. thank you very much. or more information, go to toalpolicysolutions.org find out more about the asia wealth gap. thank you for your time. coming up next, we are talking and newt neutrality rules by the fcc. we will talk to kate tummarello. first, taking a look at a new .ook on c-span joining us is emmanuel touhey. guest: it is our eighth collection here. it is to share the stories c-span has covered over the years. and sunday evening program became it q and 15 years later. the stories that have been told are worth ringing from the screen to the printed page. what stories are you telling here? guest: there is a step in breath but have not been in previous books. we have five sections in the book beginning with stories. we have american history. have media and society, money and politics in post 9-11 america. the book formed its and shape itself. the books themselves and stories are kind of a reflection of the times and that in breath of book notes and to a day over the years. lex what is the format of the book and how did it come together? > guest: you have one guest for one hour and you go through an in-depth discussion and on whether it is up public policy issue or what have you. what we did is we took out the questions. they are there to facilitate answers. they fade away at a certain point. the answers are what matters. a minimal amount of editing we have allowed the guest in their own words to articulate their own story or viewpoint. whatever the issue or story is and let it speak for itself. what the viewer will get is basically the answers and and guest in their own words. host: what are some of your favorite stories? guest: it was a path of discovery for me and the team working on this. so many fascinating stories. just to mention one in particular, crystal right, the editor and publisher of wasrvativeblackchick.com talking about her politics and upbringing in virginia and how she was influenced by her parents. one thing we all know about this from american history is the isa parks moment where she forced to give up her seat and then you have history unfolding before you in the south. she said her mother said to her, before that happened i had my own rosa parks moment. she said what do you mean? she said i got on the bus in richmond and went to the back of and sat down and an older white gentleman got on the bus and asked me to give up my seat and she said what he wants me to do? i am rad at the back of the bus. what you have wrapped up in that moment was personal history, politics of public private policy. ofs is an extension everything we do here. a candid moment in an extended interview and revealed something about the guest that was fascinating and something about the country and the country's history. where can people learn more about the book and watch the interviews that have taken place over the years? guest: you can go to all the interviews at www.c-span.org /sundayat8 you can click on any of the toes or images and be able watch the transcript. watch clips. you can watch those and read about the authors themselves. if they have websites you can look at that. quite a lot of information there. i think people will find it useful and interesting. 8:00.sunday at people can buy it now. what happens to the loyalties. they go to the educational foundation here at c-span. there are no profits. this was a collaborative effort. hats.ar a lot of there were a lot of people involved in the process from people who make the program-two people who edited the interviews and work with brian to make it all come together. all of the proceeds go back into the continuation of the work that c-span does, and that is basically the educational foundation. emmanuel touhey, thank you. the book is " sundays at eight." now we want to turn our attention to what is happening at the fcc. the technology reporter for the hill joins us to talk about a new proposal for net neutrality. beginning with what is net neutrality. guest: the idea that internet traffic should be treated the same. if you are visiting netflix and the comcast survivor, you expect it to load the same way a different website with loads. the fcc is in charge of making sure the internet works the way we expect it to work. i have net neutrality rules in prohibit internet providers like comcast or at&t from slowing or blocking access to certain websites. in january they were struck down by federal court. they were tasked with what they thought legally appropriate. host: what are they now saying they would like to propose? guest: the fcc chairman has decided he will move forward with the roadmap to court laid havey allowing what we been calling internet fast lanes, the shorthand term we have been reverting to. the idea that netflix could go to comcast and say users to do better streaming. faster, whatever it is. they can pay comcast a little bit more for faster access. this is something that has a lot of controversial response but did create a tiered internet. if you do not pay extra, you get regular speeds. hence the dateline, fcc proposes internet fast line. how does this work? who is paying a little bit more? is thein theory it companies. google wants youtube to load faster. this could is that get passed down to the customers. i already pay comcast as a sloth -- subscriber for internet. should i pay comcast a little bit more through netflix? will i get the cost in the next build? host: what has the reaction been? guest: seems as if no one really likes this idea. democrats saying this create a tiered internet. be fast not supposed to lanes. supposed to be fair and open to all. you also have republicans who say the court struck these down, why are you trying to bring them back? the neting to revise neutrality rules that we have our it is in courts does not like. it is not wheeled -- well received in any camp. public interest groups can come around. the small guy who maybe cannot afford the fast lanes will be heard. host: here is a tweet from jeff merkley -- as kate was saying, republicans on the other side. here is a statement from the congressman of the chairman of the house energy and, committee and another republican. we have said repeatedly the obama administration that neutrality rules are a solution in search of a problem. the market place has thrived and will continue to invest annually to meet america's broadband needs without the rules. seeks to freeze current practices that will put a chill on technological breakthroughs and cause american consumers to lose out. will americans pay for the fast lanes? guest: but is a big concern. earlier this year netflix and comcast reached an agreement where netflix traffic will be boosted on comcast networks and netflix pays directly for it. just last week we saw netflix announced they will raise prices by one dollar or two dollars per month. i am sure there are many other factors going into it. more, isn'ts to pay that is thefree? big issue here. guest: how has the chairman responded? this is just a step to move forward with a broad making progress. in the meantime, working on the standard for making sure the agreements are commercially reasonable. will it hurt consumers, will it hurt the market? they want to make sure the deals are not used for competitors or to ultimately take it out on consumers. we do not knew -- know what they will use to decide if it is reasonable. that is something down the road. they will make sure this works. we just have not seen their exact proposal yet. host: what does baseline access mean? original rules prevented blocking. comcast could not say we did not want users like netflix and will block website. that rule was struck down, too. a little less on commercial provision. and they rewrite, they will try to broaden that provision. you cannot slow it down to the point where an average user cannot use it. they want to create a floor where if you are providing internet access, you have to make sure it is on a certain level so all apps can be usable the way we expect them. that standard remains to be seen. the agency will release the rules when it does. they want to make sure the internet are maine's open ended as a matter of creating super fast lanes on top of the already fast internet speeds we already pay for. host: the fcc will have to monitor commercially reasonable access. what does that mean? how does it work? on may 15y will vote to move forward with the proposal, and then we will see what the specifics are. this will probably take a while. you have five commissioners who are republicans. they are going to fight over this. the net neutrality rules as originally written where are pretty widely supported by democrats -- were pretty widely supported by democrats. the fcc has three democratic both each to do what it wants. we do not know where the other two democrats stand on this. they could up -- they could put up a fight and say we do not like these. why did obama nominate an industry lobbyist to head the fcc? he represents the cable industry, wireless industry. the idea is he was very much a businessman. he has been talking about applying the business mindset. paying for broadband access or telephone access. a lot of moving parts to the agency. wants toy saying he take his business experience and lobbying experience and apply the mindset to the government programs in hopes of making them more efficient and effective. i think the idea is he would take the mindset but still uphold the principles the fcc is committed to. some people say this an example of him not doing that and now into the industries he always lobbied for. to the industries he always lobbied for. host: twitter question -- authority comes from the communications act in the 1930's upgraded by the telecommunications act, and that set forth how the agency was supposed to regulate these industries. the court when it overturned the first set of net neutrality rules in january laid out a roadmap for how the of cc could go forward. one thing he pointed to with section 706 am a which allows the fcc to act to promote broadband access. people will not have internet access. that is about thing. promoting broadband access across the country. part of that is making sure people have access to the content they want. technologyng to the reporter for the hill newspaper. about a new proposal for the federal -- from the federal communications commission that would allow broadband providers to charge fees for faster delivery of video and other data, so-called fast lanes on the internet. (202) 737-0002, democrats (202) 737-0001, independents (202) 628-0205. caller: [inaudible] you are on the air. i'll put you on hold. let me go to twitter -- depends onink it each circumstance. so if comcast is making the internet service so slow they have to pay for it you cannot you it, they will say clearly have the ability to provide adequately fast service, stop discriminating just because you do not like the business model because comcast owns a broadcast company. the fcc would step in there. if it is just a matter of passing down costs the way companies have to, comcast already charges some amount of money. it does charge users already. that may be not a situation where the fcc would be obligated to step in. depends on what the commercially reasonable terms are. if they want more money and netflix has to pay it, they will find some way to pass it down as you have seen in the past week. --t: ed markey tweeted this roger green says -- how are other countries dealing with this? guest: this is something other countries tend to take a different tack on. results of passed a law that would enshrine traditional net neutrality, you cannot lock or discriminate. i think the u.s. is unique in that it takes a multi pronged approach and we will see what commercial reasonable looks like and a lot more fluid than other countries tend to approach it. host: travis in vermont. myler: thank you for taking question. i have two questions. the first seems a little more obvious, and that is if you are streaming a video over the internet, which requires quite a bit of data to be downloaded very quickly, it seems common sense that maybe you have to pay to get thet more extra bit of quality. the other issue at odds with that come and maybe a little is i am wondering if we will have the fascinating available if it will channel the innovation of the internet to develop technologies so that it can be transferred much more faster for everybody than obvious. in terms of the second question, people are definitely worried. maybe google can afford the fast lane, what about the startup? developers and the garage and does not have the money to fund this fast lane, let alone the other things he has to deal with. the concern is there will be a push for innovation and the companies already innovating will be able to innovate faster and better and plays that users can see. but what about the small guys act go will they be able to get to the place where they can that is something a lot of public interest groups and those on the hill are worried about. is itint of the internet is needed for all of us. so can a school child who needs to do research for a project. the fast lanes keep small guys from innovating the way netflix can, is that really an open internet anymore? in terms of the first question, the idea is users pay for internet access. so if i look up a wikipedia page on monday, netflix tuesday i expect the same monthly fee. i did not pay for use. host: andover, minnesota. bill joining us. independent color. caller. caller: thank you for c-span. the big thing that concerns me on the internet is having a sickly the best vibrant market we can. the best way i think we can put that together is have a format where everyone is in. all of these different entities that would like to have choice. whether it is netflix or some program outdgeted there that is terrific, and as the volume growth, revenue growth, giving them more of an ability to pay more. has to be driven by choice. the problemse have is everyone is trying to control it. withwarner collaborating comcast. we will control this because we will do this all a cart. this one than the one in order to have the program. more ofback to a basic, a everyone is in marketplace where they can provide one place to go to the market. that will drive the whole system. more hits on it. revenue. so on. the concern is -- you mentioned comcast and time warner cable. netflix has gotten into a public feud over these exact issues. the concern is is it on cast is a big company and 40% of u.s. internet subscribers the lien on them for internet service, which in most cases you only have a cases, if they have to strike a good deal with comcast, it might not be a perfect market in that caught -- comcast is big and has leverage. so netflix is in a position it does not want to upset comcast because you could cut off 40% of internet providers -- subscribers or make it is so slow it is not worth using it. the fcc wants to make sure comcast is not doing it through the fast lane arrangements that is unfair to netflix. art in oregon. independent caller. caller: good morning. i would like to look at this like buying a car. if you are young and can afford it, you buy a cheaper car. when you get older, i do not drive a chevy, i drive a lincoln. i have been in the system now for 20 years. if i want a faster speed and pay for it, then i'd do it. if i do not want that, that i did not get it. guest: the issue is not that it will be comcast charging a subscriber more. you can already pay for faster speeds in different internet packages. that is an issue we are always looking at. this is more charging netflix. comcast a young subscriber ended netflix user and currently pay eight dollars whatever itonth, is, to access the service, i anticipate it to work the way it is supposed to. the costs on to users equally. you would get a part of it. it is not a question of me wanting faster speeds and not being able to afford it or you wanting faster speeds and being able to afford it. so it is not a question of me wanting faster service but netflix wanting faster service and passing -- passing the cost down to users across the board. host: elizabeth in silver spring, maryland. caller: what is going to happen andr rise in -- verizon comcast are seeking to control the whole system. all tv will go over the internet as it is starting to with cell phones, etc.. internet will resemble cable. rod band has been built out deliberately on purpose to be scarcer. that is why it is up to the rest of the world to create two tiers. comcast verizon will sell the top tier at very high prices as they now do cable, shutting out the poor, deliberately innovations will be denied access to the internet by being slowed down so they can never get off the ground, and the rest of us come all of the noncommercial uses for the internet will be driven off by slower and slower speeds. it is the fcc's job to make sure that does not happen. they realize it is a possibility if everything were to go wrong. but the fcc has a bunch of rules in place to make sure that does not happen. there are rod band speed requirements for rural areas. looking to burst the break -- boost the requirements to make sure people get faster internet. there are all sorts of moving parts to make sure it does not become cured saying. it still wants to make sure comcast does not block competitors or comcast does not make sure you become dependent on them as a content provider. are trying to figure out how to make sure that happens now. has this piece -- what about the role of congress? senator patrick leahy, chairman of the judiciary committee tweeted this -- the house commerce committee, which oversees the fcc is looking to revamp the rules right now. the issue is last time it took a plus years. it is a long process. something that takes a while. complicated law. not like a simple cut and dry kind of thing. there will definitely be .olitical divides the interesting thing is currently the way the industry works is that regulates industries based on how they are classified. require all phone companies connect to one another so that if you are making a long-distance call, it goes through. it does not regulate the internet that way right now. could declassify internet providers so that they are more heavily regulated like the phone companies. that is an option that would definitely be a political battle that was start a war on capitol hill. no one wants the government to regulate the internet in terms of content. there are definitely democrat to push for that. that is an option on the table. still out there but does not look like one he is here to pick up. this could be addressed in the communications act rewrite. this is something they're looking into. a question of how quickly well that move? how comprehensive canopy? -- can it be? this move so quickly. host: michael says -- here is an e-mail from one of our viewers -- guest: this is a question of where the fcc sets the service for. if the fcc says as an internet provider you have to have this, and that is a speed we do not know where it will fall but they are looking to find the right level. fcc says you have to set this be for this service, in theory it will never dip below the bottom level. it will never get such the netflix pays more and does a pages you see youtube load slower. the fcc wants to make sure the fast lane arrangements do not create extra slowing. caller.xt george. caller: nice to talk to both of you. i have a brief statement and would like to have to very important questions. my statement is this. the cable company i have this time warner. seems like three or four or five times in our a are introducing their product, selling their product on the air. that is so annoying it is just unbelievable. my two questions are this, do they pay for the time on the air like any other commercial my second question is regarding my abilities to record her grams off the year. i have a recording vcr -- dvd recorder, and many times i cannot record on my sony. they will put on their you cannot record protected material. why am i not allowed to do that at home? i can on my panasonic, but not sony. if you could ask -- answer those questions, i would probably sleep better if i had an answer to those questions. i will try. in terms of the second question, looking at the recording broadcast content is something the supreme court is looking at right now. there was a startup called aereo and they've strained the broadcast content and you could dvr it basically. they say it is just an antenna stored in the cloud. nothing new. the supreme court is about to decide if it is something new or not. the question of when you can record and keeping certain technologies from recording technology, they are being worked out of the highest court. we will see what they say. in terms of the first question, i personally do not know the exact advertising structure of time warner cable. if you are looking at the cable channel or broadcast channel, they have to negotiate with that. i am sure that is included in the conversations but these companies do not like to go public with the big heels. that is something that has been in the news. not public information. bill next sentence opinion. democratic caller. weler: the issue i think are not addressing is one of quality of service. the service we get in our homes never what itis is advertised. if you want to have service, so be.thing is get up to this but actually never gets up to this bead, and if it does, you do not spend much time up there. as consumers, there is really not an effective way for us to complain about that. that does not happen that much. i do not think people call the way they need to in terms of quality of service. people complain about their internet speeds all the time. i do, too. the agreement you sign any sign up for time warner cable is up to the speed. rare to gets that high because the companies would say they have to manage internet traffic. that is the way the internet works, the pipeline is only so big and capacity is only so high . it has lots of users and uses and make sure it all works together. the sec is responsible for making sure the companies are not alright lying. fcc. they're supposed to be keeping an i on that. they are very good about taking public comments. get a lot of of us specifically that there to make sure this does not happen as drastically as you say it is. [indiscernible] here is a tweet from a viewer -- guest: definitely applies to anything you are accessing from a computer. this does not apply to mobile. wireless companies are not included. never were. this is just about if you are on your laptop. that is where this takes effect. people are definitely concerned that all streaming companies, anyone who needs constant traffic. if you are loading a wikipedia .age, you go to it and are done streaming works different in that there is constant communication between users and the company providing the service. netflix is always sending you content. pandora would be included in this. anyone who has to do more than load a simple page. yahoo!?at about guest: when it comes to yahoo! on the web, mobile or tablet, they have been making a big addition to the tv space, online tv base. to be au will not want comcast cable subscriber because you do not need the comcast channels that have cable channels. you just want online program. so the fcc would step in and say you cannot discriminate against yahoo! just because you want to make sure people have incentive to keep cable packages. this needs to be a real netflix -- network management issue not the fact that we do not like you are competing with us in the space issue. and reno,ie nevada. , i just heard what you said, and i absolutely agree with you about the service. i feel comcast was trying to monopolize on the whole area not there. have never went to netflix in the beginning. that was the whole reason now they're trying to charge extra or get more right and i do not feel it is fair. host: go ahead. comcast would reply netflix is expensive. if i am a user, i am taxing the comcast servers more because i am axing this high-bandwidth content. on cap says someone has to pay for the increased capacity, why should it be us when netflix istent is so taxing? netflix you are to get user subscription fees over the exact service are asking you to provide, why should we pay for it? >> this is what we have to watch to see if the fcc is appropriate. it's something it's reasonable, the fcc will allow it and it will be the kind of thing or comcast av needs to charge a little bit more. that remains to be seen until we see the rules. host: radical says -- james said before me to know we are the worst about look countries enjoying twice the speed at half the price. guest: people love to point out that developed countries are far ahead of the u.s.. saw one story where south korea has extremely fast internet. guest: the important thing to point out is the u.s. as of the country. there are lots of places where the u.s. is technically hard to boost. if you are in the middle of nowhere amid it is expensive to build out the network's or expensive to build out cell networks to get out there. this is the kind of question where how much should the fcc intervened to make sure this be there where we expect them to be? there are countries that are smaller and certainly less diverse in terms of where people are living, and it is easier to get internet to a place where the network is already built out than it is to were all montana. viewer writes -- the ftc, one of the goals is to move -- promote diversity and programming and content. this is all making sure it is going to work the latest poster. guest: the house is about to come in for the morning session. can you make it quick? caller: a concern for political activists anti-democratic situation for the big telecoms to charge more to discriminate and especially a concern now since there is an industry insider at the head of the fcc. there is a problem with the classification of the as a telecommunications service. will have kate answer your. talking about the classification. but is definitely something public interest groups are pushing for. they are saying, why would you not reclassify this? if you reclassify this under title ii, basic infrastructure elements we rely on, then we can do a lot more. a lot more room to regulate and intervened. that is true. i think wheeler would not take on a huge battle if he wanted to be classified this. this is something that has been contested in the past. this would be an easy win down the road if it succeeded, but in terms of the battles he would face, it would open a lot of doors to internet regulation host: broadly. host:following up on the previous conversation -- guest: that is something the fcc is looking at. in the process of what it calls replacing the, old phone company technology with internet-based technology, and there is something the trial is happening right now. they recognize an issue. along so that places like five or get where you need to go. day the fcc as the will vote on the proposed so-called fast lanes. if you want to learn more about it, follow the reporting, go to twitter. .com.go to thehill now, the house is about to come in for the legislative session. back this week after a two-week recess. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., april 29, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable john j. duncan

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Rockville , Maryland , United States , Montana , Louisiana , Nevada , Alabama , Vermont , Minnesota , China , California , Portugal , Syria , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , South China Sea , Brunei General , Brunei , Richmond , Virginia , Connecticut , Ukraine , Mexico , Arizona , Massachusetts , South Korea , Poland , Chatsworth , Illinois , South Africa , New York , Moscow , Moskva , Canada , Philippines , Germany , Texas , Afghanistan , Iran , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island , Wisconsin , Georgia , Reno , Oregon , Mississippi , Pakistan , Maine , Budapest , Hungary , Iraq , Baghdad , Israel , Fairhope , Capitol Hill , New Haven , North Korea , Chile , Americans , Filipino , America , Ukrainians , Chilean , Russians , American , Russian , Ukrainian , Soviet , Syrian , Palestinian , Dorothy Morris , Carly Simon , Marco Rubio , Gabrielle Giffords , Kerry Kissinger , Daniel Sanford , Ronald Reagan , Woodrow Wilson , Jonathan Weisman , Los Angeles , John J Duncan , Vladimir Putin , Patrick Leahy , Michael Grimm , Ron Johnson , Josh Rogan , Chuck Hagel , Abraham Lincoln , John Kerry , Harry Reid , William Jefferson , Rick Lindsey , Gabe Zimmerman , Ernie Duncan , Al Qaeda , Lindsey Graham , John Boehner , Nelson Mandela , Tom Schapiro , Ted Cruz , Doran Stoddart , Paul Ryan , John Mccain ,