is here. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning to you. it is saturday, august 1. today, we are taught about the laws and regulations surrounding a game hunting. is it a lit legitimate force check of the debate started after a minnesota m killed a lotion and zimbabwe. the u.s. fish and wildlife services is currently trying to track down the hunter. we want to know what you think. if you leave live in the eastern

or central time zones, you can call us at (202) 748-8000. if you live in the mountain or pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. if you are a hunter, we want to hear from you, (202) 745-8002. you can also write us on twitter, @cspanwj. we also on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. or you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. here is a story from "the new york times." it reads that zimbabwe calls for that tradition of the dentist to kill saffold the line -- sessile the lioncecil the lion.

cnbc reported this morning that the american hunter who admitted that he killed the lion in zimbabwe has been in touch with federal authorities. a representative for the minnesota dentist, accused of illegally killing the lion reached out to the u.s. fish and wildlife services late thursday after attempts to reach them had failed. in "the washington post" there had been an initial report that there have been no signs of the hunter. the u.s. fish and wildlife services say that they have not actually spoken to the hunter that they have not been able to find him. agency that have knocked on the front door of his house, stops by his dental office, called the

telephone numbers and filled his inbox with e-mails. i'm sure he knows the government is looking for him, said the chief of law enforcement for fish and wildlife. "the washington post" also reports on some of polymers -- palmer statements saying that he deeply regrets killing a no and local favorite, the hereby dog local guides, and was led to believe that the hunt was legal. the story reports that his actions could have violated the u.s. lacey act, which is tied to united nations treaty for the protection of animals. we are taking your phone calls. what do you think of big game hunting? we will turn first to james from

north dakota. what do you think this morning? caller: i think this should be a nonstory. there is no perspective. first of all, let's look at the other cultures of the world. if we once talk about the brutal treatment of the japanese inflict on dolphins and whales you will never stop them for doing it. the chinese, many wealthy chinese, hunt rhinoceros and elephants for aphrodisiacs. the treatment of dogs in asia, where they're basically just cattle to be eaten, and they killed in a pretty barbaric way in asian cultures. host: these are things you are saying cap be stopped? caller: of course not. i want to say, real quick, as a side note, i would be no more

concerned in zimbabwe about the treatment of white people. the former rhodesians who have been raped and killed for the last 30 years. they are more endangered than anybody. host: all right, we will leave it there for now. our next color is bill from maine -- next caller is bill from maine. caller: it's not bill, it sis phil. in a way, you should be ashamed of what you put on the screen. those images the put on our from poachers of african descent. not white hunters. the skin that you showed been

dried, those were from african hunters, because they cannot make a living from their leadership in africa. it shameful -- it is shameful what you do publicly as a tv station. if you don't know about a subject, learn about it before you put on the air. he paid a visit the zimbabwe guy $10,000 to go over there and hunt. they let him in the country. this is a joke. he paid big money for that. the u.s. and fish and wildlife they lie about bears. the american public files for it. host: this issue has attractive the attention of the white house. here is press secretary josh earnest. [video clip]

>> christie, you and i went africa earlier this week, and the discussion of trying to counter illicit wildlife trafficking game up on the president's trip over there. there was an advocate that in a meeting that the president held in nairobi for trying to protect wildlife in africa. i think this woman's focus was on trying to protect the out of the population in africa which i and is done is under some sort of threat. this is an issue that is of particularly important policy issue in africa. this is something that we are obviously aware of. host: that was white house press secretary josh earnest document the issue of poaching wildlife in africa. let's bring in corbin hiar to help us understand some of the details of the investigation into the death of cecil the lion

. thank you so much for joining us this morning. for those people who might not have been following the case of cecil the lion, can you explain to us what happened? guest: on july 1, the dentist from minnesota, walter palmer, shot, with a bow and arrow cecil the lion, who is a famous and well known lieon in zimbabwe. he and the guide lured the lion out of a national park, where he lived and a shot at night using a bow and arrow. the lion got away and for 40 hours was wounded until walter

palmer and his guide eventually found the lion again and finish it off with a gun, and beheaded the lion to make a trophy out of the head, and skinned it as well. this was largely legal in zimbabwe, and under u.s. law but it was actually done without the proper permits for hunting a lion. it is believed that they were actually trying to find a leopard. host: if i can ask you, what are some of the laws governing big game hunting, both in the u.s. and in countries like zimbabwe? as you said, the dentist accused in this incident said that he thought he had the proper permits and that what he was

doing was completely legal. guest: in the u.s., currently the only law that he may have violated is the lacey act. the lacey act is essentially the enforcing law for the u.n. convention on international trade and endangered species. that requires hunters abroad to follow the local laws of the countries in which they are hunting. in this case, he did not break many zimbabwean laws, but because he was hunting in an area that did not permit the killing of lyons, he may have been violated the lacey act. if he was to import that trophy

back to the u.s., that would be specifically a violation of the lacey act. right now investigators are investigating whether there was a conspiracy to violate the lacey act. host: what is this that is of u.s. fish and wildlife? how are they involved in the investigation? guest: they are looking to see if there were payments made to arrange for the transport of this trophy back to u.s.. they're looking to see if there are e-mails to that affect, and other sorts of communication that would indicate that there was a conspiracy to violate the lacey act. host: they would be the ones enforcing the african killer legislation? guest: they are doing the investigation and they would pass their findings on to the department of justice, and that's why the justice would determine if there were a case to move forward. host: we mentioned that the zimbabwean minister of

environment has requested the extradition of the hunter. is that possible? guest: experts on the topic saying it will hinge on the fish and wildlife service investigation. for us to extradite, we have an agreement with zimbabwe, and that has been in place since 19 a seven, and even though we have a a strange relations with them, there have been sanctions since 2001, we could theoretically extradite the dentist back to zimbabwe, if he was found to have violated u.s. law, the lacey act, and found to be facing a crime to be punished by more than one year in jail. it appears that he could satisfy

those things. it becomes whether or not they find that he violated the law and whether or not our diplomatic relations are such that we would feel comfortable sending him to zimbabwe. host: do you have any sense of the potential timeline for this type of investigation, and sort of the resources around fish and wildlife to conduct this broader inquiry? guest: i don't, actually. i think fish and wildlife, especially given the high-profile nature of this case, will make sure that they are very thorough and careful on this. i would not want to venture a guess in terms of one week, one month, or anything like that. they are very very aware that the eyes of the world are on them at this moment.

we will hear something soon. i'm sure the dentist, walter palmer, also wants to have this matter resolved as well. host: the last question for you, can you tell us about the status of the african lion. is it an endangered species? guest: it has been proposed to be listed under the endangered species act as a threatened species. that would essentially bring it into line with its listing under a convention that i mentioned earlier. it indicates that the fish and wildlife service is to leave it is not immediately threatened with in distin extinction, but it is possible within the

foreseeable future. they suggested in october of last year to listed as threatened, and are expected to finalize that listing by october of this year. host: all right, that is corbin hiar, the environmental and energy reporter. thank you so much for chatting with us. guest: thank you. host: we are taking your phone calls to get your perspective on big game hunting. you can call us. we're dividing the phone lines by region today. that number for those in the eastern and central time zone is (202) 748-8000. those in the mountain and pacific time zone can call us at (202) 748-8001. if you are a hunter, you can call in with your perspective at (202) 745-8002. you can find us on social media. we are on twitter, @cspanwj. we are on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. or you can send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org.

the controversy over cecil the lion has spurred some propose legislation on capitol hill. senator bob mendez has proposed the cecil animal trophies act. we will turn out to your phone calls. next up is cat from washington d.c.. what do you think?

caller: good morning. here is the way i look at it. if it is not trying to kill you, what right do you have to kill it? if it is not a threat to you leave it alone. these animals are here and have every right in the world, according to our creator, to be here for us to watch and admire and leave alone. if you flip the script and it is animals hunting you down, what would you do? you would go into hiding. if you are going to kill it, only killer because you need to either and survive. as far as the other part about foreigners, or americans or if you have to go to this, white americans going into africa, and doing things they shouldn't be doing, well, your previous caller seemed to fill as if that

is not true. we know that history dictates that this has happened, and has always happened, even with the diamonds and everything else the riches that africa has to offer. people need to respect each other and each other's territory. i think the world could be a better place if we learn how to respect each other's territory. host: our next call comes from louisiana. that is frank, a hunter. what do you think this morning? caller: i think what happened to cecil is terrible. the money that your countries make offer is nothing compare to what we give away. it should be completely stopped. at the same time, the american

who want went on the hunt should not be sent to zimbabwe for a child. -- trial. host: here are a few comments from twitter. kali hunting a sport? is or is a competition between two willing opponents. and, what do you people want? do you want to kill this man distort his family, this is insanity. harold is up next. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i saw those elephant tusks piled up, i thought the buffalo was extinguished in this

country, just piled up. why doesn't someone do a study on why these people need to kill everything? this doctor spent $55,000 to go over and kill an animal. couldn't he have thought of something better to do with his time and money. set up a clinic for some of the poor people in the area. where is the heart? where is love in all of this? it is horrible, terrible, and it happens all the time. looking at some other country we are the standard. are behaving, we should not be doing what other people do that is wrong, we should set the standard. we should go to other countries and tell people not to destroy. host: our next color is sherry

from florida -- caller is sherry from florida. good morning to you. caller: first of all, i would like to make a comment on what the guy said about the doctor being sent back to zimbabwe under a kangaroo court. why would he think that? another thing is america -- if some foreigner paid to come here to our country to hunt down our precious bald eagle, and went back to his country or continent, we would drive them back here in our court system. wherewhat do you think would happen to them? when you do things you shouldn't do, you should face the consequences. this guy did the wrong thing. he shouldn't have lured

this big cat off the reservation that that country actually put their for the study on the lion. he should face the consequences. host: all right. reuters has this report about the guides that walter palmer had hired for his hunt. two zimbabweans, who were paid $50,000 arrived in court on wednesday to face poaching charges in a case that has triggered widespread response related to trophy hunting.

meanwhile, "the new york times" reports that there has been some protests around the home and business of walter palmer, the dentist accused in this killing of cecil the lion. the story reports, the outrage forced palmer to keep his office closed on wednesday.

our next caller is john from panama city, florida. what do you think about big game hunting? caller: where did the money go that he so-called paid these professional guides. were they even legit guys? to the money go to halt the conservation of wildlife in

africa? that would be my biggest thing. if he is helping starving people or conservation, i don't see nothing wrong with it. $50,000 is a lot of money to throw away. host: here is another comment from twitter. hunting for food equals survival, but hunting for sport is selfish. evelyn from illinois, you are on the air. what do you think? caller: i was walking around, i stopped to look up at the picture on the tv. i am a humanitarian personified. i cried. i know all about hunting brothers, and all that c rap. i don't know where we're going in this country? in february, i was feeding 18

cats, five raccoons, and three blossoms. -- possums. it sickens me what humanity is doing. that disgusted me. the elephant stuff the hippopotamus stuff, i don't understand what the hell we are doing. host: we are taking your phone calls on this topic. we are dividing the phone lines up by regions this morning. if you live in the eastern or central time zones, you can call (202) 748-8000. if you live in the mountain pacific time zones, call (202) 748-8001. if you are you hunter, we want to hear from you and get your perspective. you can call us at (202) 745-8002. we are reading your tweets on twitter. our handle is @cspanwj. you can find us on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. or you can send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org.

a few other headlines this morning for you before we continue our discussion on cecil the lion. from "the washington post" -- big donors feel 2016 campaigns. this story in "the new york times," u.s. decides to retaliate against chinese hacking. here is an update of the chinese

hacking into u.s. workers personal information. turning now back to the phone lines. next up to discuss big-game hunting is bob from montana calling on the hundreds line. what do you think of all of

this? caller: i started hunting in 1962. dad always told me, the antlers don't taste good. i.e. everything i ever kill. i felt horrible if i ever wounded one and wasn't able to get it immediately. as a matter fact, i really enjoy hunting keys, by given up because i don't like eating them. i believe there is a use for people hunting, but i do not hunt -- i despise the idea that a person would go out and take just the head, and leave the game. it is beside me to think of that. host: itself like there is a

division within the hunting community between those who hunt for food and those who hunt for sport or participate in trophy hunting. caller: absolutely. i have friends that they are always going after the big antlers, and that is their whole thing. they spend money to go out of the country and hunt. they have their eyes set on killing large moves, and things of that nature. i actually killed a moose once in my life. i-8 ate every bit of it. it was delicious. a long con for me is driving 200 miles. that is a major hunt for me, spending $200-$300 in my hunt.

as a matter of fact, last year i didn't even put in for my hunting license. it was the first time in my life. i'm 65 years old. again, it is a matter of hunting for the food. when i have enough food to satisfy me and share with my davis, i stopped -- share with my neighbors, i stop. there's is no need to kill the animals randomly. i love the animals. all summer long, i drive, and watch them. host: our next caller is from wisconsin, also calling on the hunting line. what do you think? caller: the problem i have with a little story is how they are vilifying this hunter who chooses to be hov hunter, -- chooses to be a trophy hunter, and has the money at the time. the thing that bothers me is

this is a free roaming animal. any ethical hunter -- this is a free roaming lion. host: the lion was supposed to be in a preserve, and national part. -- park. caller: but there was no fence. he was a free roaming animal. i will compare to people hunting outside yellowstone park. the same situation, guys outside of yellowstone park kill huge elk when they come off the park. this hunter, to be vilified, his livelihood and everything to be questioned, in all aspects, he is an ethical hunter. just because he pays big dollars to do it doesn't make him a bad

guy. host: do you think there should be restrictions on hunting, and where people can hunt? caller: i think we have more restrictions than there are being talked about. we have rules and regulations for hunting. this outfitter that he went to i'm sure this wasn't his first rodeo. i'm sure they have had many other hunters. it is a big business, i agree, but you can't vilify the guy because he is successful and able to do that. i cannot even imagine paying $55,000 to hunt and animal, but he is doing everything right. like i said, if this was his first trip, i think he has checked everything out. the animal was a free roaming animal. host: safari club international had this statement about the

killing of cecil the lion. they both that those who intentionally take wildlife illegally should be prosecuted and punished to the maximum extent allowed by law. our next caller is wayne from michigan. good morning to you. what are your thoughts? caller: this is something that i've not heard anyone say. i have that hunting in michigan all my life. i've taken a lot of deer and small game. we eat everything that we hunt. no one is saying that this is this guy's decision of what to do. this is these trouble with this country. everybody is trying to tell everybody else w how to live their life and what they should do. as long as he was pulling the right permits and paying the fees -- although i despise that

type of hunting, taking the head and the allies, i don't want to do that, but he wants to do that. that is his decision. why am i above all that to say this man is a terrible man? ok, a lot of people will feel that way, but he still has the right, as long as he is doing things under the law. host: that is a good question. if years found to have broken the law in some way, whether it was the type of weapon that he used in hunting this animal, to use the key should be fully prosecuted, even extradited back to zimbabwe? caller: not a kangaroo court there, like other people are saying. i don't think he can get a fair trial there. there is no telling what they would do to him once they get him out of this country. host: next up is charlie in florida on the hunting line. what do you think about all this? caller: cecil the lion, they

have humanized them. what i find despicable is dehumanized unborn babies. they call the fetuses and psychos and pull them out one by one from a mother's womb. that is abhorrent. the doctors they do that are not doctors, they are butchers. you know what, we humanize animals, and unborn babies are not protected. host: all right. our next caller is mike from california. you are on the air. what are your comments to? caller: a very important part of the story that is not being told this morning is that this animal is protected and had a tracking collar on him. after they kill this animal, they took the tracking collar and threw it in a tree to hide

the fact that they kill this animal that was protected. that is an important part that these people seem to overlook. it is not that he had license to kill. he knew he was scaling an animal that was protected, and they try to hide it. i think it is disgusting that these people want to go out and kill these animals because they are the biggest, and i don't know what they think. host: do you think there is a difference between trophy hunting and some other colors have suggested, hunting for food that you then eat? caller: yes, there is a big difference. i can understand hunting for food. these people want to hunt to put a trophy on their wall, to go look at me and what i killed i kill this animal was big horns or a big head. i don't understand that. they take some sort of pride in

that for themselves. it is selfish. it disgusts me. host: our next caller is johnny from tennessee and is calling on the hunters line. go ahead. caller: good morning. the arrogance that people try and tell other people what they can do -- i believe that as long as the man pulled permits, and was thinking that he was doing everything lately. now, the tracking collar, that being said by the last caller that is a big issue there. the court over there, i would hate to see him extradited. i wouldn't call it a kangaroo court, but anyways, i believe it is legal. it has a going on for a long time. host: as a hunter, i'm interested in what you think

here. is it possible that walter palmer and his guide may have seen the tracking collar on the animal from the distance that they would have to be to shoot it with a bow and arrow? is it possible that they didn't see it? caller: if you are hunting with a bow they would have been able to see the caller. even if they didn't, when they came upon the animal and saw it, they knew they did something wrong. they should have stopped right there, and evaluated what was going on, and may be contacted some authorities. i also -- i'm not going to go into it a a rants, the florida caller was talking a babies, it's a good point to bring up.

it was his money. people are successful. if they want to go out and spend $100,000 to shoot a cat, as long as it is legal, they have the right to do it. no one has a right to force their opinion on anybody. host: that is johnny from tennessee. our next caller is jill from south carolina. you are on the air. good morning. caller: good morning. im a hunter but not a big game hunter, and not a trophy hunter. i don't quite understand that mentality, however it is a big sport. let's be fair here. there is plenty of blame to go around here. when this came up, i did some research. back in 2013, 5 different animal rights groups tried to get lions on the endangered

animals list. you know where those groups were from? all five grooves were from the united states. the countries in africa said no, they are not endangered. the numbers are down a little bit because of human encroachment on their lands. maybe someone spoke to this, i got in late. most countries encourage and promote hunting of big game. why? because of the big bucks that it brings to the area, not only to the economy, but the government and the preservation industry. while this is deplorable that a lion may have been lured off

of prisons, and yes, when they saw the color, they should have stopped. big game hunting is a sport over there. they encourage it, they welcome it. you just can't blame -- by the way, you know who provides the most money, american hunters. it is big bucks. i don't agree what happened with the lion, but there plenty of blame to go around. host: a few notes off of his comments. here is the proposed rule out of fish and wildlife.

that is part of the proposed legislation around afghan line. also this story from npr includes some statistics on big game hunting. the international fund for animal welfare said that more than 18,000 tourists travel to africa. we have time for a few more calls. be will turn to larry, calling on the hunter line. caller: good morning. host: what do you make of this? caller: people who do that they

aren't hunters. let's get the terminology straight. i've had to eliminate those people from coming here on my property. they are just trash. they leave trash. host: you are talking about "trophy hunters? caller: writes. trophy. we hunt big game here. when you are talking about people who go hunt horns they are the ones who leave the garbage, trespass on all the neighbors property, they are the ones that don't do anything unless they get a 14 point buck. these people are garbage. host: we will try to get in a few more calls, next is kathy from south carolina. caller: yes. i am totally opposed to how this lion was killed.

i appreciate the positive comments that have come forth in opposition to this and standing and support. i feel concerned for the man and his family. i think that his children, who will forever be reminded of their debt where are they going to go? they will be reminded of their dad who killed the line. i feel badly that this met has brought this upon himself and his family, but i am bothered to think that people could feel that we smack his hands and say, don't do this again. this man needs to come and face the legal system regarding this. i also am shocked at the people who will compare this to legalizing, or rather, abortions they are done by the thousands

and thousands. i'm so opposed to that. however, i stand for a number of things, as we should, and especially as christian people should. host: we will leave it there. our last caller for this segment will be from washington d.c. good morning to you. caller: good morning, c-span, and thank you for taking my call. i'm very disgusted with the caller from i think north carolina, who was saying -- these african governments have legislations to protect big game, the rhino, they'll say the lion, the zebra, and the draft. all of these are protected. the only way they get money is

through tourists who go there to kill the rhino or the element -- to view the rhino or elephant, just to view. there's no way i have ever seen hunters going to kill lions. host: unfortunately we will have to leave it there. up next, the state department has released another batch of hillary clinton's state department e-mails. we will talk about what this latest round of e-mails included. later, we will discuss the federal reserve, and when the central bank may raise interest

rates. first, on our "newsmakers" program this week up a richard shelby is our guest. in the interview, which we will air tomorrow right after the "washington journal," he talked about leadership. [video clip] >> i think there are tensions within our caucus, you have witnessed some of it in recent ways. it manifests itself in different ways. we have a lot of people running for president of the united states in the united states in the senate, and that brings a different dimension to everything, and a different perspective. >> you have been in the senate alongside. is this tension something you have not experienced before? can you harken back to other points when there was some disagreement like what we're seeing now? >> it is probably more attention than i have seen in a long time.

i go back to when senator dole was majority leader. he ran the senate well, i thought. people did not surprise each other. i don't recall senators attacking each other. it is a different game today. >> why do you think that is? what has changed? >> that is a good question. i don't know what has changed, other than there are a lot of people trying to run for president. there are a lot of people with different issues, and they want it now, they wanted to happen immediately, they want things to change immediately. people come to the senate sometimes, and they want to run the senate, or the house. >> you said you didn't think anyone wanted to shut the government down, but some republicans, including your senate colleague, ted cruz, have

raised the possibility of doing just that when it comes to efforts to defund planet parenthood. you think that is a scenario that would play out in the fall? >> i hope not. i hope we would never shut the government down. it is not good for the republicans, for the democrats or for the country. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined now by francesca chambers, the white house reporter from "the daily mail." she is here to discuss the latest round of e-mails from hillary clinton that have been released. what exactly was in these e-mails? guest: they weren't nearly exciting as the first batch. the first batch had e-mails about her asking for iced teas and not knowing how to use a fax machine. that was amusing. the second dump was thebenign.

there were some funny e-mails. one was an aide writing her about a coat. "the having to post" had taken a poll on it, and 77% of people approved it. that made me laugh. there were some other ones where they did some polling about her, and things like that. at the same time, there were enough, a large amount, that were retroactively classified. there were at least 41 that were either sent to her or that she sent that were retroactively classified. they were not classified in such a way -- they were confidential but still they were classified. that could present a problem for secretary clinton who said she did not send classified material. host: these classified, or retroactively classified, e-mails -- a reminder for our

viewers, these were on a private e-mail server from her home. guest: yes. it was a private server and private e-mail address. why that matters is because those e-mails could have possibly been hacked, and the state department would not have known about it. important information about certain officials whereabouts and things on the schedule information like that, was retroactively classified because even to this day, it is information that they mean not have wanted to get out to the world. for instance, in one e-mail, one of her advisers is described the relationship between primary puti flattened a potent -- vladmir putin and the deputy minister of russia. the reason it was classified is because the u.s. did not want their impression of him to get

out into the world. still, that information has been retroactively classified, seemingly violating what secretary clinton said. host: what is the next step. ? now there is some investigation and some evidence that there was classified information and her e-mail, what is the next effort federal investigators or whoever is looking into this issue? guest: a reminder for the viewers, to inspector general's recently themselves bound classified information in five of her e-mails, one of which was released to the public and inadvertently. it was discovered in the first batch of e-mails, but for others , the have not been released, covered five different departments of classified information. the fbi, the cia -- five different departments. now they are asking for a thorough review of all of her e-mail's to determine what other classified information may have been in there.

there are people in congress that would like to see obviously a congressional investigation into these e-mails as well. host: what are the consequences if it is found that she did indeed store these e-mails on her private server? guest: that is the debate going on in washington. did she violate the law? is this a criminal case? could she possibly be charged with criminal wrongdoing, or did she just violates security precautions? that is something the obviously the justice department would have to determine. they and's have said there should be a thorough department of justice investigation into this to make a determination. the white house said this week that secretary kerry was seen meeting with those inspector general to further review this and make sure all the rules were followed. host: after the ig office completes their review they

would hand over their findings to the doj and say, you should take over and contact a more thorough investigation? guest: it is not always that simple. there's a whole other side to be going on right now about what the department just as an inspector general should have access to. there's a lot that still has to be worked out in this scenario, which is why secretary kerry be meeting with the inspector general to make that determination. host: you can call in with your thoughts on hillary clinton's e-mails. we're going back to our political phone lines. democrats can call (202) 748-8000. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. independentas, (202) 745-8002. we are on twitter at @cspanwj. beerwe are on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. we're also on e-mail at journal@c-span.org. on friday, mark toner took

questions from reporters on the handling of hillary clinton's e-mails. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> that server, the contents, are now being held with her lawyers in a secure setting. she shared with us the contents that she deems relevant. we are going through those. >> usc, 1924, how you are supposed to handle classified information. neither hillary clinton or her lawyer should have access to classified information. >> if i have not been clear on this, today, we have not seen any classified -- any information that should have been classified at the time. host: that was deputy state department secretary mark toner talking about the handling of hillary clinton e-mails. we are talking with francesca chambers, white house reporter

for "the daily mail." give us some context on how these needles are being released. we saw a previous batch of e-mails. how is this being handled? guest: originally, it was former secretary of state hillary clinton who asked the state department to release these e-mails. she asked them to release the mouse thinking that if all the e-mails came out, everybody would be able to see that she was not e-mailing anything that was classified or inappropriate. the state department began a review, and intended to release all of them in january 2016, but then a court order mandated that they could not do that, they had to start releasing them in june. they did roughly 3000 that first month, which by the way, there is a requirement that they have to do a certain amount everything a lot to get out to the full 100% of the 55,000 pages.

they did the first batch of 3000. then yesterday they did a second batch. they did not quite hit the mark. it was supposed to get up to 50% of her evil, but they got to 13%. with the next one, they will have to compensate for that. we will probably see at the end of august, and even larger dump than the last one. host: we are turning now to the call. first up is randy. go ahead. caller: if mi it is missouri. there's too much drama with hillary, me being a democrat, too much drama. knowing that the republicans will not ever let this go -- it is like handing your enemy a handkerchief to argue.

other thing want to say, i think you are one of the most enthusiastic and liveliest people sitting in that white house pressroom. i hope you continue with that enthusiasm. it up. as well, you kind of remind me of kind of the older white house press person in the kennedy administration. helen was her name. keep up the good work. host: all right. guest: i think that's probably the highest complement i have ever received. thank you so much, randy, and thank you for tuning in to the white house press briefings. i know not everybody has time to tune in every day. host: next up is joe from tennessee -- caller: good morning. i want to find out if she has

these servers at home. she said she only had one. did she say she received the emails that were classified from the state department? if they are, we should be able to see what she had and what she is covering up. obviously, she is covering up something. so that's it. guest: two things in response to joan. so i want to make a clarification on the classified emails. a lot of them were sent to her. a lot of the emails that have now been redacted were sent to her. that being said, sometimes she did respond to those emails, so in that sense you could say she sent classified emails but for -- nevertheless a hacker could

have gotten to those but also that's a private server. that wasn't the government's possession or government material so the government would have to subpoena her server and there's a lot of talk about doing just that. but if the emails still exist on the servers at all. so even if they do get their hands on it, she may not have any of the emails. she said she deleted them. host: do you have any idea what the security rules are on how they should be stored? guest: yes, there's no question what she did would not be according to something you

would want to do but the white house has at least been cleared that this is not something they would encourage their other employees to do and that all employees of the federal government and administration are told to make sure that they either use a government email or to make sure they are forwarding all the things sent to their private email to the government email in a timely manner so nothing gets missed. host: valerie, you're on the air. caller: yes. i'm so sick and tired of these red necks from the redneck party which is the republican party. i'm so tired of them trying to make hillary out as the scapegoat. i don't care what hillary does. hillary can go out and -- on the white house lawn and still get --

host: ok we're going to have leave from the. we will go to gabby on the republican line. caller: hello, this is debbie from farmington hills francesca, i have a question. the emails went out. if they are not on the server that's the government server, what email -- wouldn't they know that the email is different and not coming from a government account? guest: yes. so a government account typically ends in.gov, so they would know the difference and to follow up on that point there are folks in the obama administration who said they were aware that hillary clinton had a private email address and they emailed back and forth with her through that address, but they were not aware that

that was the only email address she was using and that the state department did not retain any of the records forwarded on . host: this timeline from the "washington post" provides some of the dates around hillary clinton's exposure of the private address. it shows it was first exposed after a hacker accessed the account of a former bill clinton aide and the hack shows clinton communicated with her using this email address and then the hacker published a screen grab of their correspondence discussing a number of sensitive issues and they said why was clinton receiving emails at a non-government account? but neither the white house nor

another would comment on it. later they said they got the information request copies of the email and was told by state no records existed. our next caller is steve calling on the democratic line. steve, you're on the air. caller: good morning. fran fran -- francesca, a question and a statement. first, when madeline all bright and colin powell and another left office, that they didn't turn in their emails as well? and jeb bush had private emails and here's my statement, i'm glad hillary did this. she is brilliant. she knew if she hadn't destroyed these enails republicans would have rifled through them and the reporters would have dug through them to

find something. the emails are gone. they are gone and there's nothing anyone can do about it. guest: the problem with it is that she was tired preserve those emails and that documentation. she was required to do that. that's the problem with destroying any emails that were work-related that she may have deleted and as it pertains to the secretary of state, the caller was right, they did not save their emails but that's because they weren't required to. the guidelines did not come into place until 2005, and actually former secretary of state colin powell talked about this a little bit. when he was in the administration, when it was part of his tenure, email wasn't really even being used in the state department at that time and he said he came into an antiquated time where

microphone weren't using emails so he was saying he was really one of the first state department officials to start using online communication and said he no longer has those communications and couldn't possibly turn them over to the government but that's partly why he was not required to. host: billiton democratic line, go ahead. caller: good morning. yes. i wondered if you ever felt ridiculous talking about emails for 24/7 for a day. it seems like hillary lives in a retroactive world where if it wasn't criminal before we'll make it criminal now. to us out here, you've had her by the ankles up side down since she has been in the public. every single thing, no matter how ridiculous and it's criminal. to us it just sounds like you people are unhinged.

host: that's bill from connecticut. a few comments from twitter. hillary should be disqualified to run for pode discuss. another writes if it's in hillary's possession it should be classified. guest: that's not necessarily true. that doesn't mean it wasn't classified at the time. all that it means to say is that the state department is going back now and saying they cannot release this information to the pun lick because it would have been considered classified information. as the inspector general said then and now. host: on the independent line, richard, go ahead. you're on the air. caller: yes, i watch public tv and learned a lot. they had a show about the ring of fire radio and they showed how after 9/11 george bushed

that c.i.a. and f.b.i. and all produce information on saddam hussein whether he was a threat to america or not and the doctrine was called white page, and they said he deleted where they said saddam hussein is not a threat and he deleted that and sent it and this guy went before the congress and senate and told them all this inaccurate information and they don't do anything to republicans. guest: how is this related to hillary clinton's emails? caller: i watch stephane every day and -- i watch c-span every day and they call it left-wing media. it's not. host: our next caller is bruce on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: ok. what i would like to say is this lady admitted that a lot

of these emails -- hello? host: you're on the air. turn down your tv. caller: my tv is turned down. listen. the lady just admitted a lot of these emails were classified after the fact. after the fact. and now colin powell had a secret email account of his own. if we want to find out something, let's go through colin powell's email and find tout truth about weapons of mas destruction in iraq, and also the great jeb bush from the state of florida had a private email account while he was governor. this is nothing but a witch hunt. the republican party is scared to death of hillary clinton that the only democrat they cannot beat. host: all right. related combhent from twitter. how desperate are republicans to derail hillary 2016. how do you think this might

play out on the road to the presidency? guest: any emails related to the situation in libya have not come out yet. the time period that the latest document uncovered only goes until the end of 2009. so it's still going to be several more months before we even get to that point that's what comes up in several months the iowa caucuses and new hampshire primary so when they will release the benghazi and libya emails that will be much closer to when voters will go to the polls. whether that will make a difference on whether or not they will vote for her remains to be seen but that being said, the way this court-mandated flow trickles came about could be more harmful than in they

were released in one day. because they are being done every single month roughly 3,000 at a time and it gives reporters ample opportunity to read through every single one of these emails. host: calling from the independent line jeb, go ahead. caller: i heard on "the new york post" that hillary clinton recently got a $600 -- because she always says she is for the people but she got a $600 haircut while we are having trouble paying our taxes. i mean what a -- host: all right, jeb. here is our story on the "wall street journal." the story says hillary clinton released a flurry of documents friday that included a physicians declaration of her personal health and a batch of financial information and --

documents showed her and her husband earned $139 million in adjusted gross income over the past seven years including a $28 million last year when they paid an effective tax rate. tell us about these health documents hillary clinton released. is she in good health? guest: yes. so her doctors said in a statement that she is in good health. one of the key things is that she is still and will permanently be on blood thinners. she has had blood clots and everyone remembers just before she left the state department she had the nasty fall and she had to go to the doctor's office and that's when she she first got on the blood thinners permanently. she is still on there t blood thinners as a preventative measure. the doctors say it's ooh

preventive measure and he sets still in good health. host: and how common sit for the candidates to release personal health information? guest: everyone will eventually have to do that. particularly they want to tell people they are in good health. you should vote for me. but persons who made arguments about their age, that's something they could and should do to show they are in good health. i think the reason hillary clinton did it so early in this is because her health has been called into question. host: sorry if i slaughtered the name of your city. but welcome. caller: thank you for taking my call. the correct pronunciation is

"chipathich." i'm an independent but congratulations to republicans for beating up on hillary. keep going. you people are experts at beating dead horses and fighting old battles, and yeah. don't stop beating up on hillary until after the primaries. you're doing a wonderful job and you can probably tell i'm a berny sanders supporter so keep up the good work, republicans. host: any comments, francesca? guest: well, i will say again, going back to how these are going to be released, it does give republicans ample opportunity to keep attacking her on the server and private emails. host: jordan, on the independent line. good morning. caller: yes. hillary clinton's husband ran for president and it seems like we don't live in a

democracy. we live in an alagargy. host: our next caller is mark on the democratic line. caller: yes. thank you. good morning to all. my question is this, ms. chambers stated that none of the emails regarding benghazi have been released yet. does that mean to the public or or were they simply denied, the house committee that exonerated her as far as benghazi when i know tray dowdy is continuing his two-year quest of that committee to find something. but when ms. chambers said that none of them had been released, was it to the public? or to the committees that investigated her? host: mark has a good point. guest: yes, absolutely. i was talking about that

specifically in the context of the state department releasing to the public the benghazi emails. it didn't come up until down the line which would be a flont now. yes, the committee does have sand reviewing those emails. they say they don't have all of them yet and they are still trying to get them from the state department but they have released at least some of those from the state. they say that they are missing riffly two months at least from a time period of two months. so we will be seeing whether or not those emails are not just being turned over or if the committee just hasn't received them. 40eu7 and here's the story francesca chambers wrote in the "daily mail". the story writes that two months worth of emails appear

to be missing from the documents provided to the state department and reports no records for the months of may and june of twelve as the security stpwhation libya began to deteriorate deteriorate. the state department confirms all the emails have been handed over to congress indicating it too has a hold on its records. the report came out several hours from the white house after the separate issue and they traded the commitment to transparency. next on the independent line, go ahead. caller: good morning. with regards to this server, if the hard drives were not replaced then the information is probably -- hello? host: you're on the air, peter. go ahead. caller: the information is

still available, and you've had seven years of a pathological like and now you're going to ruin a congenital liar? that doesn't make much stones me at all. but go for it. host: on the democratic line, go ahead. caller: yes. i just want to say to you francesca, you know, you sit up there and you talkability how hillary clinton did this, here. get all the information from colin powell. go back to all the republicans. and get these knuckleheads like donald trump out of there who is making up ridiculous stuff. you guys want to bury yourself, we always have one bigger person. if all the emails wasn't truly

given up by every office, then go back to where it starts. host: that's from massachusetts. we are talking from francesca chambers a white house reporter for "the daily." it's a new publication here in the u.s. can you tell us what the daily mail is for the audiences? guest: yes. i work for the "daily mail" mail which is the online publication. it's basically got offices in new york and l.a. and washington, d.c. anything u.s.-based. so i cover the white house for america. certainly when there's international issues but the great thing is my stories also get seen overseas and things along those lines. but for the division of the daily mail that i work for.

host: from twitter. if hillary had a private account she could have deleted them. it's not rocket science. can you break down, again the division between the department of justice's investigation and sort of what the timeline for looking into what the appropriateness of those stories are. guest: so the department of justice, the state department, all those departments has an inspector general. and that inspector general's job is to be a watchdog on that organization and to make sure they are following rules and practices for stories like the one we are covering today, so the inspector general and another got together to review information to make sure she hadn't sent out classified materials. so the stuff she's taken have

been roughly four questions they came away with the conclusion that the department of justice should launch its own investigation got emails to determine if any laws were broken and if this rises to a level that's you know, much higher than a slap on the wrist. host: next caller is bill from newcastle virginia. bill, you are on the air. what is your question this morning? caller: my question is republican democrat, independent, whatever. how come we still -- even though the people that are governing this do what they do like the clip on thes who are always pushing the letter and do what they want to do then afterwards they still follow

should we do this or not? we are serving them. they are not serving us. host: all right. that's bill from virginia. guest: well, one thing we try to do certainly as a white house reporter is keep the administration and white house accountable for these things. as i said before you have the inspector general in one area where they are doing it internally but i think the press corps is accountable for how they do their job. as an earlier caller said i very much try to keep the white house and this administration accountable. host: stephen on the republican line, go ahead. caller: the only question under the email category list was, would there not be a level of precedence as to which information was investigated

first and released first to the importance of that category. so the benghazi emails, why that wouldn't have been something that was released earlier? guest: well, the way we decided to do them was chronologically. the state department has said, however, that it is reviewing the benghazi-related emails and it's possible those could be released to the public before the time in which she would have gotten to them. host: here's the headline, "latest hillary clinton email batch:"h" learns how to email. clinton decides to brush up on

her email writing skills and the book's full title is "send." a classic guide for email and the story also notes hillary at political polls, there were comments about her coat as francesca chambers mentioned before a picture of her coat on her arrival to kabul, afghanistan was online and sparked a controversy of whether the coat was too hippie or hip and talked about her dancing in some videos and some role of -- our next caller is

on the independent line. what do you think about clinton's email document zphump caller: good morning to you ladies. host: you are on the air. caller: yes, i just want to talk about the comparisons or if there's any difference between hillary clinton's email servers versus general petraeus. because obviously email brought down general petraeus. and it wrecked his career. can you tell me if there's any differences in this issue? guest: well, ooh major difference between the two is that petraeus knowingly and purposefully was sending classified information, and in this case, if she sent classified information, she wouldn't have been sending it to an outside source like

general petraeus. it would have been talking within the state department to other state department and government officials over her private email address act information that would be or could be considered classified. so there's a big difference between leaking classified information on purpose and inadvertently discussing that information. guest: the issue here is only that she did it over a private email address on a private server because the government can't protect her. they can't protect the email or that server from being hacked going back to sidney bloomen that. this is how a lot of us found out about this in the first place. emails between she and her were

hacked and made public because his email address was hacked which just shows. it's going to be easier to get to them. hillary says it wasn't hacked but it was well protected. but experts say it's possible she could have been hacked and just didn't know it. host: jenny, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i'd just like to say the emails and all this is a misdirection on benghazi. i think that ambassador stevens was the most knowledgeable about what was going on, on the ground. he knew that that compound was due to be closed and that they were going to collate with the c.i.a. at the beginning of the next year in three months. he knew there wasn't going to be a lot of security -- money

put into that compound. he knew there wasn't a safe room and elected to stay there on the anniversary of 911. he made a lot of on the ground decisions that i think came back to bite that group in the butt. host: that's cindy from washington. any thoughts, francesca chambers? guest: just going back to everything i said before. i really think we've covered a lot of that. host: our last caller will be from east new york calling on the democratic line. ellie, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am so disgusted with this whole political arena that we have been living through. one, hillary clinton emails? yes. it always should be investigated. we must keep our politicians accountable. but where is the outrage of the

former five republican candidates who are being indicted and have been indicted for criminal charges? and they are running for president! host: ellie from new york we will have to leave it there and give francesca chambers the last word. guest: i would say absolutely there are some other candidates, namely chris christie or that we have done a good job and done a very hard job to write about those and as far as jeb bush and his use of private email the media covered that he had a private email address that was not a florida email address as well. host: francesca chambers from the "daily mail" mail, thank you so much.

next up we will talk about the federal reserve and when they might eventually move on interest rates, and we will get your opinion on the supreme court. should the justices be terminated? we'll be right back. >> monday night on the communicators, diana and jim on cyberprivacy and security breaches. >> we've seen the most recent attack on the office of personnel management. but also in private industry. they targeted home depot. so many other private corporations have had customer information stolen. so what we have realized is we

can try really hard to keep ahead of the hackers. but what we need to do is think about how we've minimized the need for customers to put their private information on the websites. >> right now there are legal mowing decisions with the government sharing private information with the public sector and those from the private sector sharing informational acting as agents of the government, and that's not allowed. what we want to do is allow those barriers to be removed so that you could share that information. but but from the example of the very hacks that have taken place out there. if we can broadly share that

information, when a hack occurs we can widely share that vulnerability and protect everyone. >> monday night on the communicators on c-span 2 . >> the republican presidential candidates are in manchester new hampshire for the republicans first presidential forum and c-span's road to the white house is providing live coverage of the two-hour forum on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.gov. the new hampshire along with early caucuses are sponsoring this forum. you can provide your input by joining our caller program. road to the white house 2016 on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: next up we're talking with jon hilsenrath the federal reserve reporter discussing the

latest policy setting. thank you so much for being here. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: so the top officials met in washington this week. what did they decide? guest: they meet eight times every year and what was decided was to keep doing what they have been doing for six years which is keeping short-term rates at zero. little words that they put out there get interpreted by the financial markets as being very meaningful in this case they added the word some to a sentence. it signaled that they might be getting closer. specifically that they wanted to see markets before they started to raise rates and wanted to see additional

progress and by adding the word "some" it looked like they might be getting closer. so many think they will be raising rates. host: what would that mean for the economy? guest: well, you can look at it two ways. in one way it's really a landmark moment and potentially the end of an era. so the fed pushed the federal interest trite zero in 2008 in response to the collapse of olympian brothers and the very deep recession we were in and it's kept that rate there ever since so trying to move up off of zero would really be a statement of confidence by the feds that finally we can try to start getting things back to normal. so on one hand i think it's a moment we're all going to mark.

on the other hand they have signaled that once they do start raising interest rates, they are not going to do it very aggressively or raise them up very fast. and interest rates are not only a function of what the fed does but a lot of other factors influencing the global economy. and there's avenue lot of thought that they will stay low for a while because the global economy is very soft right now. so interest rates are being held down from overseas. so on one hand it's a a landmark moment in that the sun is setting in is that it's looking closer to normal and on the other hand it looks like a slow adjustment process. soing about mortgage rates going through the roof, i don't think we have that to worry about. i think we will see a very slow

buildup of interest rates over time. host: and you said the recovery sort of on track that many people feel the recession still has an end date. can you talk about where we are and how fast the economy is growing? guest: when you talk about where we are in the recovery, you can't measure it almost against any other. this has been so much more different for a variety of reasons. one is because of the financial crisis. it did a lot of damage to our banking and financial system to the confidence of households and the confidence of businesses. so we've had an extraordinarily slow recovery that the commerce department put out that showed that the economy has been expanding at a pace of 2% a year. that's almost half -- 40% slower than the growth rate we have seen in past expansions.

so this has been a really slow ride. as a result it hasn't felt like a recovery to millions and millions of americans. when you look at statistics like the unemployment rate. the official measure of unemployment has come down quite a lot from 10% in 2009 and the latest measure is 5.3%. almost half of where it was during the height of the 237b8 crisis but for a lot of things going on in the labor market that suggests stress in the labor market is a lot higher than the interest rate indicates. there are a lot of people who dropped out of the labor force because they couldn't find work and a lot of people who want full-time jobs but all they can get is part-time jobs and more importantly for americans even though the rate of unemployment has come down, wages aren't moving. we got another report that have is called the employment costin decks that shows we are still

growing wavenlgs at 2% a year. we don't have much inflation but it's still not enough to keep up with inflation for a lot of households so the recovery we're experiencing is sort of like an expansion like we're beyond recovery mode. host: you can join in the conversation. let us know what you think about the economy and federal reserve's role on the democratic line at [phone rings] republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001. and independents can call us at (202) 748-8002. you can send us a tweet. we're on twitter and the handle is @cspanwj and we are on facebook at facebook.com/cspan and you can send us an email at journal@c-span.org. we're talking with jon hilsenrath a reporter at the "wall street journal." guest: that's a lot of different ways people can talk

to you. host: yes. we are available a lot of different ways. can you talk to us about how the decision works and how the decision is made on whether to increase rates or not? guest: right. so the fed is a very unusual institution. it turned 100 this year, actually. and there's an unusual structure where it actually goes back to the very founding of this country. jefferson didn't want one and hamilton did want one. we had one early and then got away with them in the 1800's. the fed was created in 1913 after a sfnl crisis in 1907 in which there was a run on banks. because there's this historical distrust, people didn't want to

concentrate too much too much power on that or a central bank in washington. so they created a very dispersed difference. then we have a board that oversees the goings-on here in washington and there's also federal banks so the presence of these and the board gather eight times a year and they have two days of discussions and talk about how the economy is performing and analyzing the effect of the interest rate and the decision-making process leads up to where to put their benchmark interest rate. that's the federal funds rate. it's supposed to be a consensus-oriented approach. in the past, the chairman of the fed, the chairman today or

chairwoman is janet yellen. she's held a lot of power in this process and still does, but there's still a lot of different voices at the table and what the chair tends to do is spend a lot of time getting everybody to come to an agreement. so you sometimes see the feds really lumbering towards a decision. they have been signaling they might raise interest rates over a year. some of us who cover the interest rates see they are getting close to that point. they did a lot more than just manage interest rates. they pumped trillions into the financial system to try to keep banks from collapsing which was actually the original idea of the central bank to have a "lender of last resorts." back in the great depression

was the run on banks. if you ever watched the movie "it's a wonderful life," people got scared that they were not going to be able to get their money out of the bank after the stock market crashed, so they all went to pull their money out of the bank. the original idea is when there's a panic in the markets or in the economy that the banks should have someone to back them up if the depositors all tried to run at the same time. we are beyond that point, obviously, but that's another one of its jobs. host: so you mentioned the fed board of governors and there are some vacancies on the board of governors right now and senator richard shelby discussed these vacancies. here's what he said. [video clip] i'm going to talk to the fed chairman about filling the

roles. that's never been done. i think it ought to be done. i think the fed needs all the help they can get. i think we all do. and to sit around and not fulfill this. this is a good time for us to talk. fill the board of governors. we want them to fool the law. host: that was senator richard shelby discussing vacancies at the federal reserve. we are speaking to jon hilsenrath. he is talking about the musical chairs going on around there. guest: yes. first i should say the person asking that question of shelby was my colleague. very happy to -- host: and you can watch her on news makers tomorrow. guest: so there's some important dramas going on.

the dowd frank law included a provision that require that the fed have a vice chair of supervisions. so one of the lessons we got from this answer crisis is senior officials including ben bernanke admitted they did a terrible job regulating banks. they didn't see the stresses building up in the banks. they didn't see how vulnerable some banks were to another financial crisis. so there's been a big effort, as a fed to become more attentive to the finesses of runs and stresses in banks. the frank dowd law now says they can nominate a vice chair position whose job it would be to oversee this. and it's meant to be

accountable to congress. he or she would have to be confirmed by the senate as the chairman is. and that vice chair would also have to go testify two times a year about what's happening with the supervision of banks. well, here we are five years later after dodd-frank and to this day they have not nominated a vice chair of supervision. what you saw was richard shelby unhappy with this. they say hey, we put this goo law, and you event nominated a person to put this into law. and there are two people waiting for confirmation as members of the board of governors. what shelby is saying is we are not going to give you your --

a lower-level governor named daniel who is effectively doing the job. running the supervision of the banks and working very closely with the regional fed banks in atlanta and richmond to make sure they are involved in the supervision. but he's never been confirmed by the senate for the job he is doing and lawmakers aren't happy about that. host: on the democratic line, go ahead. you are on the air. caller: good morning. he mentioned something about the labor participation rate. and i want to make two comments about that. the first is that the affordable care act has allowed a lot of people to drop out of the workforce because they no longer have to worry about i

want to get the insurance. but when i hear a person drops out of the labor force but the bearnts to work. how do you do that? if you want to work, how do you just drop out? evidently they must have some other resources or some other income as to why or how long they want to stay home or maybe the husband wants to stay home with the children. but to use that term that the potential rate is dropping, i just don't understand that. guest: i think those are all very valid points. so let me take the two points that the viewer made and then add one other. on the affordable care act, there's a lot of disagreement and debate about the effects the affordable care act is having not only on labor force participation but also on the

kind of participation people are doing. one of the arguments is that the affordable care act has given incentives for employers to put only part-time committees on the payroll, because it saves them from having to pay snotch insurance. so the part-time work -- i think there's a lot more research that has to happen on that front. this other argument the viewer makes i think is an important and interesting one. people don't just say, i don't feel like working anymore. and stop working. if you have to feed your children and feed yourself, you know you have to pay for clothing. very basic necessities. you have to have some source of income.

so i think sometimes we, as reporters, overstate how many people are dropping out of the workforce because they don't want to work anymore. i think what happens is -- and what's happened in particular in the aftermath of this financial crisis is people have gone down other avenues. delirium tremens ability is a great example. millions of americans did drop out of the labor force and took up disability benefits. we also are seeing with younger individuals, millennials, more people staying home, going back to school. so they are actually staying with their parents. and at any final word on labor participation. the result of the dropoff is the weak economy but there's also a much longer demographic

trend which some would argue nation happenened after the market crash. the fact is we have millions of baby boomers moving into their retirement years, and we knew the labor foors 'tis pace was going to decline that the point in time. we knew it was going to happen because these baby boomers were aging and moving into retirement. so this decline in participation we've seen was predictable and doesn't tell us that much about the strength or weakness in the economy. host: next ray on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. about five or six months ago i had the opportunity to ask a question on this program of a harvard economics professor. and we got into a little bit of a debate, and i asked him, i said well, ron paul once called for legislation to --

the fed. and this man on television same as you're doing right now. said that you never want to see an -- he said i would not want to see an audit of the fed which leads me to the point where last year it was announced the fed was stripping money and buying federal debt. how can you print money out of thin air, buy federal debt to run our government, and at what interest rate? and how much money is authorized to be in print? i can't find this anywhere. and an audit would show -- i think we're playing with a fire cracker here. golic: let me talk to a couple of these things. the one is the audit.

the fed's effort led by former congressman ron paul. now his son and paul and the other is the fed's printing or money. so on the audit. this is a debate that's been going on for some time. a number of lawmakers -- well, let me back up. the fed has this aura before the financial crisis of expertise and command. that i think a lot of people in the country are -- or on capitol hill really bought into. alan greenspan was seen as an oracle who could do no wrong. the financial crisis really damaged the fed's reputation and undermined a lot of confidence that the fed is going to keep the economy and financial system on a steady course. one of the things that grew out of this was demand.

when the fed was making so many emergency loans to banks and to other financial institutions like a.i.g. and bear stearns. so the idea of the you had a it is to take a closer look at what the fed is doing. now, this whole idea of auditing the fed and congress runs into a conflict with another idea of how a central bank ought to be run. the economics profession and the central banking profession feel very strongly that it should be independent. in particular, it should be independent from interference by lawmakers 257bd white house regarding interest rates because you can envision in an election year when you have an incumbent president. and weave seen this before. it happened in the 1970's when a candidate who very much wanted the economy running as

strongly as possible the people want to re-elect the president. so there's pressure on the president to keep interest rates low. the fed doesn't want to be in a position where it's got to answer to congress for the -- answer to congress about the interest rates. because then it's like in the 1970's where you have the interest rate too low. host: and what's the status of the audit the legislation currently? guest: well in the house of representatives. in fact, it was approved in the last congress. but this -- you have -- you will have on richard shelby on later. he is not a fan of it. he understands the institution needs to be held accountable and that the institution needs to be independent. the other argument that the fed

makes is it's very transparent. it is the case that they produce a balance sheet we can look at every week. a publicly-traded company produces balance sheets we can look at every so often. but the identity of each and every one of those bonds is public. it's on the new york fed's website, and the accountability office has done audits. but the fed doesn't want congress poking its nose into its policy meetings and saying, you know you should push rates higher or lower. host: shelby has vobalinged some other types of changes into the way the fed is governed and regarding

transparency. will that gain any traction? guest: well, it's interesting. you would think there are a lot of things congress might do to exam how did the fed do before the financial crisis? how did it do right after the financial crisis? and how can it be changed? there are other opinions forming around congress. for example, republicans and congress want to impose a rule on the fed that if it ascribes a certain interest rate -- they kind of bind it. the fed is very resistant for example, to any change. in fact at a press conference in june, it was asked, is there anything congress can do right now to reform and make it more effective? and her response was, someone should define the problem

before they try to change anything about what we do. so what she was effectively saying was, no. there's nothing they effectively embrace. we should come back at one point to the money printing. i don't want to leave that person's question unanswered. host: next on the independent line jesse, go ahead. what is your comment? caller: hi, jon. i have a quick question. you mentioned interest rates. my question is, how do you think or what economic implications can you derive from impending short-term interest rates? even the dollar and other currencies. is there anything you can shed a light on? guest: yes. so financial markets are very focused on the fed's decision to raise interest rates. they are fairly obsessed with

this question. and it does matter. when the fed has made monetary decisions before, it has had really big impacts on markets all over the world. so frfs this event in 2013 we called the taper tantrum that they had been doing this bond-buying, had been buying federal debt in an effort to keep long-term interest rates down. and they stopped. they didn't stop. they said they were thinkingability stopping this bond-buying program, and markets went haywire. in particular, emerging market currencies. and our own u.s. long-term interest rates went way up, because markets were unprepared for that moment. they thought the fed was going to be buying for a lot longer than it indicated it would. so it could have long-term effects. in this case there are two

things we should talk about. one, the fed has been signaling this increase in interest rates for a long time. so i suspect when it happens, it's not going to come as a shock to investors and we might see it come and go without really dramatic effect. because they have been signaling it for so long. the other point i would make is where we really need to keep an eye on things is the dollar and international markets. because the fed right now is looking like it's going to be going in a different direction than most of the rest of the world. the e.c.b. has launched a bond buying program. they are trying to reduce interest rates. in fact, in some european countries, they have -- the swiss national bank has a reserve rate of negative .5%. what this means is if you're a bank in squitserland relent and want to

leave money on reserve, you have to pay the single bank to allow you to do it. the central bank of china is dealing with a slowing economy and they are blowing interest rates to take steps to ease economic conditions. what you have is an environment where the fed is raising interest rates and all of these others are lowering it. when that does is put up or pressure on our currency. we have seen the dollar get stronger. what could happen in the months ahead is the stronger dollar, weaker foreign currencies, maybe with the potential of pressure on the chinese. perhaps dislocations in other parts of the world. i think we will be talking in the second half of this year, as we have been lately, about turmoil outside of the u.s.. host: let's get to the previous caller's point about is the fed just printing money? guest: they are not literally

printing money. they were printing trillions of dollars worth of currency. not literally bills that roll off the paper presses. whenever a television program does a story about the fed, you always see that picture of the printing press. in this case, it is digital money. the fed is placing deposits, placing funds in the hands of banks with the hope that they will lend that money out. they did that to the score of $2.6 trillion when they went out and bought all of these bonds. what they wanted to do was by buying all of the bonds that they bought, the u.s. treasury government loans, mortgage bonds was to hold down interest rates to stimulate the economy. the risk they took was that by printing all of that money, they were going to cause inflation

or that they would cause a big drop in the value of the dollar. when you increase the supply of something, that should reduce its value. they reduced the supply of dollars -- that should suggest it reduces the value of the dollar. the other risk as they would set off a financial bubble as we had in the housing market. that could break our next financial crisis. we have not -- our official measures of inflation are very low. the official measures have been below 2% -- the fed's goal for two years. the dollar has gotten stronger. it is a good time to take a trip to europe area the euro is weaker than the dollar. the financial bubble -- that is something we need to keep an eye out for and look for signs of excesses. one of my measures of bubbles is

if it comes out in a cocktail party. host: very scientific. guest: it is a great time to buy a house. i am going to buy a house and it will go up 20% in the next couple years. i don't know about you -- i am not seeing a lot of a cocktail party talk right now. this country is experiencing some damaging hangover from the financial crisis. i would point to history. after the great depression in the 1930's, we had a war. we had a very long period of exceptionally low interest rate in the united states. through the 1940's and into the 1950's. at the same time, we had a very long period with a very large said -- fed balance sheet in the 1940's and 1950's that was residue of the great depression. it took a really long time for

the fed to wind that down. it did not happen into well into the 1950's. i think we are headed into a period with a wind down of the exceptionally low rates and exceptionally low balance sheet. this is like a patient who went through a devastating trauma and is taking years to get back on his feet . host: tennessee, democratic line, good morning to you. [inaudible] host: moving on to roger in michigan, democratic line. good morning. guest: good morning -- caller: good morning. i would like to say that for some of us the recession has not ended. it has gone on. he mentions that it is a financial hangover. this is like tequila and it never ends.

i am a self-employed builder. the last time i built a house was 2001. i personally feel like the banks waged financial warfare almost on some of us. example -- boa raised my interest rate on a loan from 4.9% to 29.9% in one month. the banks of the universal default which cut off all of the funded=ing for a small business like myself to be able to declare money. that takes her credit rating down -- that's takes your credit rating down. you have to have the time in your life and the economy recover enough to rebuild that credit rating, or keeps going on and on. where do we go from here as far as trying to get money that is available for small business and also the other effect -- i live

50 miles north of detroit. flint, i just drove through the other day, they are finishing demolishing the plants. it is a huge complex. if you're going to employ someone who is a professional which i am, you have to make enough money that you can actually pay someone. host: that is roger for michigan. related comments on twitter -- one rights, the segment is too depressing for me. [laughter] another rights thank you the fed, the 1% has cleaned up the equity markets while the rest of us have not gained anything. guest: this brings up a couple of points. trying to be frank. what i hear about the comment about the 1% and the comment about the banks is a real sense of frustration and anxiety. i hear this all the time.

how the government's responses to the financial crisis has played out for average americans. the government poured all of this money into the banking system to keep the banks from collapsing. it poured all of this money into financial markets to keep interest rates low and the financial rates functioning. a lot of people who were best off benefited from all of that whereas people like this caller in michigan are really struggling. i think there is a lot of that out there. it points to a dilemma -- two points. one is a dilemma that authorities have when you have a financial crisis. the fact is we need a banking system. this caller really want to do that. if you do not have a inking system and don't have access to credit smaller businesses

aren't starting new products. they are not hiring people. they are not creating income for average americans. we saw in a financial crisis when the banking system is threatened it can do devastating damage to the economy. the people at the fed and treasury -- i should say when the crisis started it was republicans running the treasury department. it was only after the 2008 election that it was a democrat. they realized they had to keep this banking system on its feet. that led to a choice between doing what is good and what is doing -- and doing what is right. it does not feel right to pour all of this money to banks when they cause the problems in the first place. it was a good thing to do in that if you did it, -- if you didn't, the unemployment would have been worse -- to the great depression rates. the same thing for financial markets. you don't want to have financial

markets freezing up because again, that throws sand into the gears of the economy. one of the unfortunate effects of that is that you and up with people in the best financial position able to take advantage of all of the money that the government is throwing at the problem. we did a story a few years ago about how the fed lowering interest rates. what we saw happen is that people with good credit where reinforced -- refinancing five times. people with bad credit could not get access to the low rates that they needed more than anybody else to get access to refinancing their mortgage and get their interest rates down. there was not a way to make that happen. at least, they do not bring it up. host: the next caller is susan from maryland on the independent line. good morning, you are on the air. caller: i just wanted to say

that i learned a lot about the federal reserve from mr. jon hilensrath. i learned a lot that i never really understood. i appreciate you in explaining all of these things. i was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the sum, the word that you started out with. i would like to have an understanding of what that means. host: that is susan from maryland. as you mentioned fed speak is its own language. guest: susan is getting into tea leaf reading by the federal reserve. the fed holds these meetings a few times a year. the meetings last three days. at the end of the meeting, they put out a statement.

the statement is 300-500 words. the statement explains how they think the economy is doing. they explain what their policy is. they give some indication of what they will do next. people in financial markets pay a lot of attention to literally every word and every comma in the statements. so much money -- $4.5 trillion in this case -- are on the line about whether or not the fed changes its policy. what they have been saying this year is that before they raise interest rates, they want to see two things happen. they want to see progress in the labor market. additional progress in the labor market. they want to see the unemployment rate come down more. they want to see monthly readings of hiring going at about 200,000 -- increases of 200,000 a month. the other piece of it is they want to see inflation, which has been the official measure below

2%, they want to become confident that inflation will get back to their goal of 2%. they inserted the word some into their statement. they said they wanted to see some additional progress in the labor market. what this meant that for people who follow this closely, and their mind they have seen a lot. they have seen a lot of progress and a job market. the unemployment rate has come down to 5.3%. we have had many months of increases of 200,000 a month in payrolls. they wanted to see additional progress which means and their mind they are getting close to the finish line. they are getting close to the point where they can say the job market is not completely back to normal but is close enough that we feel we don't have to be at this crazy 0% interest rate anymore. that is what some meant. they are in the back of the

fourth lap of the mile race. host: the fed officials and their staff compiled detailed economic forecasts of where they think the economy is headed. some of that information was recently leaked. this story in the new york times recently said leaked fed staff forecast reflects gloomy expectations for u.s. economy. they went on to say they are pessimistic about the prospect. according to an internal document, the central bank mistakenly put online. and you take to us -- talk to us a little bit about how the fed handles sensitive information and these rate -- recent inquiries over this type of issue? guest: the question about how the fed handles sensitive information -- the conclusion we are being drawn to recently is not very well.

there is a lot of documentation that gets put together by staff -- hundreds of phd economists are putting together forecast for officials to make decisions about what to do for interest rates. these documents are supposed to be confidential. they are not supposed to be released in fact for five years after the meeting happens. ironically, the fed has been fighting tooth and nail against congress about allowing its own auditors to look at the fed's internal documents before meetings. one of the staffers there accidentally put one of the documents online. it was discovered by another staffer. they had to reveal it because it was there for the public to see. there are a number of other inquiries going on right now about potential leaks going on at the fed.

one of which relates not to documents but how fed officials interact with people in the public. the fed is in this unusual place where they want to have their fingers on the polls of the economy and they want to have their fingers on the polls of financial markets. they want to have a good sense of what is happening out there when they make decisions about interest rates. when they don't have good information, they can make that mistake. in 2000 in the lead up to the financial crisis in 2007-2008, they do not have the risk -- a sense of the risk that was building up on wall street, and we have the financial crisis. they try to interact with people. they have visitors come in and ask them questions. there were meetings between fed officials and analysts from a group called mentally -- medley

advisers. they wrote up a note in 2012 about her meetings. she let out -- she gave out the impression that she had information or insight into the fed's decisions that were upcoming that gave her an unfair advantage. house republicans, in particular, are very interested in this. the inspector general of the extended board is looking at it. the justice department is looking at it. the fed has to toe this line between interaction with people any public and also giving away confidential information. we see in both of these examples how challenging that can be. host: our next caller is douge from ohio on the democratic line. what is your question? caller: you had a caller earlier

who asked about how much money was out there because the fed was printing money. the fed keeps track of what they print and they also keep track of what they take off of the market. they used to burn it for heat in cleveland. one is called m1 and one is called m2. m1 is all of the currency in the market and m2 is all of the currency plus what is in the banks. maybe the guests in common more on that. thank you for your time. guest: one funny thing -- you talked about burning it for heat. there is paper currency out there. when it breaks down, it has to be destroyed. the fed does have a whole process of carrying out the paper money that comes back to them and destroying it. i have a calling that looks of the funny ways that this get used. i think he found in some places

that it finds its way into countertops, like linoleum countertops. most of the money that the fed is managing, a trillion dollars is actually paper currency. the vast majority is actually digital. it is literally the fed pressing a button and crediting funds to the accounts of banks which and finds its way into the financial system. it is true -- we know exactly how much is out there. the reserves, for instance, this money that the fed has credited to banks -- $2.6 trillion. we know how much is out there. the fed has ideas about what it can do to get rid of it if it has to. the idea is if we get a lot of inflation, the fed goodwill this money back. they have this big portfolio of bonds. they could sell the bond.

if they sell them, they would be taking cash back from anyone who bought the bonds and then effectively wiping it off of its accounts. they will not do that until they are worried that there is inflation and they do not see it right now. host: that is an interesting point. you mentioned the massive size of the fed's balance sheet and here is a may be inflationary. we have not seen inflation rise. what is the disconnect? what went wrong and what went right? guest: it is an important question and it is frightening, actually. it puzzles the fed. they have a meeting every year in jackson hole, a retreat, the kansas city fed as a retreat. what happens there is you get a lot of officials and academics and a get together and they have seminars in the morning. they talk about an important issue of the day, and then they go off and hike in the afternoon in the mountains.

the subject of a seminar at this year's jackson hole retreat is inflation. what causes inflation? you would think with 100 years of history, the f with have a firm graspe on what causes inflation, but the truth is they don't. there are different theories of the sources of inflation that economists and bankers have played with over the years. one is that money is the source of inflation. milton friedman at this famous line that inflation is everywhere and always a function of how much money there is in the financial system. the fed tracks -- and the 1980's they targeted the supply of money and a tract different measures of how much money is out there. this viewer mentioned m1 and m2. one of the problems with money is that you can define it in different ways.

is it just a paper that is out there? is a the digital accounts they have with angst? there are a lot of different measures of money. money is not the whole story. the amount of money out there is not on its own affect prices of goods and services. what matters is how much -- how aggressively the money is changing hands, what economists call the velocity of money. if there is a lot of activity -- lots of money out there and people are buying, selling borrowing, and lending, you see inflation pressures. after the financial crisis, we saw people sitting on her money. the money was out there and it was sitting in a pond that doesn't move. as a result, that is not causing inflation. the argument at the fed or the theory that carries the day at the fed inflation is a function of slack in the economy. how idle resources are. i talked about an idol pool.

if there is a lot of unemployment, that puts downward pressure on unemployment -- on inflation. they can't get pay raises and they don't have money to spend. inflation is contained. if that theory was right, then we should be seeing some sign of inflation because the unemployment rate has come down from 10% to almost 5%. it has fallen in half. despite that fact, we have not gotten much inflation in the official statistics. another idea that they play with is that, and this gets into the realm of the esoteric, what really matters is the money or the unemployment but what is happening in our own heads. it's people's expectations that drive inflation. if you think there is inflation you will behave in a way that creates inflation. the idea of expectation plays into it. the bottom line is, with the

case with economics is, these are all factors. it makes the fed's decisions really hard. if they raise interest rates expecting inflation and it never shows off -- up, they could make a real mistake and sink an economy that has not fully recovered from the crisis. host: next on the phone lines is tim from michigan on the independent line. guest: not a lot of republicans today. caller: top of the morning to you. thank you for c-span, and high jon. i want an answer that i haven't done quite yet. we know that the fed is using unemployment to set interest rates. they are holding interest rates at 0%. in 2009, obama said that because of the republicans, they were losing jobs at a rate of 800,000 a month. now, when they give the unemployment rate, they give it

weekly of 250,000 is that to deceive the public? guest: the short answer to your question is no. there are certainly people out there who want to deceive and spend. -- spin. i can't answer for what democrats or republicans are saying about the data, but i can talk about the sources of the data. what obama was talking about early in his administration, i suspect what you are referring to, is the monthly job reports. once a month, the bureau of labor statistics produces a report is on two different surveys it does to get a sense of how the job market is doing. one survey is a survey of businesses, the establishment survey.

they ask businesses how many people are on your payrolls? how much are you paying them? they use this survey to produce a report that shows how much hiring there is and how much firing there is. what is the overall level of employment for the economy and for individual industries? the other survey is a survey of households. they asked people do you have a job? have you been looking for a job? one was the last time you looked for a job? that survey -- these are both monthly -- is used to produce a measure of the unemployment rate. what was going on during the recession is that there were -- businesses were slashing their payrolls because they were fighting -- frightened about what would happen. payrolls were contracting in large numbers. i don't remember the exact numbers, but in the 500,000 a month level. the unemployment rate was going up.

those were the two surveys you are referring to. there is another survey that the bureau of labor -- it is not the bureau of labor, that the labor department puts out. this is weekly. this is a survey of how many people are going to unemployment centers to collect unemployment edifice. it is called initial unemployment claims. this is a real indicator -- an important indicator. what happens is when the economy is getting soft and people are getting fired, we can see right away within days as people are going to collect unemployment claims. that measure of people collecting unemployment benefits has fallen quite a lot -- less than 300,000 on a weekly aces. that is a sign that the job market is getting back on its feet. what you are being confused by, and perhaps intentionally by politicians, is that people use

different statistics to tell the story that serves the story they are trying to tell. they are cherry picking in some cases from different statistical reports that are out there. it is why you have to watch c-span and read the wall street journal to put it in this -- perspective. we are looking at the surveys and try to keep it all in perspective. host: next caller is charles from louisiana on the republican line. good morning to you. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. a previous caller mentioned about the small business. you mentioned earlier when the fed looks at certain parameters as far as unemployment, as has been said, small businesses generate 85% of employment, but

they have difficult times in securing capital, even with low interest rates. if the fed increases interest rates, that will further push small businesses that really neat capital expansion further down the list. my question to you -- what do you suggest, when you look at it , at the small businesses. i listened to mrs . yellen's speech and what they are trying to do to encourage small businesses. that is like pouring water on the sidewalk and expecting it to penetrate. host: we will have to leave it there because you are the last caller. guest: three things. i don't suggest anything to the fed. i am here to observe and explain and break some news and hold them accountable. it is not my job to tell them

what to do. they have enough people telling them what to do. on the question of small businesses -- the caller is absolutely right. small business is critically important to the economy, and in particular, start a business. research has shown that it is startups that create economic change, that create the potential for exponential job growth. google and twitter were just startups a few years ago. we really want to nurture the entrepreneurial startup side of the economy. the question is whose job is that? is if the fed's job to nurture specific sectors and the economy or should it be left to the devices of free markets themselves? should be left to congress and the white house to find ways to do that? the fed likes to see its job in

a macro sense, that they are not trying to target individual sectors. when they get into that, you get into all kinds of debates about favoritism. this happened during the financial crisis. should the fed the favoring banks over other parts of the economy? they try to deal with macro issues and on specific albums like small business. then you get into debates between republicans and democrats about what is the best way to encourage startups and entrepreneurs and small business. unfortunately, they don't see eye to eye on any of that. host: jon hilensrath, thank you for being on this money. next up, according to a new book conducted by c-span, 60% of americans do not think that supreme court justices should serve my terms. all we can long, we will be

following the history and life of augusta georgia. that is on booktv coming up at noon on c-span two. we will be featuring all of our august literary programming. including the only americans to receive the carnegie medal and the medal of honor. >> we are sitting here in the augusta museum of history. about 10 years ago a decision was made to do a permanent military display to honor jimmy dias. i did my research on the book. i went through 9000 carnegie medal recipients. 3500 or so have a lot of recipient since the civil war. it turns out he is the only

person ever to receive the word because it is such a unique story, and because this man is my wife's father, i decided to write a book about him. he would almost assuredly say he would not deserve it. he might point to somebody else who was more heroic than he was. he was very humble. he never talked about the carnegie medal. when i interviewed people who knew him when i did the book people knew him well. i said, tell me, what about the carnegie medal that he earned it he was 19. they did not know anything about it. he was very modest. he did not think he deserved it, so he never talked about it. he probably through it -- i think he would've in the same way. i have known a lot of medal of honor recipient. most of them will tell you it should have been given to somebody else. it is a piece of humility. i think he was in a category. >>"book tv" is television for

serious readers. this sunday, the author of several books including "stop the were now," and others. during our three hour conversation, we will be taking your phone calls and tweets. then on september 5, we are live in our nation's capital for our national book festival. on sunday, lynne cheney. that is some of the upcoming life programs on c-span2's booktv. >> washington journal continues. host: for our final half hour we will be talking about the u.s.'s supreme court. justices serve life terms. some are such a thing that should be changed. we want to know what you think. here is how we are dividing the

finance for the segment. if you support term limits, call us at host: 202-748-8000, if you oppose it, call us at 202-748-8001. you can also send us your thoughts on twitter or at c-spanwta. you can also join us online and join the conversation there, or you can send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. c-span recently conducted a poll and here is what they found. they asked the question, currently supreme court justices serve lifetime appointment. do you agree, strongly agree disagree, or strongly disagree? here is what they found. out of american adults, the total percent that agree that supreme court justices should serve lifetime appointments was just 40%.

the total number that disagreed with lifetime term appointments for supreme court justices was 60%. that is a change from september, 2009. in september, 2009. 56% of americans disagreed with the idea of lifetime appointment. the number of people who oppose lifetime appointments for supreme court justices has gone up to 60%. the number of people who support it has declined from 45% in september, 2009 to 40% in july, 2015. these poll numbers are similar to one conducted by the pew research center. that poll looked at the view americans had of the supreme court. the headlines of their findings is that negative views of the supreme court are at a record high, driven by republican dissatisfaction.

68% of conservative republicans see the court as liberal. you can see the favorable and unfavorable ratings of the supreme court over time since 1985. the unfavorable views of the supreme court have risen from 28% to 48% in 2015. those having a positive view of the supreme court fell from 44% in 1985 to 48% in 2015. what do you think? should we put term limits on supreme court justices? let's turn to your calls. the first one is rod from riverside, california who supports term limits. why do you think that? caller: i think that because what happens is a lot of people who get in there are corrupt. if they are in there for life, then they do a lot of injustice to justice by being corrupt and

going along with what their friends want them to do. host: do you have any sense of how long you think a justice of cert if not for life? -- should serve if not for life? caller: eight years. host: next caller is bruce from chicago, illinois. also in support of term limits for supreme court justices. why do you believe that? caller: i believe that because when the supreme court is supposed to be there to interpret law and what people are appointed and they had democratic or republican bias and they vote either liberal or conservative, that is not their job. people should be required to sit there and be a neutral arbitrator of justice. i would think if you left them in for eight years, it would be a god's plenty. host: last week texas republican senator and pretends -- presidential candidate ted

cruz had a hearing on whether or not supreme court justices should have limits. he asked for judicial reform of the sprinkler. here is some from a hearing. senator cruise: if any of us believe in constitutional rule of law, then whether or not we agree with the outcome of these policy decisions, we should be horrified at the notion that five unelected judges can seize for themselves the policymaking authority and take it from the american people. we did not establish philosopher kings in this country. we did not establish a role by unelected elites to seize decision-making authority from the american people. indeed, that is the very definition of tyranny. hence this hearing.

to discuss what options the american people have to rein in -- judicial tyranny. host: that was senator ted cruz on the need of judicial reform for the supreme court. we are taking your phone calls to find out what you think. should supreme court justices face -- serve limited terms instead of lifetime unemployment? the c-span poll we referenced earlier also include a question about how people will be suffering affects their daily life. the question was -- 85% of american idol's agree that the supreme court has an impact on their everyday life. only 15% disagree that the supreme court helps -- hold sway over their everyday life. our next caller is dated from conway, massachusetts. he opposes term limits. why do you think they we should -- why do you think they should

be serving for life? caller: i think if they are not they are more like politicians who get lots of money and are influenced by that money to take certain actions. whereas, if they are in for life, they are less likely to be looking for a payoff in the end for the actions that they have taken. as mr. cruz points out, he believes they are doing all kinds of nefarious things there. i would agree that some decisions are not so good. at least they are not going out to work for another company in eight years. they are there and they have to deal with the decisions they have made. sometimes things come back to them that they have already decided on. it is important that they don't get affected by donations and

money and future jobs. it is important, i believe. host: do you see the court currently as conservative or liberal? caller: i would certainly suggest that with citizens united it is incredibly conservative in that position. with something like lgbt stuff it appears to be liberaland some people's minds. in effect, it is about civil rights. with citizens united, i would take a different approach and say that was just wrong. money does not equal speech. if a corporation really is a person, they should be paying into social security and medicare.

they should also have a lifespan if they are a person. host: that is david from conway massachusetts. a senator from an -- vermont had this to say about this. our next caller is built from chicago, illinois in support. caller: it has been on uptime maybe 30 years. -- enough time.

elected officials look for future jobs. they pass laws to set up a future of profitable income. we do not want that out of supreme court judges. it has to be at least 30 years in the hopes that they don't do that. host: that is bill from chicago. up next is marjorie from delaware. why do you think supreme court justices should have term limits? caller: the supreme court consists of old republican and democratic people that lena knows directions -- that lena in those directions. they vote accordingly. if you have more liberal judges or conservative judges, they

will vote that way. host: do you think having term limits would change that? caller: that exactly. it would make it a little bit more fair and that if you do have a lot more liberals on the bench than conservatives you are going to have liberals dominating for a longer period of time. you are going to make the playing field a little bit more even if they definitely have term limits. a lifetime, to me, is absurd. host: a third of what, marjorie? caller: absurd. host: oh, sorry about that. caller: as people age, their ability also becomes more limited.

i think the idea of someone serving until they die, almost, is kind of ridiculous. host: that is marjorie from delaware. of next is kevin from smithfield, north carolina also calling in support of limits for supreme court justices. why do you think that? caller: i think they should be limited to 10 years. if we have term limits not only at the supreme court level but throughout our system, it would generally improve the balance that we are seeking. judicial misconduct has been rampant. it is the only branch that does not really police itself very well. by term limits, you allow people to have the input that they were intended with the constitution. host: that is kevin from north

carolina. our next caller is elizabeth from chicago illinois calling to oppose the idea of term limits for supreme court justices. go ahead. caller: thank you. i think the idea of lifetime period of time being on that bench is ridiculous. you can look at citizens united and see all of the damage that has been done. they are allowing the oligarchs to completely take over this country. that is all i have to say. host: that was elizabeth from chicago. here is a list of the supreme court justices and how long they have served so long -- so far. you can see that scalia was sworn in september 26, 1986. he has served for 28 years 10 months. justice kennedy was sworn in under ronald reagan in 1988.

27 years. the shortest serving justice so far is justice kagan appointed by barack obama sworn in on august 7 2010 and assert almost five years. our next caller is amy, calling in from texas to support term limits. caller: i support term limits. i see these justices voting not so much according to the law but according to their religious ideals. also, i don't know if term limits would help, but there is a long line of cases waiting to be heard by the supreme court. what i had heard from a c-span show was that citizens united the court decided that they wanted to try that case.

it was not brought to them. they wanted to look for. if something with that much power can take and choose something they think they want to make a ruling on, and a ruling like this one, that scares the crud out of me. host: did you say how long you think they should serve? any ideas? caller: maybe 15 years. if you make the limit to short -- too short, you end up getting people who are like ambassadors. you get appointed to the office because you helped somebody get elected, whether or not you can do the job doesn't matter. having them there so long, after a while you realize you can do anything you want and then it doesn't matter what the actual law is. it is what you personally think

not what you intellectually think. host: that is amy from texas. our next caller is glenn from bellevue washington in support of term limits. make your case. caller: i think there should be term limits because it is awfully obvious what is taking place in the supreme court now. we have people who vote one side all the time. what roberts did is unthinkable. also, ted cruz, who says he supports the constitution legally, by the constitution cannot run for president. he was born in canada and lived in canada and the constitution article to covers that really strongly. host: let's keep this to the supreme court. the question for you. do you feel like recent

decisions regarding the affordable care act or same-sex marriage, as a change your opinion of the court and whether justices should serve limited term? caller: that has something to do with it. also, the decisions they have made. you are going to say i'm prejudice, but the women have always led to the democrats. all of the decisions. that is wrong. they should be going on the constitution, not political belief. host: that is glenn from washington. the next caller is michael from avon park, florida. he is going to oppose term limits to supreme court justices. go ahead. caller: thank you, c-span, for putting me on the air. i oppose term limits because a judge should always be unbiased.

they are appointed by democrats and republicans. two vote, hopefully, with their parties. a don't. -- they don't. they go with the constitution that has been here for 230 years. millions of men have died to make that claim to the constitution. then you of people, because they don't agree with what the court says, they want to change. good luck, america. host: that is michael from florida. our next caller's john from hamburger sv, new mexico calling to oppose -- albuquerque, new mexico calling to oppose term limits. caller: the supreme court is a uniquely qualitative institution. term limits for life, the more experienced, the wiser, the less

concern for outcome the better. even with william douglas in his own senile way opposing right wing elements on the court automatically, this is a system that works. it is a system that america does not realize what it is doing. host: do you think that the court is becoming more politically polarized? caller: it has been more politically polarized. justices will speak in public today about each other and about decisions are in it wasn't so in the past. even citizens united should be the impetus for greater distribution of wealth. there is genius behind the system. to tamper with the supreme court . when you look at state courts e when they go to elected only, it is the individual rights that are implicated by that.

let me get this straight. with too much money and elections, and election is foul therefore the court should run elections. that is extreme logic of reverse variety. host: that is john from new mexico. our next caller is ira from palm beach, florida. in support of term limits. caller: i am in support of term limits and the reason is with both laws the way they are, if you oppose term limits, you get justices with terms undefined. if you feel that term limits give justices change. law workers can still work

backdoor for whatever they lobby for, get those terms in through those who change without administration and term change. either way neither of those are a product of a straightway making pat with jaws -- with laws being just and less the supreme court is just themselves. host: this story and the atlantic is titled why the supreme court needs term limits.

the story goes on to say how did we get here? politics have polarized and competition from arizona, george calling in support for supreme court justices. -- for term limits. caller: i think term limits should be eight or 12 years at most. this should apply to all federal judges. these guys get on the bench and

they are old and nobody questions them. it is really going to destroy our whole democracy. especially sitting judges if they are opinionated. just like in life, there is evolution. if a person gets into office and they are in their 30 years, they don't change philosophically even though everything has changed. you have got to get new blood in there to give people an even break. this is a disgraceful system we have right now, especially the federal courts in the individual cities. they are confiscating land. these people are above the law. most of them -- they are smart people, but they are done in actual living -- dumb and how this country is going. host: chris from buffalo, new york in support of term limits. go ahead. caller: i have got to be honest.

if age and wisdom where the equalizer, citizens united would never have happened. i don't agree with 30 year limits either because you put them on the bench for 30 years and they are 50 or 60 years old 80 or 90 years old by the time it is over with anyway. i believe in a 12 or 15 your limit. i don't believe the constitution is a sacred document written in stone the can't be changed. i don't see these people not being political. they don't have to be elected. they can be appointed and confirmed by the senate. anybody sitting on a job for life -- that is not a reason to not be corrupt. if you give somebody a job with that kind of power and it does. it affects daily life for everyone. look at politics now. everyone is sitting around screaming going look at the money, look at the money. the money is in a because of citizens united. there is no way to reverse that because these people sit on the bench until they pass away or

retire. host: that is chris from new york. the last caller of the show today is another chris from las vegas, nevada calling to oppose term limits. caller: they are incorrect. i want to make radically enhanced term limits. i think they should be seven years. i think they should limit supreme court justices to not having all of their shit. they have these conflicts invested in financial interest. that creates supreme conflict. host: chris from nevada. that was the last word on our segment on the supreme court justices and whether or not they should have term limits. that ends our show for today. we will see you tomorrow in the washington journal. we will be speaking about the road to the white house

tomorrow. we will also be talking with michael wiley, a reporter of bloomberg news. he will be talking about the recent breaches and how the data is being used. we will see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] obama this morning on c-span, members of congress discuss medical innovation and other issues. then, in house foreign affairs hearing on the iran nuclear agreement with secretary of state john, ernest ponies and jack lew.