tv Washington Journal CSPAN July 19, 2014 7:00am-10:01am EDT
host: here is your chance to weigh in. if you want to make your thoughts known on what the u.s. response should be to the shot down playing on our social media channel, you can post on our twitter page, put a thought on e-mail us. several responses from the white house. united nations ambassador, the state department come all of which you can see on c-span.org. here is the response is when it comes to headlines in today's papers. the new york times. you go to the pages of the wall street journal. when you go to the los angeles
times. just some of the examples of the headlines to the story specifically. the incident that took place over ukraine -- president obama, you probably solve the full news conference he had before we started this program. andighlighted russia's role the role that president putin has to play to change the situation there. [video clip] >> what we do know is that the inlence is taking place large part because of russian support. to movee the ability those separatists in another direction. if mr. putin makes the decision that we are not going to allow and the flow of
fighters into ukraine across the border, it will stop. separatists the and enter into negotiations allow the political accommodations that mr. putin says himself he wants to see. he has the most troll over that situation. so far, he has not exercised it. host: joining us now on the phone to talk about the issue is matthew lee with the associated press. diplomatic writer for the organization. if you had to summarize the message coming out of the white house yesterday, specifically concerning the ukraine plane incident, what would that be? the message from the un security council is that russia
has to change paths. the world outrage about this is a disaster for the russians. they're going to have to step up and rein in the separatists and get them to talk. get them into a negotiations with ukrainians to end this once and for all. host: talk about the tone that was sent at the went about this incident. -- at the u.n. about this incident. caller: they're quick to say that they will not prejudge the outcome of any investigation. --re making it clear that they are making it clear that they know that the separatists with russian help were behind this downing of the plane. investigation on
the u.s. side is pretty much complete. exact details of who specifically fired the missile and whether or not it was russian coordination with it are still unknown. and others in the west are convinced that that is what happened. it is interesting to note that in their comments, president putin and the russian ambassador u.n. have not specifically denied the american charges. they have said that the ukrainians -- this would not have happened at all if ukraine had not continued its military operations in the area. that,ssage from russia is while they are not denying any
role in this, they are saying that the overall situation is bad and that ukraine is responsible for the militarization and the violence in the area. host: we heard about the sanctions from the u.s. and european allies. will it be the only means of trying to correct the situation? the white house is hoping this galvanizes what had been some cetacean among some .ther countries in europe announcement of new targeted sanctions against russia -- several large banks and companies. the european union said it was going to move in the same direction, but then gave themselves until the end of the month to name the specific
entities and individuals they would target. there is a hope among the administration now that the europeans, because of this plane quicker andll act more strongly than they might have otherwise. the european union was reluctant, but as far as the --ted states will john kerry be involved in some type of discussions with the leadership? my impression now is, yes. probably next week, we will see -- this is ary uess, but a pretty solid
guess that he will be in the region. trying to bring together consensus on how to go forward and step up pressure on russia if they don't act in the interim themselves. host: matthew lee from the associated press. thanks for your perspective this morning. if you want to comment on the u.s. response and what it should be, to the extent you think there should be a response when it comes to the downed plane over the ukraine, here is your chance to do so. for democrats. republicans. for for independents.
we start on our independent line with brad. caller: the obama administration knows. and whputin russians play chess, americans play basketball. everything he does as well planned out. host: you heard the president talk about the u.s. response and matthew lee give his perspective on the diplomacy front. should more be done? they can don't think do anything more than what they have other than writing a letter to him by the united nations. the obama administration is
weak. host: sydney from louisiana. independent line. have you all forgotten that we shut down the iranian airline? have you forgotten that the ukraine shut down a russian airliner? why don't you play how this mess got started? nulandl the victoria tapes where she talks about who we want to be the new president there and the money we spent and when she was asked andt her jewish heritage her answer was, you would have to talk to a psychiatrist. we forget what americans do and
then, if someone else has a crimem, we make there's a -- theirs a crime. the news media is not covering the whole story. it's one-sided. about leadingg people around by the nose. what are you doing to the american public when you hide information from the public and only give one side of the story? host: bronx, new york. lawrence. caller ise last correct with mistakes we have made. we've made big mistakes as the world watched. dangerous leader in russia. , lot of people in russia important people are getting tired of him as he causes them to lose money.
our president is taking the right approach. also plays athis positive role in our situation with russia. that there areow crazy people over here who would push to the precipice of atomic war. i don't think the obama administration will be pushed into doing anything reckless. we are moving to a cold war. host: vincent from tulsa, oklahoma. republican line. caller: i think there's a couple of things going on. -- somehow putin is backing up rebels.
i saw the rocket shot off on cnn. it really is their fault. as we go through the morning, there are pictures coming up from the investigation --m the associated press from the associated press. pictures coming in of the crash site itself. we will show you those as the morning goes on. (202) 585-3880 for democrats. (202) 585-3881 for republicans. (202) 585-3882 for independents. new york. independent line. caller: all of this is due to the conflict in ukraine. we have not picked sides here. this conflict has to be
resolved. if it's not resolved, this incident might happen again in the future. has sites youn supporting and the united states support. to cease-fired be a until the investigation is carried out. it takes a long time. somebody is going to start the conflict in eastern ukraine. independent investigation is not going to go through. for now, there should be a total cease-fire. fight,body instigates a they should be burdened with the responsibility. someone has to be responsible. i'm not going to pick a side. host: the russian responses highlighted in the washington
manages to turn the east into a war zone, how much will that affect the europeans when they are airlines start failing? -- when they are airlines start failing? host: rebecca. from virginia. caller: i believe we should stay out and let ukrainians and russians take care of this. we don't know how many other governments might be in with this or how many other rebels might be in all of this. people know what a few are reporting. know all of it. i think the united states should
take care of the united states borders and let ukraine take care of their borders. host: what do you think about the u.s. response to this so far? don't believe anything that comes out of the white house anymore. i don't think obama likes putin. he will make anything off that man he can. ,'m not saying putin is right but i don't think anything he's -- i wouldn't believe anything come out of this white house. the news is one-sided. you have to go on the internet or something to find out the
ohio. independent line. -- the i'm curious a flightshot down coming from alaska towards korea. what did we do that in? what do we do when the russians forced the piii o'brien to land and then stripped it down and send it back to us? what happened to us when we shot down an iranian airbus? all we can do is what we are doing right now. you can protest all you want. when you have not done anything in the past -- it wasn't obama that was president when the orion was taken by the chinese and we did nothing. he was not president when the
korean airline was shot down. presidentsn't when we shot down at the iranian airliner. it's funny how it's all of a sudden obama's fault. these people are going to have to get over the fact that when a wakes up, he's black. he will have to deal with it for two more years. host: virginia. democrat line. caller: i agree with the previous caller. the difference with the way america has responded, the way the obama administration has responded -- the response is appropriate. utin out. pruden the russian military has been
helping the rebel force in eastern ukraine. they have the capability to do that. putin is playing a game. we have to figure out what it is and get ahead of it. checkmate. would you support increased actions in ukraine to help stabilize the country? weapons,f they need john mccain says we should have given them weapons. there are always two sides to that. what if they are so that they shoot down a civilian airliner? you have to weigh those things. , theresident is correct knee-jerk reaction to give
--pons and be done with it it was not done on purpose. they probably thought it was some kind of ukraine military plane. host: bob from illinois. republican line. i would just like to ask why we are not allowed to go in and do an investigation on this plane. territory. ine would like to make a statement about putin. he has an agenda. you can do all the sanctions you want. person and he's got an agenda that he will carry
out the matter what we do here . to ramp our military back up and be on guard for whatever happens. host: the associated press provides a picture of samantha yesterday.fying part of her statement said that when it came to the ukrainian government, they have the systems, but we were not aware that they were in the area. it separatists were behind this, they would have reason to cover up their crime. calling for an immediate investigation. she went on to talk about the russian support of separatists and laid out incidents and what she says -- here is part of what she said yesterday. [video clip] separatists shot down a ukrainian transport plane carrying nine crew.
wasune 24, this council meeting. we received word that separatists down a ukrainian helicopter. on july 14, they claimed credit for the downing of the ukrainian military cargo plane. on july 16 him a they claimed credit for the downing of a ukrainian fighter jet. if indeed russian backed separatists were behind this attack on a civilian airliner, they and their backers would have good reason to cover up evidence of their crime. thus, it is extremely important that investigation be commenced immediately. host: timothy from virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. is holding inutin arun-fest over russia -- iron fist over russia. economic sanctions are not going
to stop him. upy're not going to lift this iron fist he has held. too many businesses into many countries are worried about their business opportunities in russia. the ukraine crisis has become a worldwide crisis. there is a time when each country reaches its breaking point. breaking point. citizens of the u.s. and other european countries have died. history has proven that its citizens are to be killed, we need to take action. host: the washington post highlights a bit about the investigation. some of the things that go on there.
detroit, michigan. this is chris on the democrats line. caller: good morning. the russiand about separatists taking over the area where the plane crashed. i don't think -- i think the government of ukraine should go in there and make a cease-fire for a minute. come in and check out the site and the crash and all the people
-- the bodies that are there. so people can get their relatives and bury them responsibly. why somebody doesn't do a cease-fire between those russians, just for a everybodyafter gathers their relatives, take care of their bodies and bring them home, then they can start fighting again. after they make a compromise on this situation so they can respect the people that are lost
in that particular situation. russians and those separatists are the ones that are causing all this. they should not let the world they should and -- let the world have its way and come in and get their relatives. host: new york. republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. to --ious caller alluded i would like to know what brand of justice was done when the u.s. navy mistakenly shot down a commercial airliner in years ago. -- many years ago. as to when theon russians shot down the korean airliner. thatd military intercepts proved that they had a visual and they knowingly shot down a commercial airliner.
host: as far as the current situation? caller: it's become a political football. this rent isact -- act, whether it was intentional or a mistake has to be investigated. re is so muchthey are outrage when we know that they have shot down a commercial airliner in the past. we have done the same thing with just as many people on board. york.al from new independent line. caller: good morning. my grandfather was from the ukraine. int there under the czar 1905. remember him accent about thick
the tiger never changes its strikes. he's talking about russia. putin wants to reinvestigate or reignite the spirit of the old russia. out in the woods that you have to be afraid of. us, youre not afraid of don't respect us. that is their view. goes, theykraine have set borders recognized by the world. who knows that. -- putin knows that. fuel, food, things. i was in the army. back in vietnam, we used to call them. -- we used to call them guerrillas. they are proxies for putin. and time that we step in
start encouraging the ukrainian people to stand up for your country and take it back. if russia wants part of ukraine, give them true noble -- chernobyl. this was a heinous act, a callous act. do you think they care about 300 people on an airliner? showtime for us to really that we are not afraid of the big, bad bear. we don't have to go to war for this, but we do have to encourage the ukrainians to step up and show their love for the ukraine. twitterchard rogers on --
dan from springfield, virginia. democrats line. in the 1980's when itsia was going down international politics, basically. they are fighting a proxy war. with insurgents in ukraine. they are trying anything to distract the region. should not be doing a whole lot of stuff unless the world comes together and ask. -- and acts.
50% of their energy comes from russia. russia can easily cripple the economy. makene way we can actually a huge impact is to my how are we going to be able to make sure we will be able to help the europeans ensure that their collapsed?not russia is not going to move around and they have the muscle and they are using it. war,s we start a world nothing is going to happen here en. the nextld take away world cup from russia. who wants to go to russia to support their economy?
san jose, california. republican line. caller: i just want to mention that this has been highly aboutcized for something third parties involved. there is a big chance of something related to malaysian airline specifically. somebody is trying to buy it. talk to any investigator one-on-one and they will say this needs to be addressed. thomas from kentucky. democrats line. caller: good morning.
things were really quiet in ukraine until john mccain made a trip over there. a couple of weeks after he came back, the outbreak happened. frequentin is the most deist on the sunday talk shows. he is a war advocate. he presents himself to be an expert. all he has ever done is get his aircraft shot down. he goofed offat when he attended the naval academy. he is not an intelligent man. he owns a great deal of stock in the armaments company that produces military weapons and ammunition. we need to investigate this man. host: adam from west virginia. independent line. believe --ust can't
i've been watching all this s --rage about the ukrainian they are not facing any kind of u.n. ure from the if somebody around here shot down an airline, you would have government, swat teams coming down on you. what is their explanation? rockets?you track rockets?you track host: a couple of international stories. set to meet with central american leaders.
covington, georgia. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a few comments to make. the man that talked about mccain was definitely on target. i feel similar. as far as the incident in ukraine, i think they need to go back and look at the incident that john f. kennedy did with cuba. man doing hisiant thoughts on what needed to be done. an excellent vision for the future of the united states of america. if we went and looked at similar tactics, sanctions are good, but sometimes you need to sanction whereo wear it even -- to
it even hurts us. they were giving their own information. stronger. be a little we will have to sanction russia to the point where they feel it and all of us feel it so that we can make this a better world. host: oklahoma. independent line. think russia is holding all the cards right now. sanctions is our best bet right now. i think we should be pretty clear -- america will not let this escalate into a nuclear war. , weong as it's not nuclear are not going to change that fact. if we start giving weapons to ukraine, that will be reason to cross that border.
the best thing america could do right now is ratchet up sanctions. there are three military powers in this world. we have a lot of economic clout with china and they depend on us. unless we make them take a step -- they want to sit back and let act like we want to take russia's oil. sanctions ratchet up and put china on the spot. americans can't do this. if europe is not going to back , this won't happen.
they will pick up and go home. host: during the many press conferences that were held in ukraineon with the plane incident, one that took place at the defense department, john kirby reiterated statements from the president about military solutions. saying that no military solution was being considered. [video clip] >> the president has been very clear that there will not be a u.s. military solution for the crisis in ukraine. what we have been doing has been efforts to bolster and reinforce and support our nato allies in the region to look for ways to improve our operability and capability to demonstrate our commitment to article five of the nato treaty. that is what you will continue to see us do. there is no effort right now, no to have antention
u.s. military solution to the crisis inside ukraine. the ukrainians have asked for various items of military systems. some nonlethal, some lethal. the focus of our efforts to date has been providing nonlethal assistance. we have also said that we continually review those requests. it's a constant process of taking a look at what ukraine needs and what the united states is willing to provide. right now, focus remains on nonlethal. host: if you want to see what president obama said, go to our website. we have archived these statements and press conferences and you can watch them.
elizabeth from massachusetts. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. it seems to me this is an ideal situation for the u.n. peacekeepers to step in and secure the crash site so the investigators can come in without having drunken separatists fire their rifles in the air. it's a worldwide shame that these bodies are still strewn around the fields. their relatives must be in agony. i don't know why the u.n. has not stepped up and said we will send in our peacekeepers. thank you. host: michael in south carolina on a republican line. i'm with the president
on this one. we need to be patient and have the investigation and wait for the facts to come out her. two ukrainian jet fighters were escorting the plane prior to when it was shot down. not seem to be asking the right questions. why was it flying in unrestricted airspace? why was it told by air traffic controllers to reduce the ty its height? i don't see how russians would benefit from shooting down a commercial airliner. host: the president highlighted the fact that there was no american on board. hopefully, they will let the fbi come in there and investigate and we will get to the bottom of this. my condolences to the families out there. host: scott from arkansas. is that --concern
its aviation in general. we don't have enough protections. there are a lot of scrubs in the system they are using. if this plan would have had chaff flares on it, and could have shot them off and the missile would have hit them instead of the plane. if all of our planes are going to be flying over potentially dangerous areas at any given point am a we should have -- given point, they should have some kind of defense. host: your thoughts being reflected by mark kirk. he is quoted in the washington post about that very thing. they should be equipped with missile defense systems.
we are going to continue on our conversation about the incident over ukraine. hannaest is going to be from the foreign-policy initiative. we will change gears and take a look at guns and gun ownership issues with shannon watts. she will join us later in the program. first, we want to point you to our programming on both american history tv and book tv this weekend. weekend, different city
across the united states is highlighted. at des moines, iowa this weekend. you will meet michael garter, of the deseditor moines register. receivede wrote that the most response from readers. any editorial would be a personal editorial. i've written five in my life. christopher died when he was 17 unexpectedly. got sick one day and died when years ago almost today. -- 20 years ago almost today. i wrote an editorial about him and received enormous response. part of the response was because editorial -- ie worked at nbc and i put tim
russert on the air. he became a close friend and he knew my kids. , as soonstopher died as he heard, the phone rang at and was he was in tears offering sympathy and he said, " if god had come to you 17 years ago and said i'm going to give you a big, healthy, happy, funny, great kid but only for 17 years and after that i will take him away, you would have made that deal." i would have, of course. i put that at the end of the editorial. that brought a tremendous response to me and to russert. >> july 20 marks the 30th anniversary of the first lunar landing. j barberie on the life of the
first man to walk on the moon. 's afterwo c-span2 rd. host: our guest joining us is hannah thoburn. discussiontinue our about the incident in ukraine. what did you make of the white house response yesterday? what they were saying about russia. measured was very compared to the things that samantha power said. i thought he saw a very measured response by president obama. it was wise of him to be slow and pointing fingers. haventelligence reports we
coming out of the defense department do really make it clear that we know where this missile came from and we are reasonably sure who shot it. the next best question is try to figure out where and how these separatists. their hands on this kind of equipment. host: what does it mean for the parties involved? guest: it will be interesting to see -- a lot of it will have to do with russia's response to this. you have seen them say, look, this happened over ukrainian territory. it's their fault. if ukraine had not pushed back , thist these separatists would not have happened. you see russia blaming ukraine for the situation. whether they are going to pull back on what most people believe our russian supported separatist groups is another question. that hedimir putin feel
is in the corner and will lash out again? bethis situation, we will reasonably action area. -- reasonably reactionary. it's difficult. the best we can do is to work diplomateormal t channels. punishment,eans of what do you think of it? guest: it's a heavy question. what do you think of the sanctions at large? , theanctions in general day before the plane was shot down, the united states enacted saying enough is
enough. this is unacceptable. russia havein and .repared themselves big -- theyt been have been slow and piecemeal. it's going to cause pain. whether it's enough pain to actually change vladimir putin's calculations about his support of these separatists in eastern ukraine is very much in question. does anything suggest vladimir putin will pull back from the current actions he is taking? guest: that's a question that is up to him. we would like to think so. we would like to see him respond
to the punishments. he has a general goal in mind. to return russia to the kind of international position that he thinks it should hold. to return russia to being a great power. to a place where russia is respected and perhaps even feared. if he thinks what he is doing leads profitable and helps him on the path to achieving that goal, he will continue. if it becomes clear that he needs to take another path, he is a malleable guy. he is happy and willing to read find another way. host: our guest joining us until 8:30. (202) 585-3880 for democrats. (202) 585-3881 for republicans. (202) 585-3882 for independents. you can tweet questions.
you can e-mail them as well . how much support we get from our european partners on this? guest: you have seen the europeans have really been reticent to jump in with the u.s. on harsher sanctions. that is because the europeans have a greater amount of trade with russia. this is a globalized world we live in. many of the european countries get almost 100% of their natural gas from russia. is interesting thing now that their inactivity is now affecting them. 189 dutch citizens killed in this tragedy. what you are starting to see in these countries is a public
backlash. we will see how that plays out. it could be a bit of a game changer for european action. host: the new york times highlighting that it's a tug-of-war for the netherlands. while the disaster has touched so many comets mindful that --sia must trad guest: france is one of the few countries that is very much tied to russia for its energy needs. it's exactly that problem. europeans have felt pulled between necessity to do something to stop the bloodshed in eastern ukraine while at the same thing d time, doing somethg economicwould have
impact. politicians are understandably to not punish their citizenry. prayer our fro guest. barbara from bridgeport, connecticut. democrats line. guest.s for our caller: i listened to one of the callers earlier. i would like to know why every time there is a problem, the republicans feel we have to get involved. this is a situation where the europeans need to get involved first. not us. our president has done a good job.
he has a cool about himself. he does not rush to jump into every single situation. i am sick and tired of john mccain. one man said it correctly. and he got shot down and he has been whining about that ever since. my grandfather was in world war -- my father was in world war ii. that was the greatest generation. whiningt hear those men and crying. what do you think and how much involvement you think we need to get into this? this was not on our territory. we have nothing to do with this. why do we have to lead first all the time? we don't. it does not mean that because you flex your muscles that you're a big man. everybody is so enthralled with gputin.
there was an american on board the airline. does that change anything in your mind? caller: there was one american on third there were a lot of people on that plane. just because there was one american, we are going to put a bunch of other americans fighting. your: thanks foryou question. it gets at a larger debate we have had within our american society for a while now. what we want the position of america in the world to be? when you talk to people in foreign policy or who work in the government, there is a certain frustration that the europeans are too slow to move or they don't have the kind of resources they need to actually move. you see people
say, look, the europeans want to it. maybe we need to step up and do something about it. guest: that is off the table. we're not talking about getting involved a militarily in eastern ukraine. as far as what the united states what you sawthink yesterday is a very positive step in the right direction. it is standing there and saying we to make sure that this is investigated in an international manner. this was a plane that originated in the netherlands and was from 100 89 dutch citizens on board. it is a malaysian plane and crashed in ukrainian airspace. by russiann down funded rebels.
it needs to be dealt with in an international way. investigators are some of the best of the world. if their expertise is called on then we should provided. i don't think anybody is talking about getting involved in a war in eastern ukraine or fighting with russia. that is off the table. there is a concern that the united states does need to take a leadership role. europe seems to be fractured. >> this is ricky from north carolina on the republican line. good morning. we are not friends with russia. we need to protect the united states.
have.'t host: we are not friends with russia. rough we have had a relationship with russia over the past couple of years. i think it is going to be difficult from now on. particularly when vladimir putin is making the kinds of moves to we've seen him make lately. crimea istion of something we have not seen in europe since world war ii. it is a big deal. onis right for us to be cautious footing when it comes to our relationship with russia. host: a viewer asks on twitter.
that is a very interesting question. i think you can read a book about that question. it is a strange sort of situation where russia and china have been very friendly with each other. both of their interests are aligning. the two of them realize they have some certain things in common. i think one of the things they have in common is making sure that they make themselves felt and heard in the international sphere. one of the things you have seen theimir putin talk about is age is over. this age of the united states being the superpower is over. we are moving to an age of multi-pole a rarity.
he wants to ensure that russia is included. they do have several things in common. i think what is forgotten is they have never been friends, even during the soviet era. there were not friendly to each other. they went through a big split. they did not talk with each other. they almost fought a border war in the 1960's. this is based on a shared current values, but not shared overall values. seen china support russia in some of these u.n. decisions, it is based largely on that. mike is in georgia. hello. forer: i think it is time the united states to stand up and put their big boy pants on. punk.ir putin is a
things are not going to change. he has pushed and shoved. if this was going to get better it would have gotten better by now. why isn the ground, everybody so afraid of that? then he will back down. that is what he is afraid of. as long as he can get away with it he is going to do it. i think it is time for the united states to step up. street journal says this. guest: thank you for the question.
think i come of that question from a position of someone who spent a lot of time studying running putin and through his speeches and seen what he is all about. shovel push and he will and see what he can take. you have to point, push back. the question is how you push back. we have set out loud that boots on the ground is not an option for us. whether or not you think that i think that is a question people have to decide for themselves. utin, they dody p respect our and someone who keeps their word and does what they said they will. behink the world could better in doing what they say they are going to do.
he is someone who respects strength and power. people who do it they say they're going to do. i think it has been difficult for americans and europeans where we want to talk about. -- talk it out. ongoingit is an problem for us. we are coming around to it and working through it. what kind of move do we make? that has not yet been decided. this is her but on the democrats line. caller: you said you were convinced that 97% convinced it was the separatists.
that reminds me of the american media when we heard that there that iraq% convinced had weapons of mass destruction and we know how that went out. let's talk about the facts for a moment. theukrainian government has sophisticated missile systems to bring that plane down. so does russia. and i wouldrecord, ask you to submit any evidence, that the separatists had this missile system. i know there are allegations that russia sent one in and now they are sneaking it back. i don't think you have any evidence. know the separatists shot down three planes in the last year. planeswith a low flying shot down with shoulder fired stinger missiles. takese at 33,000 feet
that sophisticated system. i would suggest that you and the rest of the american people listening take a deep breath and wait until we get international neutral experts in their to do a thorough investigation before we arrive at any conclusions on who was responsible. thank you for your remarks. i do think you're very right to say that we should step back and make sure that we have all the details. onm basing my comment research that i have done. i am a fluent russian speaker rowing through russian language social media sites. on that website the separatist leaders have sent out missives.
some of the missives that were up on this website early on thursday morning were very indicative of the fact that they shot it down. they were boasting on this .ebsite on having shot down the details that they give in this missive are nearly identical to the details about this line that was crashed. ityou look at those details, is nearly identical to exactly where this airline flight fell. there are things that were published in the russian media very publicly.
they said the separatist rebels had gotten their hands on advanced surface-to-air missile systems. this was bandied about in the russian media. the separatist themselves were bragging about on social media sites. this is largely what i base my conclusion off of. we do have evidence. whether or not you want to believe the phone calls that the special services have released between the rebels saying they , ie shot something down think the evidence is out there and the things that we have seen the separatist say indicate they did have that capability and that they were perfectly happy to use it. the evidence to me points very much toward them having committed this crime. host: joyce is on the republican
line in ohio. about thewant to know weapons we are sending to the ukraine. we are sending to ukraine. how is that going to help with our relations with russia? if that is not asking for a war i don't know what else is. i will wait for you to tell it what you know about that. thank you. guest: we are not sending weapons. nonlethale sending is aid. we are sending bullet-proof vest. we are sending night vision goggles. we are sending meals ready-to-eat. tanks ort sent over fighter aircraft. we are very conscious of the couldhat weapons
instigate a much worse situation with russia. that is something we want to avoid. we do have obligations to ukraine under a pact that we signed with them in 1994. this is a document signed by the netted states and europe that recognize thell sovereignty of ukraine and if ukraine is attacked the united states and europe will come to its defense. that is not a legal treaty. it is a memorandum and an agreement. there is a feeling that the event states needs to live up to that. that is why we have been sending the nonlethal aid. we are waiting to see what comes out of the investigation. what about the credibility of that investigation? guest: that is a difficult
question. you see reporters on the scene. they are right there up against the crash material. they are right up against the fuselage of the plane. that is not something you see with other crash investigations. we don't have teams of and international investigators going in and coming through what is a toxic wreckage. there ares crash, chemicals and jet fuel and things that could be poisonous to humans. that is line out there. there are bodies in the sun in the middle of the summer for two days. we are not seen international investigative teams being able to come in with refrigeration units and body bags to be able to take these people back to a city with a can be read in with their relatives.
questionery serious about the integrity of the investigation. we are not sure who has the black boxes. this makes it unclear as to whether or not we will ever get a definitive answer as to what happened. host: ken russian influence the investigation? a very good question. russia has been supportive of the rebels. will gets of said they the black boxes and send them back to moscow. if the rebels themselves have the black boxes it is in their m.terest to tamper with the the lack of having people on the scene is going to be detrimental at this point. i don't think it is too late to
save. we do get investigators there very quickly. a i think russia should bring its influence to bear with the separatists and say back off. let people have access to this area. they went to the site yesterday and they were only allowed around for about an hour and 15 minutes. that is all they have been allowed. there were guns being fired off an ear. it is still a war zone. you can hear mortars going off in the distance. this is a very tenuous situation. time is of the essence here. is al on the independent line in oklahoma. caller: i don't necessarily agree with the characteristics of vladimir putin as someone who has lashed out to provide
weapons so they could shoot down civilians. wasn't it couldn't who instigated glasnost with gorbachev? at the time of glasnost he was living in east germany. he was a kgb spy. heated not have much to do with the ideas of last not an perestroika. whether or not they supplied that isto these rebels, still an open question. we don't know what has been provided. things are very secretive. some of the evidence that we there were russian military advisers on the ground the. we know that one of the leaders
is a member of the russian military intelligence unit. we know some of these facts. it is relatively easy to piece together. there are some serious involvements from the russians. even if there is plausible deniability, you will see him deny that he has any control over the separatist. if russia wanted to stop what is going on, they can pull back all support and their money and shut down access to bank accounts. they could stop the flow of weapons going across the russian border into ukraine. that would dry up very quickly. host: tom is from pennsylvania. caller: i just wanted to follow-up.
this is a situation where he is a rogue leader and vladimir putin can't control them. it is almost like john boehner and the tea party here. this guy even made a comment that vladimir putin could wind up like most of its. that is a very complicated question. we really don't know. there is a lot of behind the scenes workings. it is difficult to tell the extent to which the russian government has control over the separatist. it is very difficult to control. that the russians do have very sophisticated means of control that we may not as americans understand.
by that i mean financial mechanisms, they work with mafias to make sure that people are under control. it is interesting and difficult in. mr. put this separatist movement in eastern ukraine was largely created to put pressure on the government of ukraine. to make sure that they don't do anything you that russia disapproves of. there is a way of exerting leverage and pressure on russia. there is a possibility that puti n has created a monster that he can no longer control. i think people are concerned about that. is ifestion for him now he wants to exert that pressure? that is something he needs in
his mind. what do you do about this monster? he is confronted with two bad choices. either let them be or pull them back. if you pull them back the new lose leverage over the ukrainian government. if you leave them there than things like the having of this airplane will happen. it is a complex situation that we here in the states don't really understand. tense behind the scenes situation in russia. host: that is the thoughts of the financial times. guest: a lot of it depends on
things we don't see that a behind the scenes in the government. he is running out of time. he has put himself in a corner. his created this monster that he may not be able to control. whether or not he can pull them back reasonably quickly is going to be important for him. he has the world turn against him and his henchmen. it is a big problem for him. we have the republican line from new york. that obama'sl policies have encouraged putin. sending hillary clinton to plus
reset buttons. taking photo ops and having little consequences for his behavior. he is not going to de-cyst unless there are serious consequences. editorials won't do it. i also think that the investigation will be biased. russia will control the crime scene. if there is any information on , they alreadys know where the missile came from. we have satellite images and other types of information to show exactly where it was shot from. guest: i think you make a good point.
have a lot of satellite and intelligence operated in that area. they have already said we can tell the heat signature of these muscles. we can tell it came from. thenow they came from ukrainian side of the border and not the russian side. it is reasonably easy for us to tell. interesting to look at exactly what is going to happen with that investigation. a lot of people have brought up a plane carrying most of the members of the polish government including the president of: crashed. there was lot anxiety in polish society. they could not get control of the black boxes.
it happened in russia. the russians controlled. out ofthe things coming the polish media is a concern that this will happen again. they won't ever be able to get full answers. i think it is something that we should be concerned about. host: mike from iowa. it good morning. believe obamat regrets. said, theentleman only regret he has about whispering in putin's inner was that there was an open mic. presidento think the cares. it doesn't matter that there were only one american on board. at the end of the day we are all human and we all can't help but
feel empathy and sadness about what happened. is he the kinds of people that were killed on this flight. some of the world's top aides researchers and made great contributions to humanity. the president is only human. it is a major tragedy. we should endeavor to make sure it does not happen again. we need to get an international investigation going. i was glad to hear him say that the other day. the whoever did this should be brought to justice. you will see the dutch be very active. they are very big in the netherlands on courts of international human rights. you may see some these culprits brought to justice through those means. host: archie is in kentucky on the democrat line. know ifi would like to
anybody remembers vic torilla standing in front of a chevron signed saying we spent $5 billion. isould also like to know there a conflict around the world that we don't have our nose stuck in or didn't start? thank you. i think people do have long memories. there is plenty of conflict around the world we don't have our fingers and. these are the ones we don't hear about on the news. there are small conflicts all around the world. in smallear about them parts of china or arts of central asia. there are plenty of places where we don't have any interest and we tend to not get involved. global leaderhe for a long time.
us tois a reason for concern. isolationism is not the answer. it sounds easy. this plane crash has shown that if you don't take action and this is a lesson the europeans have learned, there can be terrible consequences. the deaths of 297 people. host: this is the last call from nevada. this is donna. . guest: good morning. i am appalled at the people calling in and tearing down john mccain who was shot down by a russian missile in vietnam. he is an american hero.
is iirst question i have was wondering if she has ever ry ona documenta amazon.com. history as tohole why ukrainians are peaceloving and they want to be left alone by russia. do yound question is think that nato is going to take russia andnst tougher sanctions at least supply some arms to the ukrainian army so they can defend themselves as a sovereign nation? guest: thanks. the documentary. i will look it up. i will say that i lived in ukraine for two years.
i know the history of ukrainian people and why they have the inclination to move westward where russia does not. i think it is important to remember that nato is not the ones who have the ability to place sanctions on russia. that is individual european countries. where and when it nato would get involved would be if any of the members invoked article five. data needs to come to our defense. that has not yet happened. ukraine is not a member of nato. i think as to sending weapons to ukraine, that is a question that comes up over and over. it has largely been stopped.
stopped by the fear that russia would interpret that as the beginning of a proxy war. they might retaliate in ways that we are not ready or willing or able to react to. we don't want a war in ukraine. we don't want to put boots on the ground. even john mccain has said that. that is something the united states and the west is going to try to stick to to make sure it doesn't happen. thank you. coming up we will hear from shannon watt. group. talk about her that conversation is coming up. up, andy roth.
i want to point you honor newsmakers program. dall.uest is rob woo he talks about a lot of issues. he talks about leadership changes at the gop. >> do you expect there to be another leadership election in november? leader is i hope so. i don't know and competition started to be a bad thing. the worst possible scenario is a bunch of republicans wishing things were different and not making things different. -- saw was a gettingan chairman elevated to the elected leadership table.
that does not happen regularly. it happened and that is healthy. you saw in the majority leader'' race. i respect him for standing up and doing that. he is going to make sure there is a competitive election and people must be chosen rather than anointed. that is who we are. it is not supposed to be pretty. it is supposed to be down and dirty because we are fighting for america amongst ourselves. we try to be united to make a difference. respected, the role of the majority whip is not to asermine policy trajectory much as it is to sell that agenda to the rest of the
conference. ae you satisfied as conservative only having one of your guys in the whip post? i would like to see more rock ribbed conservatives on the ballot in leadership. i think we have a lot of talent in this conference. i want to see that talent compete for the hearts and minds of the conference as a whole. let me push back a little bit. his job is not going to be to count the votes for some mealymouthed policy that might come down from on high. his job is to share with the leadership this is where you can get the votes if you'd be willing to do those kinds of things that are in concert with the people share. they have a job to do.
they want to see legislation to move forward. help begin with a good proposal that you don't have to work so hard to valley -- rally votes for. >> "washington journal" continues. shannon watts is joining us from indianapolis. tell us about your group and how it was founded. caller: i started the organization the day after sandy hook. i had been a stay-at-home mom for five years. i have five children. i had a career before that. i was not sure what i could do from my house in the middle of indiana. i decided to start a facebook page. what started off as an online discussion about gun violence reform turned into an off-line movement.
we have a chapter in every state in the country. we have hundreds of thousands of volunteers and 2 million supporters. we are becoming a force at the state level. host: how do you work? caller: we have a chapter leader, a mom. we have supporters around her. each state works on whatever issue is particular to their statehouse. in texas, we are working on open carry. in the carolinas we are trying to keep guns out of a bars and places that serve alcohol. in indiana, we are trying to keep guns out of schools. we are also working on a federal level. we have a commitment to get one million americans to pledge to vote with what we call gun
sense. working to get corporations and businesses involved in this issue. "gun sense'"u say what are you looking for? 40% of guns are sold with no background percent. that means these guns are getting in the hands of criminals and other dangerous people like domestic abusers. this is resulting in this epidemic we have in this country. that is our main focus and priority. there are other things that we want to accomplish like dem ensures in place that the message abusers don't have access to guns. act.ocus is getting
host: what is your relationship with michael bloomberg? caller: we merged with what is now called every town for gun safety. funded an organization by the bloomberg foundation. we are under the umbrella of that. host: as far as mr. bloomberg and his group, do they find you directly? caller: yes. we subsisted on donations for about a year. in order to do what we want which is go toe to toe with the, gun lobby we need as much resources as we could possibly get. we now have that. host: there is a story about your group dealing with target stores. tell what happened. guest: we have gotten seven companies to put in place gun policies where they had none before.
it started with starbucks. we have also worked on chile's and sonic and a variety of companies. extremists were opened carrying a loaded weapons into target stores around the country. but withis in texas, target it was across the board. open carry is allowed in 40 states. the laws are incredibly lax. an don't need training or age requirement. businesses can stop this. their private property. a lot of our moms spend time at target. they have a 80% customer base of women. we asked them to get some gun sense. we started a campaign and it took about a month. we had a petition of 400,000
signers and a lot of rallies in their parking lots to get them to say we agree. we want firearms in our stores. we'll take it creates a safe environment for our customers. we are thrilled they weighed in on it. host: they would only respectfully ask customers not to bring guns into their stores. is that a ban or is that just a strongly worded suggestion? asked for a ban. we want them to weigh in. told us they put in place protocols at all of their stores to deal with are the customers. they have a concern about having to ask their employees to deal with armed customers. that is a situation that has been created by the gun lobby. this idea that we have to take our guns with us everywhere. they don't want to be put in that position. when state laws don't protect
these customers it is up to the companies to do so. our guest is with us until 9:15 a.m. you can tweet us or send e-mail. directlyyou're asked aren't you just infringing on the second amendment? are gunany of our moms owners. we are not about gun bans. we do believe that with rights comes responsibility. laws is creating gun violence. 86% -- 86 americans are shot every day.
53 are due to suicide. line with any other developed nation. the thing we have is a strong gun lobby. it is time for americans to say this is not acceptable and we will not tolerate this. it is preventable. we can put in place, and lace policies that don't and friends on the second amendment but protect the lives of americans. host: have you had any direct response from the nra? guest: we are seeing them at their convention start to try to appeal to moms and make stickers. they want to create markets to women and to mothers. we feel that they feel are presence. the gun lobby has done a very good job for about her years of taking a vocal minority afraid that guns are going to be taken away.
it we are afraid that our children are going to be taken away. guest is the founder of this group. are on the screen. our first call is from cathy on the democrats line. caller: i just wanted to say that i commend her for what she is doing. that weit is about time had people like this speak out. i know you're going to get a lot of calls saying you are trying to take people's guns away. i know that is going to happen. you are trying to educate people about this. i wish more politicians had this much courage. i want to commend you for your doing. pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: good morning.
i am going to tell you something. i am 69 years old. i am in business all my life. i understand you're trying to do something good. i respect that. process comes through criminal justice. then it wanted here but executions. you have to have feared to have respect. if you want to go through anybody. people trade kill common sense tells you that.
move yourself to the criminal justice. start exceed shooting people. guest: a lot of people talk about guns for self-defense. able have a right to have a gun in their home. we are talking about making sure that people have had background checks. we want to keep nuns out of the hands of dangerous people. the reality is if you look at your house isn in more likely to be used against you if you are a woman. we don't have a ton of data to work with. the gun lobby has shut down government research. know is guns are often used in the home to commit suicide by a family member. some people are very responsible gun owners.
the majority are. we hope that they would join us in saying people should have background checks and should be responsible for safely storing their firearms and making sure the children don't have access to them and putting laws in place to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerous people. we have seen that over and over again. i appreciate what he is saying. hopefully he has had a background check and we can agree that is what should happen when you purchase a gun in america. this is chuck on our independent line in florida. caller: good morning. you stressed the importance of the background check. my problem is this. efforts to control guns in this country.
the progressive front is responsible for that we cannot label somebody is mentally ill. they do not want to do that. soon she won't label people as mentally ill they don't go on the list. thingole background check is moot. going tou're not identify people with antisocial behavior problems and label them as such. not going to do that than the whole battle to protect children and have background tax -- checks is not going to happen. you will not identify mentally ill people. this is what you're going to get.
iron as a use a tire weapon. mentally ill people that are doing these things. that's not true. we have the same mental illness rate as other developed nations. we watch the same video games and watch the same movies. what is different in america is that we have easy and unregulated access to guns. i am all for identifying people who are mentally ill and ensuring that a don't have guns. it is up to the states to ensure that those records get into the background system. we don't have a federal law requiring background checks, 40% of people can buy them without any kind of background check at all whether they are mentally ill or have a criminal record that goes unnoticed. they can buy guns privately or
online without a background check. what we see is mental illness is the strawman argument to say that we don't need restrictions or any kind of laws regarding guns. we need to address the mental illness issue. we have the same rate of mental countries buter we have 20 times the gun violence. this became a key issue for the administration after sandy hook area how would you grade their efforts and the congress? guest: the president has worked to close as many of the loopholes as he can. there is only so would you can do without the congress. we came close to passing background checks. we missed it by five votes. we know that over 90% of americans support common sense gun reforms like background checks.
the congress decided they were not going to do what their constituents wanted to do. they did the bidding of the gun lobby. goings why we are finally to toe with the gun lobby and creating a grassroots movement that will bubble up the desired voters. it would need to get a congress that will do what we want. this is just the beginning. this will be a long effort that we will have to do to undo with the gun lobby has done. we are in this for the long haul. we knew this was not going to happen overnight. pressingno issue more than gun violence. do you have lobbyists on capitol hill? guest: absolutely. we don't have the same power
that the gun lobby does. you go to a testimony hearing at a statehouse you will soothe your surrounded by nra lobbyist. i have done that here in indiana. we have unpaid volunteers that will make the case is known. often the only groups begin opposition to the nra. that is where we are starting to make a difference. we're not going to vote for legislators the done the -- do the bidding of the gun lobby. at theen very insidious state level to get them to pass bills that profit the gun industry. host: this is randy. caller: good morning. what a shame. there is nothing else to do. -- you probably don't
know how a firearm works. they have the government. they are not giving people their medicine. people that want to pay their taxes. the government is corrupt. the knee-jerk reaction says let's do this and that. you are working with the corporations and michael bloomberg. look at montréal and see how they do this stuff. the criminal justice system is broken. anything with a response?
guest: that is the rhetoric of the gun lobby. they had done a good job of convincing a vocal minority of people to be afraid. the solution to gun violence is more guns. they're guns are going to be taken away. none of that is true. we are an organization that supports the second amendment's and many of our moms are gun owners. loopholessome serious in this country and policies that need to be fixed. they would prevent gun violence. 86 americans are shot and killed everyday. many of those are preventable and that is what we are working to do. she wrote about it.
guest: i think that is an outrageous thing to say and is insulting to survivors and their families. i am not an operative. i was not involved in politics in my entire life. i take no salary for this work. becomingof the victims lobbyists, who has more of a stake in this issue than someone who has been affected by it? they need to rise up and they have bravely and said not one more. i won't allow it to happen to other families and i know it is preventable. i will do everything i can to address this problem. i think that his heroic. think the best way to say it
is that she lost her daughter. she knows better than anybody else the situation in chicago. i believe there are things that can prevent other people from suffering the way i did. why women instand this country who are her family affected by gun violence, particularly in domestic violence, would be doing everything they could for this issue. we are talking about gun violence. mike is on the republican line. , i think'm not sure you would suggest getting hold of the atf. get a copy of the laws. i got a copy of the booklet.
the number of laws that are on the books is astounding. get a copy of it. take a look at how money laws there are on the books. you mentioned there are 6 million tons sold out background checks. i don't know where you get that number. how may of those guns are used in criminal offenses? you harp on domestic abuse. i think there is more chemicals shooting people in regular crimes then domestic abuse. shooting?o talk about is not a child. you are entitled to your opinion. i am a ring or veteran. i have been in states where there are open carry.
walk around with that on your shoulder for a couple of hours. people don't do a lot of karen o -- there are a lot of different issues to respond to. i don't know which one to pick out. in terms of the laws on the books, we are looking at one specific law. we want to close loophole that allows criminals and other domestic abusers to buy guns online and privately. everyone should agree that that is unacceptable. we already have a lot of you have to get a background check when you buy from a licensed dealer it should be no different than when you buy from a gun show. 45 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month. the rate of gun violence a when -- against women is 11 times higher than any other developed country.
those are devastating statistics. they are not acceptable for a developed country. they are preventable. women and mothers are finally awake on this issue. we are only 19% of congress. we are not making the policies that affect our children and our families. we need to use our voices and our votes and that is exactly what we are going to do. host: how has your government responded? guest: he was the keynote speaker at the most recent nra convention. we are clear where he stands on this issue. he is a big supporter of guns in schools and other laws and policies that we think are interested in irresponsible. host: randy is on the republican line. i'm a supporter of the nra and the second amendment.
i don't have a problem with background checks. think the background checks would do any good. can sell a gunn in a newspaper. that having much of an effect. what to be better off doing would be if she concentrated on having parents be more attentive to their children that and less neglectful of them. in terms of private sales, he pointed out what we are trying to do. we want background checks on
private sales. if you're selling a gun through a newspaper we believe this should be background checks on those sales. we have seen in states that it does work. they closed the loophole on background checks haveundreds of criminals been prevented from buying a gun since that was passed. we know that it works. 38% fewer women are shot killed, 39% fewer police are shot killed. they work. in terms of neglectful parents, you know, i don't think there's any data to show that shootings are related to neglectful parenting. that said, in this country, you know, right now, there are not enough laws that hold adults accountable for the safe storage of their firearmless. only 26 states in america hold adults responsible for safely storing their firearms, which
means they're locked, unloaded, the ammunition is separated from the gun, and they don't leave them near children. and just like in the 1980's where you saw mothers against drunk driving work on making it a crime to drive while drunk and kill people, you know, in this country, we have to get to that place with guns. if you are an adult and you own a firearm, you're responsible for that gun. there are too many so-called accidental shootings in this country that go without any kind of punishment at all. and that is another thing that we're focused on. host: from queens village, new york, charles, independent line. caller: hi. good morning. i think your effort is well taken and i wish you well in your endeavors. i think americans are incredibly smart, most americans, that is. when we look at the second amendment, every law that is passed in this country is a different context. the second amendment was passed. that does not happen in this
plan. when we repeal the law, i'm for that, appeal the second amendment. the second thing is the guns that exist in that time were basically shotguns. one shot, you fire it. now it's ridiculous. i don't think that americans have really zoomed in and understand what the second amendment was retired and maybe we should think of repeeling that law. thank you so much. guest: we are not looking to repeal the second amendment. we know that the supreme court believes that rights can be regulated and should be regulated where necessary, and that there are laws that can make us sambings protect our right to own a gun, but also protect the people that -- whose lives can be taken with
that gun. so that's what we're working to do. host: joanne, texas. hi there. caller: hi. hi, shannon. i just want to say thank you so much for what you're doing. and you your group are going to save lives. you're right. it will take years, but it's such a wonderful effort. i applaud you. i follow moms action on twitter, and i recommend everyone follow you and follow your organization. you provide accurate information. the true facts, not opinions, congratulations. you just keep it up. guest: thank you. host: shannon, how do you determine if you're successful at your efforts? guest: well, you know, we've already had huge success just in 18 months, you know? at a federal level, we have an a.t.f. director now. we are working to get congress in place that will support
things like background checks, and we have a state to do so at a state level. you know, there have been several states within the last year that have closed the background check loophole. in 2014, we got six states to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, and for the first time the n.r.a. was silent and did not oppose those laws. and then, you know, at the corporate level, we've gotten seven different companies to put in place gun policies where there were none before. so just like policies around the tire are smoking, we're getting american businesses to weigh in on guns. i would say we've been very successful already. we would like to continue to help get elected officials in office who support gun sense, who have gun sense at the federal and at the state level. and we'd like to get more companies to join us in our efforts to get gun policies put in place and focusing on new laws, focusing on new policies,
focusing on education, we talked about child access prevention laws. all of those things in my mind represent success for our organization, but it isn't as though it's a one and done and we can pack up our diaper bags and go home. this is going to be a very long-term effort. you know, the gun lobby is insidious at the state level. you really can't let us for a second, because they are working to write and create legislation that benefits and profits them. so i see this as a many year, if not decade process. >> in a general sense, what are gone laws like in indiana? >> the gun laws in indiana are some of the most lax in the entire country. we have a horrible epidemic right now of gun violence, particularly in indianapolis and in gary, indiana where easy access to guns is leading to horrific shootings, mass shootings, the slaying of police, and alofted our guns actually end up in chicago and
create the horrific circumstances that they're there. we have a governor and a state ledge newer place who do not support common-sense gun laws. that's why we need this is not political, this is about the well-sandk safety my children and families, and i am going to stand up as a citizen, as a constituent, and demand safer laws for my state. host: up next from west virginia, this is gill, republican line. i. gill, you're on. guest: hi, yeah. my comment to the -- yes. can you hear me? >> host: go ahead, go ahead and talk into the phone and ignore your television, go ahead. caller: yes, hi. host: we'll put you on hold and go to marcus, silver spring, maryland, i understand pen line. caller: hi, how you doing? thank you for having me. i just want to touch base on two or three things, if i may. i'll try to be very brief.
shannon, what you're doing is an excellent cause. i think a lot of people do need to be missouri aware of gun violence and things like that. one of the things i've noticed when it comes to people who join the cause, it's usually from something tragedy. i live in montgomery county, maryland, so i was about 1 years old when something happened, and that's like a lot of people got very stirred up. you were telling people about background checks. one of my questions about the background checks is say a person was being mentally unfit or things like that. however, what if they had a relative? if your relative was unfit, hings like that. somebody you're living with has -- seems to be flagged, , ething like that, and also if --
host: let's respond to that. go ahead. guest: the background checks are solely based on the individual circumstances and criminal history or mental illness history and not related to members. host: let's try gill again from west virginia. hi. caller: hi. yes. can you hear me? host: go ahead, please. caller: all right, yes. my comment to the young lady is, i understand what she's trying to do, but my problem is, you know, you take something that's well meant, which i'm sure she is, you know, it's well meant, i understand that, but what she don't understand is, you know, our second amendment is a guaranteed right by our founding fathers, and you use hese well being, you know, legislations like she's staying, and then it goes to the federal, you know, and the next thing you know, we don't have no rights. and that's the problem with this country.
we are losing our rights every day. and, you know, i can't help the background checks. in my state, we have background checks of people buying guns, and that goes to the f.b.i. so it's not like you can walk in there and say i want to buy this gun or that gun. it won't work that way. you got to get a federal background check to buy a gun in this state. host: miss watts, go ahead. guest: sure. so i don't know what state he was calling from, but you do not have to go through a background check if you're buying a gun privately or online, which is 40% of all gun sales. so that's the background check issue. in terms of rights being taken away, i have not heard anyone in gun violence prevention ever say they wanted to ban guns or, you know, undo the second amendment, ever. i think most people understand that that is a constitutional right, and just like the supreme court has said, those
rights can and should be regulated to keep citizens safe. i can't walk into a private theater and scream fire. that is a regulation of my first amendment. the second amendment doesn't say you can have a gun with absolutely no background checks. and so as americans, we need to put in place common sense laws and regulations that ensure that the rest of the citizens are safe, that people buying guns are not criminals, they're not mentally ill, that they are not dangerous people. to me, that just is sort of a common-sense regulation. host: just to clarify, your national group only stands at background checks, doesn't expand to other issues as well when it comes to gun ownership? guest: oh, absolutely. we talked about the child access prevention laws at the state level. we talked about, you know, suicide prevention, stand your ground laws, which need to be rolled back. there are a variety of different issues that we're focused on, but the main issue we're focused on is background checks. host: new jersey, thomas on our
democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning, hi. thank you for taking my call. i appreciate what the woman's doing. i think she is doing something very good. but the thing i don't hear, and the problem with all of this is that, first of all, most criminals don't get background checks no matter what the law s. the second comment i have to make is, regarding the ssra uptake inhibit force. is she aware every mass shootings isn't 1980's, students were on these medications for so-called mental illness? these drugs are causing more harm than the mental illnesses. also, there's no objective studies to prove mental illness, so how do we do this? guest: so, in terms of mental illness, again, this is not an issue that's specific to america. we have the same rates of mental illness as other developed countries. but we have 20 times, and it's easy, unregulated access to
guns, and the caller said that, you know, criminals don't go through background checks. the reason that criminals don't have to get background checks is because they can buy a gun online or at a gun show without any kind of background checks. that's why criminals aren't getting background checks. that's why we want to work to close the loophole. host: what about increase the security at schools, resource officers, people in school, what is your stand on that? guest: well, schools shuft right to make that decision. we do not support this idea of armed teachers. teachers go to school to teach our children how to learn. and instead of figuring out how to quell gun violence in this country, instead, we have decided that somehow it's better to arm teachers when actually there's absolutely no data that shows that that would, in fact, stop these kinds of mass shooting situations or school shooting situations. if a school decides they need actual armed trained guards,
that's a decision they need to make as a school, but we are not in support of arming teachers or faculties or volunteers. host: sheer dayton, ohio. nathan is there on our republican line. go ahead. caller: hi, shannon, you need to help viewers understand that you cannot currently buy guns online without going through the standard background check that anyone would go through in any gun store across the nation. that's just misinformation. when you try to buy a gun online, you have to have it shipped to a licensed f.s.l. federal firearms licensed dealer, and then did you into the store, then go through the same background check, and then they will hand it over to you. guest: that's actually not true. so if if you were to go online and buy a gun on facebook or arms list and you bought it from someone from your state, you could meet them privately and make the transaction, and there would be no background check. host: nathan, do you have a followup?
caller: yeah, so what she's saying is she's describing a face-to-face transaction, which is not an online purchase. guest: but you purchased the gun online, so it actually is an online purchase. host: we'll take one more call, and this last call will be from eric in denver, colorado, independent line. caller: i would like to agree with the last caller, starting off. it's a shame how people try to misquote or purposely misstate things. that is not an online purchase. an online purchase is from amazon. meeting up with someone that you met online, that is a personal, face-to-face transaction. what they leak to do is scare everyone by saying you can buy guns all day online like you can buy diapers and there's no check. no, you can meet someone online to do a gun transaction. that's not buying online. please stop blurring the
subject. the other thick is you mentioned safety, gun-free zone and target. if you look at all these mass shootings, what do they all have in common besides drugs? the previous callers mentioned, they all happened in drug-free zones. i live in colorado. the shooting out here went past one or two other theaters so he could go to one that is a gun-free zone. i'm a stay-at-home fatherment my children are the most important thing to me. please stop confusing people with false area tives. guest: the idea of a gun-free zone is actually something completely and wholly created by the n.r.a. it's a phrase that they use, and it actually has -- it doesn't have any sense. it doesn't make sense in the context of gun violence. the reality is the majority of mass shootings take place in domestic residences, which are not, in fact, gun-free zones.
we just did a study that looked at mass shootings since 2009. there have been 110 since january of 2009. and the shootings, the mass shootings that took place in so-called gun-free zones went from 33% to 14%, and the majority of those are happening in private residences. so that's really something that's a construct of the gun lobby. host: before we let you go, as far as your efforts, if this follows campaign 2014, specifically, how did your group work? what do you do? guest: you can fill out an online submission to commit to voting for gun sense. we're at farmers markets and grocery stores and setting up all across the country to ask moms and women and other americans to commit to vote with gun sense in the midterm elections. we already have nearly 700,000 commitments. we expect to surpass our one million mark.
and again, this is just the first election where we really have boots on the ground to go toe-to-toe with the gun lobby. it's the beginning of many elections at the state and federal level. we'll continue to do so. host: will you enforce candidates? guest: we will, absolutely. we're asking candidates to fill out a 10-question survey, trying to determine where they stand on gun issues, just like the n.r.a. does, and we will rate them, and we will educate voters and suggest who they should vote for based on where they are on guns. you know, right now in this country, women and mothers go to the polls on three things, the economy, healthcare and reproductive rights, regardless of political parties. we want one of those things to be guns. we want one of those issues to be gun reform. host: the group is moms demand action. their website, momsdemandaction.org. our guest is shannon watts, the founder. ms. watts, thanks for your time. last up on the program, we'll talk about the highway trust fund. there's a group, several groups that are opposing it. amongst them, we'll talk with
andy roth about their efforts and other things. that is "washington journal" continues right after this. >> in des moines, iowa, and it's a home that was built by carl and edith weeks in the 1920's. carl weeks was a man of many varied interests. one of the most notable legacies of his interests are his amazing collections both he and edith amassed in terms of art works, sculpture, the library collection, it's an amazing collection of rare, limited, first-edition works, many manuscripts. it's incredible. carl weeks collected the books that he collected, not only because they're important historical works, but also because he believes that books
themselves were works of art and worked beyond the words beyond the page, 10 collected almost every edition. these changed over time, but added poems, but for carl, it , carl art of collecting also collected first editions of ernest hemingway's work. this is published in 1935. this illustrates the personal relationship, so this wishes. on,, very best >> explore the literary life of des moines, iowa, today at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv
and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on merican history tv on c-span3. john quincy adams was the second adammist to be elected to the white house. he was the second loner to be elected to the white house. he was only one of two anti-slavery presidents to be elected to the white house. he was deeply feared by the south and worried that his vision of a unified country in which the federal government nd the states were partners in a relationship that en abled the federal government to play a leading role in binding the
country together through infrastructure projects, through supporting manufacturers and so on, that he was deeply suspected by the southern states and thought indeed that he wanted too much power from the federal government. >> fred kaplan on the life of our sixth president, john quincy adams, sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." "washington journal" continues. >> our final guest sandy roth. he's our government affairs vice president. good morning. guest: thanks for having me. host: people probably know what this group is, but for those who may not, what is your group? guest: we're a membership organization based out of washington, d.c., but we have over 100,000 members from all across the country from all 50 states, and we're united because we believe in economic liberty, lower taxes, limited government. host: and so one of the reasons we brought you on is because it was your group that came out recently against the highway trust fund. people may not be following it closely, so first of all, explain what it is and then
your reaction to it. guest: well, the federal government has a highway trust fund program to build roads. they charge 18.4 cents per gallon for everyone, and that money goes into the trust fund, and they use it to build roads and bridges and a lot of ports, and that's going empty, bankrupt. and so they needed to bail it out just recently. the house passed the bill, and knowing we're waiting to hear what the senate has to say. we opposed it because we opposed the program itself. the thing that people don't understand is that 75% of all infrastructure spending in the country is done at the local and state level. that's where it's the most accountable, that's where it's most efficient, and we think that the extra 25% that the federal government has doesn't need to be done from d.c. the department of transportation has 60,000 bureaucrats when all 50 states have their own department of
transportation. let them do it at the local and state level where it's more efficient. host: fair to say if the trust fund wasn't there, then states ultimately would lose money as far as what they could put in state projects? guest: well, no, because they can have their own gas tax. if you got rid of the federal gas tax, then states could vary their tax rate however they like. some states may have high rates, some states may have low rates. host: and this came on as the president of the white house this week made a power a couple of fronts, especially to refund the trust fund. what are they proposing? guest: well, what's happening right now is political expediency before an election. they don't want road projects to stop. they've been making some real chicken little pronouncements about how hundreds of thousands of jobs are going to end and we think that's agents over the top. but -- a little over the top. but nobody in d.c. wants the
trust fund to go bankrupt right before the election. host: some of the highlights, it would transfer about $8 billion to the highway account, $2 billion to the mass transit account. from offsets, over $6 billion would come from single-employer pension plans. talk about that strategy. guest: well, a couple of things. the good news is that in previous years they wouldn't even pay for it, and now they're not paying for it. they're saying they are, but the things that you mentioned, pension smoothing, the clean-up fund, and they're also raising customs fees when imports come to our borders. those are all either budget gimmicks or tax increases in our view. so they're not really paying for this. they're just shifting money around. i think republicans even understand that even though they claim to be the fiscal
responsible party, they're in on this game too, even though they know that it's wrong. host: explain pensions moving. what is that? guest: it just says that companies can underfund their pensions now, which means they have to pay more in taxes, but then they have to fund it later , and then they pay less taxes. so they're basically just taking tax revenue from the future and bringing it forward. so that's not new money, it's just a shift in when the government collects it. host: and then there are other fees from things coming into the country? guest: right, when imports come into the border and they're inspected, the fee that they're charged on top of tariffs for just the transitioning of the goods, they're going to raise that up. in effect, that it is a tax on everybody, because that fee is passed along to all the goods that come in and you buy the store or online. host: our guest with us till 10:00 to talk about these issues, 202-585-3881 for republicans.
02-585-3880 for democrats. 202-585-3828 for independents. tweet us and email us. andy roth, that's the house version. is there a version bill that goes with this? guest: there is. it's got a few other things on it that we're a little unclear as to what they are. what's interesting, though, is that even though reed said he didn't like the house bill, the white house came out and said they would sign it. so it looks like it's already been blessed by the white house. the senate is going to take up the house bill. they're going to take up a couple other versions like you point out, and then obviously the house version is going to pass, going to go to the president and everything. host: and so if it does go to the president and does get signed, how many years does this cover before we're at this situation again? >> it just goes into next year. some democrats wanted to get it only to the lame duck, which is right after the election in november and december.
that's usually a dangerous time to pass legislation, because you shouldn't go back to the office if you've been fired, so to speak. a lot of politicians will be legislating in december of this if there is a lame duck when they've been unelected by their constituents. we always think that's a dangerous move. but it doesn't matter, because this will go into next year and then they'll start talking about a full five-year reauthorization of the highway bill. host: as far as republicans on capitol hill, how do they rate your plan, or at least your proposal to at least keep gas taxes at the state level? guest: that's a great question, because there is a bill in the congress. there's one in the senate sponsored by utah, and then there's one by tom graves from georgia. it basically takes the gas tax that i mentioned from 18.4 cents a gallon, down to 3.7. it doesn't eliminate it. it basically says there is a small coordinating role for the
federal government, meaning, you know, the joke is you don't want two states to build roads that don't connect at the border. that's a silly idea, but there could be a role for the federal government to help the states coordinate these projects. bring all means, don't sent money to washington only for them to send it right back. we leave a little bit of the tax alone, but the rest of it we leave completely up to them. host: celeste, you're on with andy report, from houston, texas. go ahead. caller: good morning. i thought that the transportation bill was a bill at usually passed with bipartisan support, and i'm trying to understand why we're having so many problems getting a bill passed that's been passed for years without any problems. and if you get a look at these roads and the bridges falling
down, i can't imagine anybody not wanting to support this. but of course since president obama got in office, everything, everything there is a problem, and i think the real problem is president obama, and i thank you. >> she suggested there's a bipartisan problem passing the bill. the trust fund itself passing it is not a contentious thing. it's finding the offsets to pay for it. a lot of republicans want to cut spending. they couldn't meet on that, and that's when the gridlock occurred, so the best thing they can come up with are these budget gimmicks, and that's where the frustration is. like to your caller's point about how, you know, roads are crumbling and bridges are crumbling, if that's the case, why not give it to the local
and state officials who are most correct directly connected to those roads and bridges, rather than have the bureaucrats in d.c., you know, kind of pull the strings? host: here's ann. ann is from chicago, democrats line, hi. >> caller: hey, good morning. thanks for taking my call. my concern is, first of all, i think of truckers using federal highways, moving our goods back and forth all the time. so to me it seems like an extraordinary burden to place on states, all the costs to maintain federal highways, number one. and secondly, what about all the bridges and dams and things like that? i mean, can we be costs of keeping up bridges? must be extraordinary. there's some states that are not as populated, for example, s illinois is, so how can we
expect states to maintain those kind of expenses? to me, that is -- that would be extraordinarily difficult for those states. i'm sure that they are grateful for the fact that the federal government is trying to help and keep the bridges safe, as citizens, we're all using the bridges, so if we're traveling across the country, even on our own. guest: the first point about federal roads being maintained by the federal government, when the interstate highway system was original created, it was supposed to be temporary. it was supposed to build the roads and then leave all the maintenance to the states to take care of them. that's all we're recommending. as to different states, like i mentioned before, they can raise their gas tax higher or lower than what the current tax rate is to meet the demands, to meet the requirements that they themselves choose. when you take federal money, it
comes with a whole lot of mandates, mandates for mass transit, like you mentioned before. there's the mandate where you have to pay above market wages for construction project checks. i think that a lot of states would prefer not to have all of the strings attached, and they'd like to spend the money themselves. host: so companies would compete to business the roads? guest: right. host: this is victor, silver spring, maryland. caller: good morning. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: ok. here in the people's republic f maryland, my girlfriend, who drives, i can't drive, is furious the state is thinking about having a tax on the number of miles you drive. that means they would put a little black box in your car, and if you drive so many miles, get taxed so much. i think they're trying to recoup revenue from the electric cars that don't use
gas. guest: that's the biggest complaint. cars are more fuel efficient, people are driving less because of the recession. it obviously does not fulfill the insatiable needs that politicians have to spend money for the highway trust fund. our view is that there is a lot of waste when the money goes from somebody in tennessee, or like the gentleman from maryland, it goes to d.c., it gets -- a portion that have gets chewed up through the administration, the bureaucratic waste, and then a portion of whatever is left over goes right back to maryland, or to tennessee. let's keep the dollars in tennessee and maryland and have i m build the roads, and think just from the gas tax alorninge you'd have all the money you needed to fund the projects. this idea of putting a black box under your car, some different way of connecting the
tax, i think that that would offend people on both sides of the aisle. you're getting a little too intrusive for most people. host: president obama was in delaware this week to talk about transportation issues. one of the things he announced was the build america investment initiative being, a public-private partnership approach to transportation. those issues, here's a little bit of what he had to say. >> we're creating a one-stop shop to partner with the infrastructure. there are lots of investors who want the back infra trurkt project, because when it's done right, they then get a steady, long-term investment. they get a steady return. and lots of states and local governments would welcome more private investment, but they need a partner in the federal government to help do some match making and work through some of the complexities of private financing and infrastructure. so my administration is going to help states and cities apply for federal loans, get more public-private partnerships up
and rung, get more investments flowing in the communities like wilmington. and this builds on other actions we've taken to speed up the process for big projects. host: what do you think about that approach? guest: well, i do believe that the private sector should have a larger role when it comes to roads and bridges and such, but again, it should be at the state level. if kansas wants to have a private entity build a toll rode or something like that, that's a great idea. toll roads are historically more well maintained and better financed, and they're more efficient. there's not as much congestion. host: pensacola, florida, here is eric, i understand pen line. you're on with andy roth. good morning. caller: good morning, mr. roth. my question is kind of a philosophical one here. isn't the current core system and the poor financial situation kind of point to people who have been capable for it aren't capable, i mean, the ones who are supposed to be responsible haven't been doing
their job, and now they want to get more power, more money. wouldn't that state that case? guest: i don't know to who he's referencing, whether it's the states or -- host: caller are you still there? caller: well, make that point then. what sort of -- who is responsible for roads, bridges, nd all that stuff? guest: obviously it depends on the defrpblt states, but as i mentioned before, you know, all 50 states have a department of transportation, and they all have a list of priorities that they'd like to fund. if you have each state, be in charge of their own transportation, they can tick off those projects by the priorities that they set. when you have the federal government come in and give the states money, there's a lot of strings attached that gum up the works. this seems like a radical, right-wing idea, but it's
actually a remarkable, efficient way that we can have better roads, better bridges, and less congestion, and it seems to me that people on both sides of the aisle should welcome it. host: john from utah, democrats line. caller: thanks for having me on. i just don't understand why it costs so much to the states. states can pretty much do what they want in certain situations, take medicaid, they don't want to expand it. if you go to transportation, there's not going to be any kind of uniform national road system. it will depend on what state did you and what state they want to fix and how much they want. the federal government mandates we can all be uniform. i don't know why this is not the solar highway. they just to want take the money from the federal
government. we're supposed to be the people and give it to the states. so each party that controls it can do what they want, and i don't understand why they want to do that instead of taping a uniform, national road system. guest: the system will still exist. the road that is go between state boundaries are still exist, it's just a more efficient way of paying for the infrastructure needs we have. there's just no other way to say it. host: where did this idea come from as far as your proposals are concerned? guest: the whole idea was it was supposed to be temporary. it ended in the early 198 owe's, and it should have gone back to the states. but because d.c. polses hate giving up power and hate giving up the revenue that comes with it, they decided to keep it
around. so we're just saying, let's go back to the original idea that we had and go from there. host: haw heard from states about your proposal or at least your efforts? guest: well, it's not our proposal. it is senator lee's and congressman's proposal. i have to check with them. host: let's go to utah. this is john. hello. sorry about that. raler will be up next in washington, d.c., hi. caller: hi, you know, one of these things about highways and roads is jobs, and the g-20, we're the only one that the federal government doesn't mandate that the purchase of the services be done within the country itself. what we're doing is we're hiring people outside the country to produce services. that's millions of dollars that we're passing up because of some ideological reason. the other point i'd like to
make, and we're talking about roads and we're talking about spending money on oil and gas to foreign countries. there's a technology that was developed in oak ridge national laboratories that was killed in the 1970's by nixon that is safe. the material has a 300-year half life, and we can burn the nuclear waste that we can and we can do it for 1/3 the cost behalf we're currently doing and actually cheaper than coal, but we're not going down that path, and that's $100 billion a year industry we're passing up, and we can save billions in energy. thank you. guest: i don't know what the solution was for that, but he maximum a good point. one thing that happened recently was when elon musk, the c.e.o. of tesla, decided to give the company's patents away saying we make electric cars, we want everybody to drive electric cars, and we will allow any company to take the technology that we spent millions, if not billions of
dollars on, to build more electric cars. we think that's a great idea, and we hope that other companies take them up on that and that we can reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and move to something like electric. host: andy roth with us from club for growth. he serves as the government affairs vice president, here to talk about the transportation. if i can ask you a couple of other countries, the primary season so far, how has club for growth fared? guest: we fared good and bad. down in mississippi, for example, we lost that. chris mcdaniel waged a great fight. he won the primary, but then lost the runoff. the problem we have is that not just this cycle, but we anticipate in future cycles, is that the republican establishment is now more fully engaged in the primaries than previously. they like the fact that the republicans believe in various forms of big government, while our candidates are trying to
hold to the traditional view of limited government. the races are much more fully engaged than the voters are paying much more attention to what's going, and there's a lot more money involved, but we've got to adapt on that. host: chris mcdaniel hasn't fully conceded yet? guest: i believe so. we don't get involved in vote challenges. we get involved in elections, but not election challenges, so the race is over, our commitment to that effort is done. host: there was a full-page ad in one of the local papers here, "roll call" magazine, from the main street advocacy group, targeting your group, congratulations about backing folks that didn't win, and here's the ad. what's your response? guest: they're a little disingenuous about it. i think they post the nine or 10 races there. we didn't get involved in all but two of them, and we did lose both of those. but the idea we went 0-9 or whatever it was, 0-10, not
true. host: no backing of the other ones? guest: no, we didn't get involved in any of those races. host: what do you think about the message they were trying to send? guest: the chairman of that organization, he's a lobbyist, and he likes the idea that republicans in office that he supports and we oppose are willing to do the bidding of a lot of the lobbying that he does. that's not our view. tpwheble limited government, less leg haitian, lower taxes, those sorts of things, and that increases with his agenda. host: what are you looking forward to, or do you have direct support in anything coming up? guest: well, georgia has some runoff elections just this coming tuesday. we're involved in georgia one, which is the race to replace jack kingston, and we're involved in georgia 11 to replace phil. e're in both of those.
our person is running against bob barr in the 11th. we're heavily involved in both of those, and we're feeling pretty good. host: why are you going up against those incumbents? guest: we get involved in primaries where there's a sharp contrast between the candidates. are both candidates are good, there's no reason for us to get. similar, if both are bad, there's no reason to get involved. if there's a stark contrast, then there's a trolley play n. georgia one, the candidate we oppose is buddy carter, a republican in name only, who has supported tax increases. he's a pharmacist who's done the bidding of the pharmacy industry. so it's just -- it smacks of too much government, too much big government at the local level. incidentally, he voted for a huge gas tax increase to pile on top of spending they already had in georgia. we're opposed to him. bob johnson has never been in
office before. he promises the traditional republican virtues of limited government and less taxes. host: senator lamar alexander is in "the wall street journal" today, it highlights the fact that they weren't involved in this one. guest: no, senate races were a little bit more judicious, because they're so expensive and contentious. we have to be -- we already go through a very rigorous due diligence process, and that ncludes polling to see how high on the hill we have to climb, and we have to understand how expensive it will be. when you put all the variables together, it didn't match up. host: so your highest level senate race would be -- guest: it was in mississippi, but we're involved with dan sullivan in alaska, who's got a primary coming up, and we've got congressman tom cotton in arkansas, who didn't have a primary and is going against a
democrat. host: back to your call, mayor friday ohio, democrats line. good morning. aller: good morning. caller: the last time it was increased was 1993. that did not go into the highway trust fund. that was part of the omnibus budget reduction act toward deficit reduction. then in 2000, they put that money back into the highway trust fund. there was seven years of gas tax collected that did not go in to the trust fund, and that's the reason we've got this mess today. guest: what can you expect from politicians in washington? let's not let them get their hands on it in the first place. the idea that we just need to tax more or grab money from some different account here in washington that doesn't exist anymore, you're just going to increase the debt even further.
i think voters dislike a higher gas tax, especially now that the economy is still struggling, and two, more debt that congress -- i mean, they don't have the money, so they'd have to sell more debt. host: lancaster, south carolina, independent line. en is up next. caller: that's why i'm independent. the republicans don't want to raise taxes, and democrats is smoke and mirrors. tonight at that take money from the single pension to pay for growth and business, and if the states incorporate spending now, you just wait. a two-part question, why the inner city worried about president obama want to spend $3.7 billion at the border, what about the kids in the
inner city that to want flee from gangs? they have nowhere to go. where are the black politicians arguing on the black kids? guest: his first point about how voters dislike both parties, we don't disagree. i mean, i think everybody's frustrated by what's going on in washington, and i think, in fact, he pointed out, he said that nobody wants to raise taxes, and nobody wants to cut spending, so they have to do budget gimmicks in order to pass them. we're just as disgusted by that as everybody else. that's why we don't want to put the control in washington's hands. let's put it back to the states. the second point, club for growth doesn't get involved with immigration, so we don't have any comment or role what's going on right now with the immigration children coming across the border. host: is the pension-smoothing idea a new idea? guest: no, in fact, it's something we bring out every once in a while to fake things. i think they wanted to do it more recently in ryan murray or
maybe in a bill just in the last year. and they may bring it out again. if they continue to exhibit good luck, they'll probably do it. host: daniel on our republican line, hi. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was calling originally, i was going say that i was opposed to this idea because of the highway bridge collapse in minnesota, but, you know, the last several callers have kind of changed my mind. it reminds me of the way that the federal government used the choke the money to states into passing laws, like seat belt laws and helmet laws that the citizens didn't want, but they use the highway money as a hostage to force the states to do what the citizens don't want. but i do think we need to get these bridges fixed, and i think it's just unconscionable
that 13 people died in minnesota and so many bridges around the country are bad. guest: the point about minnesota is good. if minnesota was left up to its own devices and not mandated to do certain things that they didn't want to from d.c., they would have had various priorities to take care of at their own responsibility. host: when you say mandated, what do you mean? guest: well, the government mandates all the money that comes from the federal government has to be spent on certain things, like mass transit. well, maybe minnesota doesn't want to spend it on mass transit. maybe they'd like to spend it on that bridge. it's their state. it's their constituents. it's their responsibility. let's give it up to them. host: from pennsylvania, mary ann, good morning. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. pedro, please don't cut me off. i have a few sail weren't, quick points to make. first of all, you're talking
about bureaucrats. they are american workers, sir. sesked all, you talk about offsets. two wars, tax cuts, pharmaceutical bill that was put on the credit card, way big offsets, not there at all. you are hip credits. that's not give the money to federal government so that the donor states to the taker states. let the taker states see how to get by when they have nothing but cow paths to walk their car across. thank you very much for your time. guest: the one point she does make about how republicans did do some irresponsible things earlier, i think she mentioned part d medicare from 2003. we were opposed to that. we were opposed to the highway tpwhail they passed under the bush administration. the farm bill, sarbanes-ox lee, i mean, republicans did a lot of damage when they were full until charge of washington, d.c., just like democrats did a lot of damaging things when they were in charge for a few years in both the congress and
in the white house. we're really kind of nervous when one party has control. even though we are experiencing separation of powers right now, the gridlock has abated the spending here in washington, so that's a good thing. we just wish that instead of blocking things, we can move forward with things that are pro growth, like comprehensive tax reform and other things to help move this economy along. that's what we need, and we're not getting it from the gridlock. host: alabama, democrats line, here is steve. caller: yes, understand your debt point, there's a problem with it. they created that trust fund in the big part of the pork bail. but you don't address the fact that you have states like north carolina, for example, that has i-95 running through it, it
gets flat by half the economy. the efficiencies are so high all the way through it and you never have to stop in north carolina. you don't get any money for that. it doesn't address the fact that the trust fund is supposed to do. thank you. >> the leveling fact is an interesting example. there are a lot of states, and i think the caller before that even mentioned it, that are takers, that take money from the other states, and there are some states that are always givers. that seems a little nonsensical to me. host: that's part of the formula. guest: right, and it's not necessarily based on needs, it's based on which politicians have the most seniority and which represent which state. so in that point it's not that efficient. the second popet about how things aren't efficient at the state level, but we agree. any time government is involved in any kind of industry or any action, there will be inefficiencies. there's just less if you keep piling on the layers of government between local, state, and federal.
host: from alabama, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm so glad i got through. my husband died in 1992, but before that he was a truck driver and we owned our own truck, and we had to pay an extra $800 or $900 a year for the use of the highway. where does all that money go when you consider all of the hundreds of thousands of trucks that are on the highway besides he gasoline taxes? guest: well, the 18.4 cents a gallon is just for regular, four-wheel cars. there is a higher gas tax for diesel that she may be speaking about or she may be talking about the licensing and the regulations that come with putting a big rig up on the road if you're the department of transportation. i'm not sure which one she's
talking about. but either one, we disagree with. host: troy, michigan, good morning, on our independent line. caller: good morning, mr. roth. i want to correct something you said earlier. you said that the republicans want smaller government and the democrats want to raise taxes. the democrats want to close the loopholes that the republicans refuse to close. and in regards to the republican smaller government, smaller government means you leave like trent lott left, and he became a lobbyist. why do we have so many more lobbyists now than before? another question, why do we have so many doctors in the republican party that are in congress? and then you hear about a shortage of doctors. i know why. because they are only at the office in washington three days a week.
i know two legislators that are doctors, and we have practices here, but nobody checks on that, and it's so easy to become elected as a representative because you say, you know, i'm going to go in washington, i'm going to close that up, you're not going to have to pay high health bills and things of that nature, and that's just a fallacy. it's double dipping. and what is your club for growth position on gerrymandering? thank you. thank you, c-span. we love you. guest: thank you. so three things. she said she wanted to correct me about how republicans aren't for small government. i kind of agree with her. i mean, the frustrating thing for us is that a lot of republicans don't do what they say they're going to do. on the campaign trail, they say they're for smaller government and want smaller government, but then when they come to d.c.
they don't support it. she's absolutely correct in that. as for lobbyists, i don't disagree with that either. a lot of members of congress, including some that we helped defeat, like bob in utah, he decided afterwards he'd go have a lucrative lobbying career. jay carner, former press secretary for president obama, now looks to get into the lobbying business. eric cantor, who just got defeated at the polls, currently majority leader, looks like he could find a lucrative practice in -- or up on wall street. it does disgust me, and i think it disgusts a lot of people, and that's how the d.c. engine works. you have contacts within congress because you were a congressman or senator, so you exploit those on behalf of your special interests to do things that you probably shouldn't be doing. absolutely agree. regarding doctors, i think she made a point that doctors give
up their practice to come to washington. that's actually an ethics violation. you can't continue to see patients. tom coburn from oklahoma wanted to keep his practice. he wanted to keep doing continuing education so he wouldn't lose his license, and he fought aggressively to do that, because he was an objects tradition and wanted to keep delivering babies. congress wouldn't allow him to do that. there is an understanding, there is kind of -- it does make sense in certain industries, certain professions y you don't want to have a conflict of interest with the voters. that's an issue that congress can debate amongst themselves. gerrymandering, that's not an economic issue, so the club for growth doesn't get involved in it, but i think everybody agrees that it's kind of fishy how some of these districts are drawn and for what purpose, and
it's the very political, there doesn't seem to be any logic involved at all. but it is what it is. host: andy roth, club for growth, clubforgrowth.org, thanks. guest: thanks for having me. host: another program comes your way tomorrow starting at 7:00 a.m. we'll see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> next, the director of the centers for disease control testifies at a congressional hearing about the agency's handling of deadly biological
agents. after that, the house rules committee considers legislation that would allow a formal lawsuit to be filed against president obama. and later, house democrats lay out their agenda for helping the middle class. july 20 martz anniversary of the lunar landing. tonight at 10:00 eastern. >> this week dr. tom friedman called the mishandling of life anthrax "unacceptable" at a hearing. hearingne of witnesses after more than 80 staffers were potentially exposed.