tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 10, 2015 7:00am-9:01am EST
for passing a spending bill. we will talk to congresswoman robin kelly of illinois about the gun control debate following the san bernardino shootings. ♪ good morning. this is the "washington journal" for december 10. both house and senate legislators are expected to receive a briefing from james comey and others. syed farook, who was killed last week california, may have started planning for the attack as early as 2012. the use of attack helicopters may be some part of the u.s. strategy against isis. he also reiterated how a ground force comprised of u.s. troops is not in the best interest of the u.s.
current strategy against isis for our first 45 minutes this morning. we want to find out from you what the best plan might be in fighting isis. we have divided the lines differently -- if you think the0 u.s. should fight. if it is best left to iraqis and syrians, (202) 748-8001. if you want to post on our social media channel, it is @cspanwj on our twitter feed, facebook.com/cspan is our facebook page, you can send us e-mail at email@example.com. lookington times" takes a at the senate armed services committee, talking about aspects of the islamic state. it was senator john mccain who made several references to the use of u.s. troops, the "washington times" picking up
that mr. mccain and other hawkish committee members talk about what they consider a gap in mr. obama's strategy, leaving the -- leaving raqqa in hands of the islamic state indefinitely until syrian rebels -- [video clip] what we do need in iraq is several additional thousand u.s. troops to accelerate the training of iraqi forces, especially sunni fighters, advanced fighters closer to the fight, calling airstrikes from forward positions, and conduct counterterror operations could alternately, to destroy isil in syria, we need a multinational ground force, primarily made up of sunni, arab forces, but with a strong u.s. component to do what no local force now can or will could we take raqqa, caliphate ins
syria, and prepare for a long stabilization effort. we need to seize the initiative, rollback isil's regional expansion. this will call for greater u.s. military intelligence teams and support countries in building a just and inclusive government. senatorose are ideas of john mccain. may have ideas on your own as far as the defeat of isis. if you want to call on our three lines, (202) 748-8000 if you think the answer is more u.s. troops. if you think it is leaving to iraqis and syrians, (202) 748-8001. and if you have other ideas, (202) 748-8002. king leading off the discussion on twitter this morning. he says this -- to defeat isis, it is going to take a massive world war ii-type effort with all the nato and all the destructive power we can muster. you can add your thoughts on
twitter as well and are faced with page, and you can also send e-mail on this topic. let's start with mark in kentucky. you are first up. go ahead. caller: donald trump is the only one with a plan out there to defeat isis. the other candidates, democrats and republicans, they do not have a clue. host: as far as his plan, how would you summarize his plan? it is a start, to keep them out of the country. you do not climb in bed with your enemy. how are you going to have your enemy next door as a neighbor? host: how does that work out practically here as far as defeating isis in the u.s.? as far as the best strategy going forward. caller: we got to clean up a mess that both democrats and , not inans have created this past administration, not in the one before, probably before
the 1970's, before jimmy carter, it has been highly intelligent individuals who of made this mess, and we are about to lose our country over it because they want to be politically correct. enemyu cannot fight your -- you have to fight dirty. you have to do everything you can to win. period. host: that is marked offering his idea this morning, that is on our line for other ideas at (202) 748-8002. bestu think the effort is left to iraqis and syrians, (202) 748-8001, or u.s. troops, (202) 748-8000. tony on our line for other ideas. he is in cincinnati, ohio. go ahead. caller: yes, i believe we need to give back to a deterrent strategy. we need to get back to massive retaliation, deterrence strategy, a modern version of it. you do not need all the nuclear
weapons threat we have nonnuclear, anti-electricity on thosebeing put missiles, and all you have to do is threaten them with it. if you threaten what they hold capital and every thing else, and i think that ustl ratchet down tensions jsu doing that as well as other things like deterring vladimir putin. host: so the threat is one thing, and then we have to be willing to act on that threat, is that what you are saying? caller: yes. we have to be willing to act on the threat, but we do not have e something.nuk we can do a demonstration shot. there is nuclear diplomacy that goes into the secure all of that was developed in the cold war when i worked at strategic command in the air force. it is there -- you just have to use it. we have to get back to a deterrent strategy for all of our overseas conflicts. the only thing vladimir putin is going to be deterred by his nuclear deterrence. other people can be deterred by
other things, like warheads, offensive cyber war. that can take the place -- host: off of twitter, edwin says this -- this is a civil war. it belongs to the muslim countries. our resources would be better served here at home. the previous caller talked about donald trump you're a story in -- talkedngton post" about donald trump this morning. a story in the "washington post" -- gop candidates talk tough about isis, but what would they actually do. , and iner a variable in some some cases -- host: harder to tag is the bombastic front runner donald trump.
host: randy up next. good morning from chicago heights, illinois. our line for other ideas on how to fight isis. randy, you are on. go ahead. caller: hi. good morning. i would like to say that i agree on not sending any troops over there or anything, but what about the battle of the bulge? what about russia, france, committing 500st high-technology takes that could wipe out anything in mile away if they wanted to. the top commanders of these tank enforcements. we do not have to send any troops. just send 2500 of the best tank commanders and takes that we
have -- tanks that we have an territories.l the tanks can do the whole thing by themselves. that is what we did with the battle of the bulge! they used tanks. why not just used tanks, not military? host: herbie from mississippi, our line for other ideas. hi. go ahead. caller: yes, what we should do is remove israel from the middle east. ever since that happened, that is what -- host: that is herbie in mississippi. --l on twitter multinationals will fight better if they have u.s. troops backing them on site. if you think the answer is more u.s. troops, (202) 748-8000. if you think it is left to iraqis and syrians only, (202) 748-8001. if you have other ideas like one you wanted to add on to what you heard on this morning, (202)
748-8003. -- (202) 748-8002. when it comes to the authorization for war, a story in the "new york times" this morning takes a look at the headline -- a congress that does not want to weigh in on the war. this is jennifer steinhauer. "for over a year, i have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against isil. i think it is time for congress to vote, to demonstrate that the american people are united and committed to this fight." and ponder,arry
texas on our line for other ideas, larry, hi there. caller: how are you doing, sir? host: fine, thank you. caller: my idea, sir, we are in spiritual warfare. war we arepiritual fighting. it is in the hearts and minds of our nation. we have to pray. we have to pray for god to help us and direct us in this situation. we have to live as a christian and love people instead of hate people. this is spiritual warfare. this is not about bombing -- you cannot bomb our way out of the situation p or we can bomb our way out of the situation through prayer. host: do you think that will change hearts and minds? what is action have to change hearts and minds? caller: prayer changes hearts
and minds. prayer changes hearts and minds. as christians, we have to follow and live life as a christian everyday and love people, not hate people. rouge,ufus from baton louisiana. go ahead. you are on. isisr: the key to fighting is that saudi arabia has to get involved. -- which is part of islam that teaches people that you can kill easily, so saudi arabia needs to get very, very involved. jordan is doing what they can do. the middle east -- those countries have to fight this war because it is in their region. american soldier should not go there to die for a religious war that we have fought before in
egypt andought in fought in libya with no end. saudi arabia has to lead this war. thank you. host: and you don't think the u.s. and other countries are encouraging saudi arabia enough? caller: in fact, the western withrs need to stop dining saudi arabia. they need to call them for what they are doing in the middle east. they are not engaged right now with what is happening. they are fighting a war in yemen because iran is over there fighting yemen. saudi arabia is not involved in this! [indiscernible] they are the ones training teach all this
hate. venue to call them out and get it on the table. -- they need to call them out and get it on the table. host: thank you. again, (202) 748-8000 if you think the fight in isis should involve more u.s. troops. (202) 748-8001 if you think it is best left to iraqis and syrians. and other ideas, which basically all of our callers this morning, (202) 748-8002. ash carter on capitol hill. you heard senator mccain talk about the need for more u.s. troops feared ashton carter giving a defense against that idea. here is some of its events from yesterday. [video clip] the near term, it would be a significant undertaking that much as we may wish otherwise, realistically we would embark upon largely by ourselves. comparative -- our
advantage of special forces, mobility, and firepower, instead fighting on the enemy's terms. we can well turn those fighting inclined to resist their role, and to fighting us instead feared as chairman dunford testified last week, "isil would love nothing more than a large presence of u.s. forces on the ground in iraq and syria so that they could have a call to jihad." lastly, in the long, there would remain the problem of securing and governing the territory. these must be done by local forces. so in the end, while we can enable them, we cannot substitute for them. host: by the way, if you want to see that full hearing, go to c-span.org. it is available on our video library, and you can watch that whole video yourself you're on
twitter, bill hunter saying that --tory shows us we will shows us that brutal dictators seem to be the most successful in history, sadly. and jack says -- better compete in war of ideas. support kurdish forces, ddos attacks on isil borders. mike, go ahead. caller: good morning. while i was on hold, i heard several ideas that i agree with, one of which is going after the where all of the 9/11 people are from and the to and that they went were radicalized. what i did not agree with is getting rid of israel. israel is our biggest supporter in the one country that we can actually trust to do what is right over there.
i do not think we have looked to them enough for information and things like that. ony have better intelligence what is going on in that part of the world. what i do think, regardless of whatever political party attempts to stall the problem militarily, because one of them , but we listen to the military. you just read an article about president obama saying that we slowed thousands of missions. well, the rules of engagement have been so strict that they say 80% of those come back without dropping their bombs because we are afraid for civilian casualties. world war ii, the united states firebombed dresden to defeat the spirit of the german people, and we killed 300,000 people. and as an example, yesterday, the "daily caller" reported that
judicial watch tried to get e-mails from the night of benghazi that showed that the military was ready to go and that they could not get a hold of anybody, the secretary state or obama. had assets ony the tarmac ready to go, and i have not heard anything in the news about that, and i was just -- and that was just released yesterday. in alabama on our line for u.s. troops. caller: the so much for taking my call. this idea may seem a little but different fourions, let's just say different religions. tothe meantime, we're going
-- and we have our troops, you know, set up, you know, guarding this place, and they are not going, "wait, wait" -- listen. you can too have this if you split yourselves up in three more religions, and you stop fighting and arguing and you all get along and accept each other's religion, and that is how does going to be done. host: johnny is from woodbridge, virginia. he says iraqis and syrians, and effort focused on them is the way to go. johnny, go ahead with your thoughts. caller: yes, i was suggesting that to stop american, young and old, men and women from being killed by wars over there, to , they go to the
filling stations, the 7-elevens, and they do not hire anything but other arabs, whatever, muslims, and train them. these young guys, train them for going to fort bragg or whatever and ship them over there and let our people are going over there being killed and maimed, just like the first gulf war. they started fighting, all the people send their young men to switzerland, the u.s., and helpe -- everywhere but to fight their war. that is wrong. are: ok, in case you joining us, we are asking you to share with us what you think the best plan to fight isis is. this stems from a hearing that onk place on capitol hill the topic you're more u.s. troops, if you agree with that, (202) 748-8000. leave it to iraqi and syrians, (202) 748-8001, and other ideas, (202)
748-8002. the u.s., congress is currently going back and forth on coming up with a plan of fighting of the federal government, and joining us on the phone to talk about where that plan is that as of today, hill," he isf "the a reporter of that publication. good morning. guest: good morning, pedro. thank you for having me. host: where are we as far as coming up with an approval for a spending plan? guest: the bad news is they will not make their deadline. the deadline is friday for funding government. we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and there will not be a government shutdown. the government introduce their short-term spending bill yesterday, and that gave them a few more days to hash out the details of this thing. there was a five-day continuing resolution, which takes us through next wednesday, but the timeline is a bit more crunched than that because the new speaker, paul ryan, has said he
wants to adhere to what is called the three-day rule, meeting he wants to introduce the bill three days in advance tothe boat to allow -- vote allow lawmakers time to read it. you remember this was a debate in the past, "i have not had time to read the bill." yes,peaker ryan says you will have time to read the bill. a long-term bill will have to be introduced by monday, so that is where we are now. friday, buyote on some time, and a long-term vote next wednesday. host: what does that long-term bill have in terms of efforts to shut down the government over planned parenthood or syrian refugees or any of those things? does any of that exist over the form we will see? guest: that is the million-dollar question. this is a strange fight because it is not a fight over spending levels. usually, this is over spending levels are your member when
former speaker john boehner was on his way out the door, he negotiated a big budget deal with president obama, and that set the task on spending. so we already know the levels. both sides have agreed to them for the most part, you know, with exceptions, but the fight we are having now is over the policy writers. the planned parenthood d funding provision is not in there. that is not one of the amendments we are fighting over, but there are a long list of other ones, the initial package overthe republicans since to nancy pelosi and the democrats last week, pelosi said there are more than 30 amendments that are nonstarters, that we are not going to accept, and president obama is not going to accept that they are part of the package. now, she has been very secretive about these things. and named only one of them, that is the syrian refugees provision, the provision to toughen screenings on refugees coming over from syria and iraq. that has already passed the
house as a stand-alone bill, but republicans also want to put it into the final package as a response to the recent terror attacks, specifically the terrorist attack where one of the attackers was allegedly a syrian refugees. michael mccaul, the chairman of the homeland security committee in the sponsor that bill, as of talks toing when we him, he said that is still part of the packets, but president obama says he is going to veto it, so that is a big sticking point to we do not know what is going to happen there. are the democrats going to cut it out, except it, or are they going to swallow it? we're not sure what is going on there. there are a host of other things that could be there, epa water rules, epa smog rules, undo part efforts to of the dodd frank lawsuit reform law. there are all kinds of things the democrats say they will not accept, but again, they have not named them specifically, and we
think that give them room to say ok, if they are in the final package, we can say we fought for them, we tweaked them, but of course the public will never know because they never saw the original vote. host: there was a story in the "new york times" this morning that suggests pet projects are getting into the final version of the spending bill. guest: sure. anytime you have a $1 trillion bill that will take you through can look for, you pet projects. that is always a fun thing for reporters to do. when this enormous bill comes out on monday, you can guarantee there will be a lot of people in the capital looking through it to see what was thrown in there at the last minute to sweeten the deal for some of these lawmakers. there is no way to anticipate what will be in there in terms of those things. horse slaughter provisions -- it is all very provincial, very regional. they will get a headline, and people will get a chuckle out of them, and then they kind of disappear and become law, and nobody talks about them again
except in the regions where they are affected. but that is a fun part of this progress. host: as far as the final spending plan, what you looking for as far as indicating it will pass smoothly or not, and what do we expect over the next several days? guest: this was always going to be a bipartisan bill. paul ryan has enormous majority in the house, biggest since the great depression, but he knows he cannot pass anything without senate democrats who can filibuster any bill, and without president obama's signature. he also has these tea party conservatives who are always going to approach this bill because of the spending cap, because of that number that boehner and obama agreed upon. they do not have any leverage and the writer fight because they are going to vote against the anyway. it is always going to be bipartisan. you can expect an overwhelming bipartisan vote. you will lose some conservatives who will object to some parts of
it, particularly spending levels, but you can expect that cr will pass, that the omnibus will pass, that the president will sign it. mitch mcconnell and paul ryan, both remember all too well how the 16-day shutdown in 2013 over obama care really kind of harm to the republican brand, if only temporarily. they do not want that to happen, particularly mid presidential election race. i think they will make good on that, and we will see a smooth process through next week. host: mike lillis with "the hill," giving us the details about finding the extension, thank you for your time. guest: thank you, pedro. appreciate it. host: back to our question about the best ways to fight isis. for more u.s. troops, iraq is in
serious only, or other ideas. in virginia, thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: thank you. my contention is that the western powers are already providing enough air cover for the iraqis. and do the go in fighting themselves. the shia are the majority. go in there with the air cover they are getting into the fighting their selves, fight for their own country. i do not want any american troops there anymore. they have suffered enough. cover that is being provided, the iraqis themselves, the shia in particular, should go in there and seek isis out. i do not want any boots on the ground. thank you. host: from hawaii, this is jeff.
go ahead, please. caller: good morning. when this started developing, i figured it had been handled before. in 1918, 1919, they put an embargo around the region. $50 a brent at less than barrel. oilnergize our exploration and gas, using fracking, which is a last-ditch method you want to use, we take and send it up to europe, and then we deal with it later. host: why do you think that strategy will work in the modern-day? caller: the elements are the same. throw away religion, look at the economy, look at the drought -- and it works out. host: that is jeff from hawaii. one of the discussions that came out of the hearing that took place on capitol hill was about the use of attack helicopters in the fight against isis. it goes on to quote ashton carter saying "the united states
is prepared to assist the iraqi army to help them finish the job including attack helicopters and accompanying advisors, if circumstances dictate and if requested by prime minister abadi." twitter, supply lines have to be severed, resources destroyed, fighters obliterated. 6 millionitter, the dollar man, as he identifies himself, says protect the
homeland with more surveillance, of,s, special task force more local police, and public progress reports daily. carl from berkeley springs, west virginia, hello. caller: good morning. think that do not president obama will use the full might of our military. and i will tell you why -- you look at his childhood, he was childhood, heis was in indonesia, and he lived among the muslim population. his father was a muslim, and he is very sympathetic to the muslim religion, and that is why he will not use the full power of our military to do away with this sleazy outfit. i would like to say one more thing -- host: since you called in on the iraqis and syria line, do you think that is the best fight against isis, using them without more u.s. support? caller: i think -- we have our
military. they are well-trained, and i think we should use them to destroy this sleazy bunch. and i want to say one more thing . indictfbi does not hillary clinton, general petraeus, his record should be wiped clean because what he did was 1000 times less than what hillary did when it comes to handling top-secret information. host: floyd in louisiana on our line for other ideas. hi. caller: good morning. you know, i have been listening and listening to these people talk, and what did colin powell say? if you break it, you own it. we have been burning those people for over 15 years,
killing thoseng, people, destroying all of their buildings. you have those kids over there, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 years old, then for 15 years. they do not have planes, tanks to fight america with, so what are they doing? they are giving up their lives for a cause. there is no way that we can defeat those people. you have to kill everybody over there. so this is my take -- quit lying about why these people do not like us. we do not know why they do not like us. you know and all those people up there in washington and all these politicians around the country -- they know why they don't like us, and they are lying to the american people. 15+ave been bombing them years. host: sure, but what is the best way forward then?
caller: i have no idea for you created that monster, you broke it, you own it. i have no idea. host: anthony is up next, maryland, on our other ideas line. hi. other idea isy there was dyncorp and blackwater. you do not hear about these private companies. they're not calling for them to go in. we spendty sure if enough, $5 million to train five people over there, i mean, that could've gone to one of those corporations. and we have people like john mccain, lindsey graham, allen west who are calling for troops -- i think they ought to go over there also. host: if you go to the page of the "washington post" this morning, there is a follow-up story taking a look at the climate talks currently going on in paris, coming close to two weeks now of discussions on issues having to do with climate.
this story has to do with the money that the u.s. is going to helpe to poor countries to them develop strategies to reduce carbon emissions, john kerry, secretary of state, said u.s. annual spending on climate would increase from about $400 million to at least $800 million by the year 2020 host: later wednesday, negotiators --
host: from florida, this is tom. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i actually think that the iraqi and syrian armies should deal with that situation in that region. america needs to learn how to stay out of other countries' business. i also believe that we have our own problems here in this country that need to be dealt with. is not one of those problems then that needs to be dealt with? thatr: isis is a problem comes to us because of certain conditions in that area. america has been involved in certain activities in that area, and it is pretty much -- it has
pretty much made isis grow the way it has grown. host: james and missouri, you are next. good morning, go ahead. caller: hey, good morning. i was looking at the issues as far as more troops in there. more troops in there, but you need to find out what these people exactly are wanting, you know. what are they fighting for? i mean, do they have a reason? i do not believe it is just to havepeople, you know, they got a problem here in they are fighting for. we need to find out what it is. they need some kind of assistance or something, and fighting is just not the issue. like they say, extend the hand and figure out what the cause is, what they need, and maybe eliminate whatever this problem is that they are fighting for. host: james, expand on that. what do you think they are fighting for?
what you think we will find out if we try to find out what they are doing -- why they are doing what they are doing? caller: the reason you want to find out -- evidently they do not have -- they are fighting for a cause. i just cannot believe it is just to be killing people. is?: what do you think that caller: i don't know. if i was over there, you know -- [laughs] if i was over there. and find to get over out what it is, see if you can find a common cause or put forth some kind of effort to get it resolved. you know, people ain't just going to fight just to be fighting. host: i apologize for that, that was james. donald trump proposing a trip to pones a-- posts trip to israel, amid over
the call of muslims. [no audio] caller: -- good morning, pedro. let the arabians and libyan, turkey, all of them -- that is in their backyard. i think once they get on the ground, then maybe, just maybe we could put some people over there. but i am sick and tired of seeing all of these young people getting maimed for life and killed and every thing like that for nothing at all except for oil. and all themans other ones, syria, and all them other ones do the fighting. we do the air support like we have, plus that, close our southern and northern borders so these people cannot get in.
they just stop some people here down in guatemala or whatever that was going to come here, and they were from syria over there. so i think it should be done that way. that is my thought. thank you. host: here is jimmy from alabama. good morning, jimmy. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: hi. obama and idea is for nobody let isis know what you are going to do, keep it secret, and that way you can keep it protected. if you let the enemies know what you are going to do, it is no good, so you need to not let them know what you are going to ,o and stop telling the public that with a do not know our strategies. that is my thought. host: robert is in north carolina. what do you think is the best strategy? caller: well, good morning, pedro. good morning, america.
as i have been looking at it in from being in the military, we need to stop thinking about trying to fight it with force on force. we have the capabilities and the resources to definitely get into the country -- get into any country in the world and beat them up right quick. once we get our footprint in and get on the ground, if you will, then we need to go into our counterinsurgency program where time is a key element here where we have to train these people to --more -- how can i say it? aligned with their national country alliances as opposed to their tribal, sectarian leadership that they give to leaders.igious now, that will take some time to conduct a counterinsurgency because i hear the president say that we have fought for 14 years. the problem is, i would like to
know why we haven't fighting for 14 years when we should have been training people for 14 years. the only group of people in that country that probably what we are trying to do is 14 years old, and they need to be trained to take over their country, not work with these people. as much as we can. you know, but the next generation and the generation behind them should be trained to be loyal to their country and fight for their country. these people fight for their tribes. they do not fight for their country. the best foreign-policy that i heard in reference to this issue that you are presenting this ," anng was from "homeland episode two weeks or three weeks ago, when they said, "what is it that we need to do?" you put 200 folks, 1000 soldiers on the ground followed by 200,000 teachers and construction workers and
rebuild, re-mold a society because of they want to come over here, let's make their country like our country. just one country ofdemocracy in a sea totalitarian nations, and everybody wants to come here. we should not be a fortress, america, we should be forward projecting and inculcating those values for which they want over here. host: that is robert in north carolina giving his thoughts on the best plan to fight isis, as we have been doing for the last 45 minutes or so. from a from the f e i was released yesterday -- new information from the fbi was released yesterday about the san bernardino shooting unless saying the couple spoke of attacks in 2013. mr. farook and his wife were talking about jihad and martyrdom --
host: both the house and the senate expected to get briefings from the fbi director and other officials on the san bernardino shootings. those briefings will take place this afternoon both on the house side and the senate side. on our linehigan for other ideas, bob, good morning. caller: good morning. i have been looking at this for many, many years, and the waters seamer muddy in the middle east. we talk about a multitude of agendas, which do exist, and but finally ings, have come down to just a couple of things. you know, when you are looking at a criminal gang anywhere in the world, the first thing you do is follow the money. you follow the source of money.
if you are an investigator of any sort. see isseem to feel or this group, their philosophy and all these groups, their philosophies emanate from one place -- it is a place of power in the islamic world that no one is willing to talk about honestly because of fear. and that group is the one hobby that controls the political and social life in saudi arabia. they are literally blackmailing .he billionaire princes they are funding schools that are basically training -- this is where these folks are trained. the folks that are isis and everything, everywhere else and are basically controlled by that philosophy. it is an extremely conservative and radical philosophy. thatyou follow the money,
is where the end of the money is going to be. these schools, which are funded by the arabian government, they are basically being lack nailed into funding this worldwide jihadist network. they are the ones that are controlling these groups, and people, justetting like we embed people, our troops in with iraqi battalions. philosophicalse folks in with their groups. oh, by the way, pedro, the other muddy water that we have been talking about that no one will admit to, i have been looking a little bit of these groups, too. you can call yourself ousted bob, you can call yourself isis, taliban -- it does not matter. those groups ascend and descend based on what we do to their leadership. in the end, america, these and they have,
one agenda, and when you stop the flow of money from its source, you can cripple that group enough to do some damage. host: that is bob from michigan joining the rest of the calls this morning on the plan to fight isis. two members of congress with us this morning to talk about a variety of issues. the house coming in at 10:00. first up from kentucky, republican thomas massie on his view over the current debate of funding the government, says that congress is giving president obama too much power. later on in the program, you will hear from democrat robin kelly, the vice chair of the house gun violence prevention task force. all of that as "washington journal" returns after this. ♪
>> she was such an authentic person. i always thought there was more nf a story of lady bird tha anybody covered. she became, i think, the first modern first lady. in other words, she had a very big staff, she had a very important project, she wrote her book as soon as she left the white house. she really invented the modern first lady. >> sunday night on "q&a," boyd carolitty lady bird. -- on her book over lady bird. those women saw something
in those men, the ambition, the opportunity to really climb and make a mark in the world, and they married them in spite of parental objections. ofshe is a good example that, and that is why i decided i had to find out more about her. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern in pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states give their attention. >> monday on c-span's "landmark cases" -- >> you have the right to an attorney, you have the right to remain silent, anything can be used against you in a court of law. or nestor miranda was arrested in phoenix on suspicion of kidnapping and raping a young woman. after two hours of police questioning, he confessed her at
trial, miranda was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison, but has lawyer argued that he had not been told that the right to both an attorney or the right to remain silent during the case went all the way to the supreme court. follow the supreme court case of miranda versus arizona and the policing practices in america with our guest, jeff rosen, president and ceo of the national constitution center, -- and paul -=- cassell, that is on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the "landmark cases" companion book, available for $8.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> "washington journal" continues. now isoining us
representative thomas massie, republican of kentucky. he is a member of the government oversight reform committee. good morning. congressman, give your sense of the debate going on overspending. bill?e see a finalized are you going to be happy with the final result, do you think? guest: i will not be happy with the final result, i can tell you that. the process is broken, and what we are doing right now is sort of clearing out the debris so that we can start the right process next year. this is an appropriations process that we are talking about. the way congress is supposed to fund government is through 12 separate bills. we were never supposed to write one giant, 1600-page bill in the last two days of the session and path that for her we are supposed to do is have 12 separate ones. for instance, we should vote on military spending separately from the department of the interior. what you do is you have the senate do the same thing.
you have congress and 12 separate spending bills to the .president what that enables you to do is have that debate separately on things and set of it becoming best giant hairball at the beginning of the year, which is what we have now. to paul ryan has promised get us back to that process, which inside the beltway is called regular order. i think it would be very helpful to do that, to separate these debates on various parts of government because what happens right now is if the democrats and republicans grind down, grind, you know, to a stop over one issue, it imperils all of government your it all parts of the government are at risk of not being funded. if we would separate like we're , in the 1970's, congress passed a law that basically sets how we passed the budget, if we would follow that law and follow the budget that way, we would not have the massive shutdowns throughout the
end of the year. one of those republicans call for using the spending bill to take up issues like funding planned parenthood or syrian refugees. were you one who advocated for that position? if we had 12 separate bills, we could do that. for instance, let me to you what is happened historically. there is a battle in congress between the administration and congress over the epa using the authority that they claim to have, that was given to them by congress many decades ago, rewriting the definition of what is a water of the u.s. what is a federal waterway. it even includes underground water now. and most republicans disagree with this redrafting of waters in the u.s. in that appropriations bill that -- when that appropriations bill that funds the epa comes out, we
can say none of the funds here redefine waters of the u.s. and we can have that battle on the epa funding bill without impairing our soldiers' paychecks or the processing of claims at the v.a. or whether the national parks or monuments are open or not. so when we try to put these writers on a huge bill, you imperil basically all of government. now, what i would say, if i put my partisan hat on, if you allow me to do that, calling in on the republican line, if you will, is that the president takes the government hostage when he, for instance, the monuments here. they will close down over a and webout the epa, allow him to do that because we are doing a giant omnibus bill. so what congress has done by
doing one a giant bill instead of 12 separate bills as we have given up our power of the purse because we are always going to lose that argument in the press. when the president comes out on the stage and says, "well, pollute ourwant to planet, they are shutting down the government to do it," he blames us for that. if we can have that debate on just the epa bill without including the v.a. and military spending at the same time like we're supposed to do, then that is kind of like letting the hostages out of the room. ok, republicans and democrats agree with need a military. we actually can get to some agreement on what the spending level should be. let that hostage out of the room, if you will. same thing with the v.a., same thing with the parks, and have this separate argument on a separate bill. again, this is not a hypothetical -- this is the way things were done for decades
until the late 1990's, early 2000's, we started to grind to a halt. host: our guest is with us, if you want to ask them questions, the lines are on the screen. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .emocrats, (202) 748-8000 independents, (202) 748-8002. representative thomas massie, republican of kentucky. in the spirit of your last statement, a letter was sent about the spending bill, and this was about the issue of planned parenthood, saying in the meantime, please know that we cannot support any funding resolution -- an appropriations bill, and omnibus package, a continuing resolution, or otherwise -- that contains any funding for planned parenthood, including mandatory funding. guest: i still agree with that approach, but the right place to
nd planned parenthood is in the spending bill. some people say, oh, that is not germane. it is germane. at least the discretionary part of planned parenthood should be left out of the omnibus bill. but what i am saying is we lose that argument in the public if the president is willing to shut down the monuments. we lose the argument in the because we do not have the budget out in separate line items so that the fight over planned parenthood would be on the health and human services appropriations bill, not on the omnibus. now, am i still willing to have that discussion and try to defund planned parenthood on the giant bill that funds? everything? absolutely. i would knowledge here, it is battle in theat public when the president puts barricades across the monuments. host: do you think speaker ryan
is heading toward that, do you think he is having strides in that return? guest: i think he absolutely is. as i said, there are 12 separate appropriations bills. we got six of them done in the house last summer, and then we basically gave up and blamed the amendment on the confederate offered. the democrats our leadership said we are not going to vote on that, so we will just up passing the -- just stop passing the appropriations bill, which was ridiculous. the senate had either one or none of the 12 appropriations bills. what we need to do this year, and i hope listeners follow this, and i would love to combat on your show as we get into this process next year -- we need to pass all 12 appropriations bills and send those to the senate and say, "no more omnibus, no more cr, this is what we are doing. you have 12 appropriations bills. whenback and talk to us
you have 12 appropriations bills to your will conference those and pass them to the president turko i think speaker ryan did try -- conference those, and pass them to the president." i think speaker ryan did try. it takes 60 to do anything in the senate. if they become the obstructionists, are we willing dotake the public heat and the educational campaign of explaining there are supposed to be 12 separate bills, and the senate is not doing their job? that is where we need to take the stand, and that will have to happen before next the delivery of. host: we have calls lined up for you. chuck --s from the first is from chuck. go ahead. caller: good morning. want us all, you people to trust you, but when you go out here and look at how the senate voted, loretta lynch, holder was basically a disaster
you people cross lines, you could have blocked her, she becomes the continuation. we cannot trust you people. instead of you guys voted for common sense, you guys make deals. this is quite obvious. nine republicans voted to as her loretta lynch office. your not yet to be trusted. guest: that is a great point. i do not think you should trust washington. they do not deserve your trust. and, i came here because i do not trust them. that lorettaout lynch is confirmed by the senate, we do not have confirmation in the house. the difference between house and senate is they have power of confirming cabinet appointments. they can approve or disapprove the treaties.
we have big power. we have the power to set taxes. all billstution says raising revenue shall originate in the house. are the two differences between the house and senate. i did not even vote on the loretta lynch nomination. i did cosponsor a resolution. and that is the power that we have in the house. the power ofe appointment in the senate, i do not think you should trust washington dc -- washington, d.c. if you do need verification. one of the problems that we have had is that people do not like congress. we had a 10% approval rating, but they keep sending the same congressmen back. i think that is because they do not look at their own voting record and see how abysmal it is.
do not trust us. i do not know we are congressmen is, i do not want to implicate them, if they are not doing their job, send them back. host: democrat, senate tenure texas. go ahead. caller: it is funny, people do not trust congress when republicans are in charge. they trusted congress when democrats were in control. i know you guys will muddy the waters and send people not trust congress, it is simply because you guys are not doing your job. that means republicans are not doing their job. willthe reason why people blame the republicans and not notpresident when -- it is because he puts barriers around it is becauses, you guys play these games. we are not stupid. d -- you areng
planned parenthood, obamacare and the epa. his republicans that are playing games. we are not stupid. caller: i do agree that the american public is not stupid. guest: i do agree that congress tends to play games. i think you are misplacing the blame on the republican party. it is certainly within our ability and our prerogative in the constitution whether to fund something or not to fund it. epa, if they the pass a new role that has never come for a vote in congress, it is certainly our prerogative to defund it. that part of it is not a game. complaints is that there is a lot of theater going on in congress. there is a lot of theater that happens in the oversight committee. we invite witnesses in. we ask them questions.
virtually nothing comes from the hearing. i am cynical as well as about the aspect of congress. i would like to see something come out of those hearings instead of just the theatrical aspect. we had in the irs, we had lois times, for me to you both that she took the vote come i turned my colleagues and they say we are dragging all these people in here. they are blaming them for abusing the tax code. who wrote the tax code? congress did. it is 70,000 pages. we need to scrap it and start over. all the stuff that happened at the irs would not have happened. host: republican, oregon. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. did i misunderstand that this
water bill is running through on friday? if it is, i have a question. guest: i had the same question myself. i have not been able to see the bill that we will be voting on. now, the bill that we will vote is an exercise to kick the can down the road. it is moving into next week. it'll have a continuing resolution. at change current policy. it will be a cut and copy pace of the existed funding. we will try to negotiate with democrat leadership in the white point we could be on the bill that we vote on next week. it could become a but i do not know. has promised to give a full three days to read the bill.
i would presume we will get the bill on monday. we will vote on it on wednesday. text onen you get the the vote what happens with the bill? guest: it will be about 1600 pages. you might think that this will be enough time, in congress, three days is not 72 hours. typically what will happen will comply with the three-day rule. be introduced at maybe 11:00 p.m. monday night. that counts for one day. even though there's only one day left. we will read it on tuesday. job toe a very difficult read 1600 pages in one day. as we will vote on it on wednesday morning. days, has touched three so they counted for three days even though it could only be 32 hours. still, that is better than getting a bill and only having
five minutes to vote on it which is how things have worked in the past. i give paul ryan credit for that. staffl take that bill, my , my legislative staff will read staffers andhree myself cannot get through 1600 pages in one day. is we talk to other members of congress and their staff who we trust. we have this e-mail list with maybe one done good -- one dozen congressmen who will report on what we found. in that way, we can, to the best of our ability i spreading out the effort digest the bill. from cincinnati, ohio. david, with our guest. independent line. you're on. aller: how are you doing? guest: i'm doing well. actionressional district includes that. so i am your next her neighbor.
caller: i have a concern. my girlfriend has been on a section eight waiting list. she is having problems getting housing through the programs. takenk that they should part of food stamps section eight, take the money out of the programs, get rid of the bureaucracy, and use it to boost , put them s i -- ssi over the party line is that of making it a one-stop situation, rather than going through the bureaucracy of dealing with section eight and deal with food stamps. i think they should scrap most of the free programs and use the money to boost people social security checks so that they can boost housing and food and utilities. there is a theory on the social programs. that ofry is that as
trying to dictate to all the people who run various forms of welfare, and set of thing you need this much for housing so we'll give you this much for housing, are this much for food so we will give you this much for food, you need this but -- this much and medical care, they will say you will be utter off, even if you are opposed to welfare to just give the people the money in their paycheck. , or ifn their tax return they are receiving social security or disability are some other form of welfare, just give it to them and let them decide. now, in congress, there's not a whole lot of public support forward some we goes on welfare, letting them choose how to spend the money. because, my constituents will say well, this person wasted all of their money. so, that is a good debate.
would like to reduce the number of people who are on welfare and reduce the amount of welfare that we give. as with that, i think to curb the growth of it, we should block passing to the states. the way we do welfare programs whether to section eight or ssi, the way be deal with those in the budget is anybody who qualifies can get the money. we really do not even know how much will be spent on that. so states have an incentive to assign as many of their citizens up for food stamps as they can, because it does not decrease the amount of money that goes to their state, it increases it. if you block that money and told the states that you need to take care of the people who have fallen to the wayside in society, you take care of them the best way that you can in your state, here's a much money
get, use it how you want, i think that would be a better solution. republicans.-8001 202-748-8000 democrats. 202-748-8002 independents. the congressman is expected on capitol hill to talk about san bernardino. will you be a part of those briefings? attendi always try to them. they are typically classified of top-secret. i assume that it will be the same where we have to check our phones in the studio here. i will be listening intently. one of my complaints about those briefings is that there is not a lot of content in them. isot of what they talk about doing with the drudge report on facebook. that is also our complaint when we go to those briefings. because an official
of the administration says that, then that is what you are projecting and it is verified. most of the information that we get is already in the public media. whether through an anonymous source. or the department of homeland security. there is the deniability in the information in the public. as somebody in the cabinet addresses congress coming cannot tonight. so, i wish there were more information in those briefings, i will defer to them in case there are things that will impact public policy in the way that i should vote. issuestance, this is an that is near and dear to me. where there is information that is not the public venues to be in the public, there are 28 pages on the 9/11 commission report that were completely redacted. go tomber of congress can
one of the soundproof secure rooms and read those 28 pages to talk about what led up to and caused 9/11, or at least empowered the people that perpetrated the attack. those 28 pages are classified. members of congress can read them. they have incredible information in their that would impact people's perception of our foreign policy. it should impact every member of congress perception of form policy, particularly in the current debates we are having about immigration and visas. here soment that out of these briefings are low content, some of the information is high content. content.are high i think they should be declassified. host: one of the things coming out of the events in california and paris was the topic of encryption. the fbi director recently content ofn the encrypted technology.
i want to get your thoughts on what he had to say. the tech company and the fbi and everybody else involved in the discussion care about safety on the internet. we understand that encryption is an important part of being secure. we also all caps care about public safety. we also care about a collision between those things right now. encryption is getting in the way withr ability to deal court orders effective for cover information that we need. we all agree that we have to figure out whether we can maximize both of those values. safety and security, and public safety. host: how do you respond? guest: i have been pointed out that if you outlaw privacy, only outlaws will have privacy. the administration has a very misguided view on encryption. they would like to create a backdoor in every product made in america. now, there is a great degree in arrogance involved in that
policy. it is assuming that only american companies can come up with encryption. foreign companies, a german company, a british company or a chinese company can create a product that has unbreakable encryption in it. and, our government cannot to make those countries comply. so come at the end the day, if we make our companies, in the united states, put backdoors in their products, americans will be more at risk because we will have a weaker form of encryption and our personal devices. ironically, the white house uses the same device, the chinese will not have these backdoors in them, or the russians were germans. so, it is misguided in that regard. it makes less sense than if our government had our companies weaken our christian. i have offered several amendments to defund the efforts of the administration at
weakening our encryption. it is also bad for business. do you think a german company that wants to have the most secure form of encryption possible, let's say they are in bacon or health care and are responsible for record-keeping, do you think they will buy american products, if we have brain-damaged our products with backdoors in which encryption? no. i notice you mentioned tech companies. it is implied that the tech companies are at odds with the administration. that is because this is moving into their pocket book. it will impact jobs in the country. int: let's hear from byron baltimore, maryland. democrat. caller: can you hear me echoed -- me echoed -- me? host: yes. caller: we have to stop the blame game. we need to come up with a kind of compromise. shutting the government down is
ridiculous. we waste billions of dollars that could help people. i'm a veteran. you have veterans who have arms blown off. you're sitting there talking about dealing with the security check. was --son food stamps people need food stamps. what the government does not tell you is that people do not even have been able to sign up for them. if prisoners can eat, and americans have worked other life are going through something, why should the? we feed criminals everyday. when it comes to feeding somebody who is going to hard times, with a probable that. you need to start with corporate welfare first and worker way down. and set of going to the poor
person and trying to take all the benefits from them. thank you. for your service. look, i agree with you would have to get rid of corporate welfare. i fought for the xm bank which was a corporate welfare program. a doing with his general lexicon john derek caterpillar. we wanted to get all of the benefits of that program. pro -- opposed to corporate welfare since i came to congress. if you look at the beginning part of the show, i described the process and how congress can boost the funds to the government. that, we wouldo not have the risk of shutdown. we would not be dealing with the
soldiers having a paycheck. they would not be at a risk if we did separate bills. i think it would be a less partisan effect and outcome. host: let's take another call. rich, ohio. republican. caller: how are you doing? guest: we are good. how are you? caller: i am good. forgetting that we and this administration deal with spending as much as all the presidents combined, we cannot find the good spending to the bad spending to sort out a dime or a few hundred dollars for the correct thing. part of the reason we're spending this much unchecked programs is that is causing trouble. right now come with 20 companies that have left the united states because people want to tax them more come and other countries are taxing less. we are about to lose 20 more if
we do not resolve the problem right away. the other thing is the return on investment. which projects can get paid back and one or two years? they should go to the forefront. the other thing is dealing with diseases. we need to solve those. we could have immense savings later on down the line. i listen to your response. guest: thank you. speaking to a return on investment, in addition to the republican reform committee i am on the infrastructure committee. when i came to congress i said please put me on a committee or i agree that there is a federal role to be played and where there should be spending. i do believe we need to get a return on investment. to your point of waste, i would love to use this opportunity to talk about a bill i introduced yesterday to get rid of waste that most people do not even know exists. walter jones, from north carolina, introduced a bill to defund the office and the staff
and the postage that has provided expert because of the house after they with congress. a lot of people do not realize, i did not realize until a few weeks ago that when somebody is speaker of the house and they leave, i get to have an office of the capital. staffersto have three that make over $100,000 a piece. they get free postage for five years. typically, they will be a lobbyist. when denny has to did this a cost taxpayers $1.9 million. i know that is not a lot of money compared to the entire budget, but as you mentioned, we have to start with the pennies and the dollars and the small things. that starts to add up. what walter jones and i did was introduce a bill to defund the money that goes to the speaker of the house after he is no longer a congressman. we think that is a good place for we can get democrats and
republicans together and agree on something where we can put part of the budget. nobody will suffer. republican in kentucky. a member of the republican conform committee. thank you for having me. guest: thank you. host: we will hear from representative robin kelly. she is the vice chair of the prevention task force will have a discussion about gun violence. that is washington journal continues after this. ♪
>> booktv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on c-span two. saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards. nurse and new york times columnist theresa brown discusses her book. one nurse, 12 hours, for patients. which gives readers a firsthand account of her experience in patient care and safety. she is interviewed by debra had maker. executive director of the american nurses association. >> health care will only get more and more complex. we are going to need better and better nurses. to me, they will need to meet all the complex needs. thinking about how to keep a strong and healthy and
encouraging that is huge. that, butp service to we do not really emphasize it. >> on sunday afternoon at 1:30 p.m. eastern. >> politics, which i've them part of all of my life was not ofdifferent from the world petty criminals, robbers and racketeers. it was disguised, and therefore less obvious to see. for 25 years in my career i looked at america as an ideal. i defended american principles, the american dream and founding. i've looked at american politics as a debate. the republicans believe in liberty, the democrats believe in equality. republicans want equality of rights. democrats want equality of outcomes. now, it is the point of view of the criminal underclass that this way of looking at american
politics is complete nonsense. setinesh to sosa look american politics. stealing politics what my experience with criminal gangs taught me about obama, hillary, the democratic party. former democratic presidential candidate and author lawrence lessig talks about his experience running for president. campaign finance. the central theme of his book, republic lost, the corruption of equality and the steps to end it. >> were supposed to have a democracy where we are equal participants. but, we have a system where members of congress spend a 70% of their time raising money from a tiny percent. they cannot help but be more focused and concerned with the interest of the tiny fraction of that 1%. that is a system where basic equality is denied. tv all weekend
every weekend on c-span two. host: >> washington journal continues. joining us now is representative robin kelly from illinois. she serves a second district. she is on the chair of the gun violence prevention task force. guest: good morning. host: could you tell our viewers a little bit about yourself and your background? what is the main goal of your work echoed -- work echoed i replaced jesse jackson junior. i'm from the second conditional district. my district is reversed -- diverse geographically. actually, people initially said that the gentleman from chicago, but i'm not from chicago two thirds of my district is a suburban and rural. the other third is the city of chicago. and my background, i have a lot of government. i worked on the local level, or
live now, the state level, the county level the chief of staff. illinois state treasurer, chief administrative officer. i'm the the present of cook county. also worth been for four years. host: as far as the task force you have been designed to set up, what is the goal? guest: i am not the only vice chair, but there are a number of us, really, the goal is gun violence prevention, there are some definite things we're trying to accomplish like background checks, and later you are hearing about people on a no-fly list in able to buy guns. really, we need to look at decreasing gun violence in our country. the mass shootings and the voice that i bring. we talk a lot about mass shootings. individualslot of that die that we do not speak about. we're bringing that back to the forefront.
people die everyday from gun violence. and it could be homicide come a could be suicide, it could be an accident. host: give me your thoughts on the events of san bernardino. what does it bring to the discussion you are having on the task force about gun violence yes --? -- violence? well we are to stop people should not have guns. whether there are felons or the have a criminal background, or are connected to terrorist or have mental health issues. this is another mass shooting. i know they're still investigating, but how did they get the guns? we know the person who purchased the guns for them, why did you do tot? what can we lessen that? would have to cut off the access to guns. i'm not against guns. the nra tries to say that all the time. i'm not anti-gun.
i grew up in a family of police. my nephews are police in chicago. my cousin is a police officer in new york. i've hunters and my family. i'm not against guns. the head of the task force is a gun guy can't and i remember. host: do you own a gun? guest: i do not. as the is benson last week, there are procedures to make sure guns to not fall into the wrong hands. background checks and things like that. how can we expand them? becauset is interesting people talk about chicago like they have the strictest gun laws, chicago is just one place. it is all of the places around you do not have the same gun law, if they are not national or federal gun laws as far as gun trafficking and background checks. we had a hearing and gun shop owners talked about the gun show how people will show and buy a
gun. you do not know their history. host: for the most part again shows there are procedures in place -- guest: no, we're trying to expand background checks to close gun shows loopholes and online. host: you talked about the overlap of no-fly, comes up pertain to gun sales? guest: people on no-fly list of terrorist watchlist can come to the country and they could buy a gun. that is a big concern. they are on the no-fly list. they can still buy a gun. that makes no sense. host: why not a legislative changes to fix that? guest: there is resistance. like all of the gun reform safety bills that we put forth, the background checks, this check, there has been so much resistance from inside. host: wisconsin state journal
talked about -- speaker ryan talked about the no fly and he said that rogers misses the idea saying that the no-fly list includes people not convicted of terrorist act. ted kennedy said he was stopped in question at airports in 2004 because, according to kennedy come his name was on the list. crowd can putur anybody on a no-fly list with no proof. might be true, but a little inconvenience is not going to hurt anybody. if some of you heard, we would hear about that. it is to help protect americans. , butght be inconvenient that is how people felt but the tsa and taken off their shoes. it is better to be safe than sorry. host: our guest is representative robin kelly from illinois.
she is the vice chair of the gun violence prevention task force. if you want to ask her question you could is on the line. 202-748-8001 four republicans. 202-748-8000 four democrats. 202-748-8002 independents. our first call is from paulette a florida democrat. you are on with our guest. good morning. go ahead. caller: hello. good morning. i'm just thinking, i know a lot of these mass shootings are done --people come from outside are not done by outsiders, it is mostly american-born. wasn't this man american-born? guest: yes. from san bernardino, born in cook county. caller: exactly. guns they're using to kill americans are made in america.
i keep listening to these things , people are raised to hate. they will grow up hating. hate is inside of them. that is all they know. this is what america is up against. .t is an american process host: thank you. your response? guest: i agree with her. we are not going to hate. we are taught that. that would help. if people, like the judging that is done by what donald trump is doing, that is horrible. it does not breed understanding or respect. host: from columbus, georgia. this is carl on our independent
line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a comment and the question. constantly hear about the gun violence that is a continual thing. nation is on the forefront of the leading nations. we have this violence because our policy and whatnot about the ability to get guns and have access to them. you know, i'm a veteran. do not get me wrong. i am not against gun ownership. i actually own several guns.
i believe it is the right of each and every one of us to be able to defend ourselves, if need be. this is embedded in our constitution. you know, we have problems now. we have serious problems. endust frustrates me to no to see that our nation cannot come together. we are completely divided. it is very sad. i wish that we could wake up as thation, and understand there are things that can be done. it is not so much as taking someone's rights to gun makingip away, versus the policy to get control of something that is out of control.
thank you. guest: thank you for your service. i agree with you, as i said, i am not against guns as long as there are law-abiding citizens that have been. i'm not against that, this is madness. where losing a generation of young people in the united states. our children are four times more likely than canadian children. 65 times more likely than british children to be killed. there is a problem here. it is a myriad of things. it is not just one thing. there are a lot of things. it will take a village to correct what is going on. host: jane in illinois. republican line. go ahead. caller: hello. i live in your district. my question is, why cannot we limit the availability of ammunition that these guns use? and, incidentally we need more water in the river.
let's not listen just to the fisherman. thank you. i'm happy to hear your mind constituent. we can do a lot of things. we just have a hard time getting agreement across the aisle as far as ammunition. as far as gun safety measures in general. i am looking out for the river. and in virginia, independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am a hunter. was 15y first gun when i years old. i'm now 65 years old. i am in favor of gun ownership. i am not in favor of weapons that are designed to hold 30 rounds of ammunition. if we look at the killings that go on in this country, regardless of the hysteria that we talk about, these people being radicalized.
the commonality is that they are using weapons that carry 30 rounds of ammunition. i live in the state of virginia. in the state of virginia, 200 the shotgun designed to hold five rounds, you have to put a plug in it to limit the number of rounds that you can put in the shotgun. that is a state law. yet, will allow people to carry weapons and own weapons that carry 30 rounds of ammunition. if we limited the number of rounds of ammunition, if we created these assault weapons to be loaded, and set up with magazines to be loaded from the top like a hunting rifle with five runs of ammunition, you would not have the ability to walk into a building and md 30 rounds of ammunition into a crowd of people. you do not have to be a good shot when you're shooting 30 rounds of ammunition. i think that we will never take
the guns out of this country and i do not want to give up the weapons are used to hunt. but, i think we need to look at the guns that we have now this country. making them safer. really the people who own these guns to say the only people that we have them are criminals, they serve no purpose for some of you to go and shoot holes into a target at a shooting range. if you had a magazine that had five rounds, you could still shoot the same target. i think that we need to look at it from a different approach instead of saying we need to look at the background checks, we need to scare the people who own guns. they think they will take all the guns way. we need to limit what these guns are capable of doing. host: thank you. guest: i do agree with you particularly when you look at mass shootings or people who are killed innocently because people
are spraying bullets all over. actually, on the towns in illinois, not my district, not that far, they passed a law like that where lower magazine capacity and the supreme court, it went all the way to the supreme court. argumentsto hear the so that the law will stay in highland park. on the gune of us violence prevention task force, we are not trying to take guns away from people have legal guns and user guns to hunt or for legal reasons. host: changing magazine size and things like that, are those putting limits on the second amendment? guest: no. we have the right to bear arms, you can still bear your arms, do you need large capacity magazines to do that? you are certainly not hunting with that. host: we go to arizona. don, good morning. independent line.
caller: good morning. heard on rt this morning that starting in january you can said on your couch and order all the guns you want over the television. i want to know is that going to include handguns, this is the first time i have heard anything like that. you can buy a gun like you could a watch or a ring. what will that do to sales? we have over 300 million guns in private hands. thank you for taking my call. guest: i am not familiar with --t you just said as far as it sounds a qvc. i'm not familiar. host: there was legislation stemming from a previous gun shooting that dealt with guns and mental health. the mental health
issue. you can talk a little about that. you can talk about the larger discussion of the task force. guest: i think that mental health is a part of it. we have mental health issues with regards to suicide. in regards to more in the mass shooting. sometimes we tend just to blame mental health, we do not need to use that as an escape. sometimes her say it is all mental health, it is not just all mental health. it is definitely an aspect, depending on what speaking -- shooting you're talking about. like it gets too much of the blame. one thing i would like to see some of the neighborhoods that people living, particularly when they talk with the second amendment, parents i have talked to talk about the right to let their child playing a part. walked to a store or to school. parents are scared to let their kids do that.
what about that right? we have those children growing up where there is a lot of gun violence would be great if they had counselors they could speak to. also things like learning, mediation. our children have a peaceful environment they can grow peacefully. representative robin kelly. democrat from illinois. stephen from virginia. republican line. hello. i just looked at the nda active 2011. we look at that. for veterans concerns. we are having problems. we are being labeled agitators.
as far as the nda act is have more thanou a seven-day supply of food, you're considered a terrorist. is there this no-fly list. and the mental illness issues. , -- who will do the follow-up? puttingesponsible for names on a no-fly list? freedoms that are being taken away from the american people for security. this is what amounts to. have the belief that high-capacity magazines will kill more people. one automobile can kill a lot of
people. host: thank you. also on the no-fly list we have this question from twitter. is it possible we have to process before putting people in the no-fly list? you can address that in the previous caller. guest: that is a possibility. i think that what happens is that people do not realize they are on a no-fly list until they try to fly or then there's due process they can go to before that. it is something people have not to give it a lot of thought to. want to thank the gentleman for his service. host: an ohio, nancy. hello. you are on. i am from toledo, but my name is david. no problem. same number.
basically, i want to share with your guest today that and some of the most restrictive gun laws in countries like mexico, they have the highest number of gun related deaths. there were 20,000 people killed last year in mexico. there are very repressive gun laws for people who want to own them. who has the guns in mexico? the gangs and drug cartels. any time there has been an agenda, a gun grabbing agenda in any country in our history, it always led towards tyranny. , mygulags, stalinist russia concern, why called was one of her comments was that she wants to make sure that certain people do not have access to guns. my problem with that, like what donald trump says he wants to have muslims put on a database,
the state apparatus will decide in the future what they deem necessary to expand that. host: thank you. guest: i do not want dangerous people to have guns. actually, what i mentioned before people are chicago have high gun laws. -- the place is a rush chicago do not have the gun laws. --have done laws in the area there are less gun deaths. i think that when you're working in tandem with others, that does help. when you are alone try to do something, it is a different story. host: you mentioned that in chicago there are calls for the mayor to resign over the shooting death of laquan mcdonald. let's talk but the handling of
the case. can your assessment of that. guest: i think there are still more truth to come out, i am upset. chicago, but an lot of my citizens are chicago, they are upset there is no trust between the citizens and the police. the mayor'scitizens office. i have police in my family now. i agree with the department of justice. we have to look at this. now,go is the poster child but things are going on all over the united states. i think a closer look needs to be taken of the operations of the police department. we can start with the top 10 or
15. just looking at protocol in process. , when weg and firing vet somebody they might look like they will be a great police officer, but when people start their job everybody does not the skills to be a police officer. there is a lot of trust that has to be rebuilt between officers and citizens. and also with the mayor. host: do you think he should resign? guest: he has said he will not resign. in a way, i understand why people are calling for it. he said he will not do it. it aslly, he will not do a way to make amends and build trust. we will never bring those that are lost back. there are negative experiences we cannot change, but we have to move forward. we need to develop a better culture in the police department.
we have to build the trust again. people need to feel safe, and safe from officers that are supposed to protect them. host: you hinted at this that it is not the first incident of gun violence in chicago. what makes it unique? guest: i think it is a long-standing culture. thing i can attribute it to. maybe there are different things that will go on. also, the other thing is that people of color, particularly black and brown men, need to be looked at as human beings. just, the prejudice and fear of with people that cause them to shoot and kill them. and the make sure the whole criminal justice system. there are a lot of systemic issues that lead to all of this. host: is access to guns one of the first issues? guns as far aso
other killings that go on. yes, i think access to guns is the bottom line. if you have a gun, your five times more likely even to commit suicide. anybody else,with but yes, access to guns is a big problem. host: let's hear from a gun owner. this is john and pennsylvania. you are on with our guest. hello, go ahead. , andr: how are you doing thank you. i'm a first-time caller. i'm a little nervous. guest: that is ok. caller: i heard a previous caller say that you consider at home and watch tv, their programs or you can buy guns. it is on a sportsman network. there is stuff on there. not callt, you do them. you go online, you order again, it it gets shipped to your address. you have to pick a licensed dealer.
you go through the background check. -- it does not get shipped to your house. covered,loopholes are there is no loophole. every firearm sale for any individual that comes under 18 usc chapter 44, the firearms code. united states code. the problem we have is that the laws are not being enforced. i heard a couple of days ago another caller say that criminals steal guns, that is so they get them. there have been studies, even in chicago there was a study of prisoners were they asked them where did you get your guns? stolen. the rest came from family members, friends, gang members. stuff like that.
under the united states code, there are no loopholes. everybody has to abide by the law. if i sell a gun to my neighbor and i do not think my neighbor is a good guy to sell it to come i do not sell it to him. i can get a background check on to make sure. , whosell it to my brother i've lived with my whole life and i know he is a bad guy -- host: we will let her respond. guest: thank you for clearing up the tv part of what you said. we just had a hearing the other day and we had a gun store owner from arizona and what we talked about an gun shows was that some you will show up to him and he may not sell them the gun like you said, but you would not sell some of the gun if you thought they had a problem. but, everybody is not like you. we talked about that also. there might be laws in place, but that does not mean everybody follows the law. this came out of his mouth.
he said sometimes greed takes over. that is what he said. he is a gun guy. host: from kentucky. gun owners well. hello. caller: good morning. opportunity tohe have a chance to speak with you people this morning. that first,d to say i like to comment on the gun shows. there are people trading down the aisle. i'm a gun owner. i've been to many gun shows. i have seen private transactions occur between nonlicensed dealers. i do not know of that is the loophole slip we're talking about or not. but, i am 54 years old. i have been a gun owner since i was nine years old.
i received my first gun from santa claus. i still have firearm. i never had any trouble come i never got in trouble with the law. however, i work a job were half to take 24 hour calls. i get called into work at 2:00 in the morning, after our case which finishes and on the way home, i stopped to get gas. a young white male approached me at the gas pump wielding a knife and demanded my wallet. that you do not want my wallet, let me give some cash. i reached into my pocket and i showed him my pistol. i didn't pointed at him, i did not discharge the pistol. the young man backed away and turned and ran. so, to disarm a law-abiding citizen takes away the opportunity for one to protect himself. now, i am not against strong
background checks. i think that people who have criminal records or mental health issues should not be able to own firearms. we can get into laws where doctors cannot disclose a person's medical records without putting their own life in jeopardy -- license in jeopardy. i'm wondering how does anyone plan to address the issues with mental health. thank you. guest: i cannot say enough that we are not trying to take guns from people like you. we will not go with people who do not have from a background of
mental health problems. -- if youregislation harm to yourself or others, that can be reported. i think they'll will take care of your question. trying to takeg guns from citizens who have them legally. i cannot say that enough. aboutwhat do you think legislation to changes in gun laws happening successfully congress? guest: it is the nra and gun manufacturers. seen so my stories about myself that are completely wrong , and i think they are based in fear. gun manufacturers have had their stories for so long. they have a lot of money. it is really hard to fight that. when i speak to my colleagues
like the gentleman just said, they have had their guns a long time. they have done the correct thing with their guns and things like that. i think that also, we keep saying gun control like we're trying to control people, but that is the narrative that the nra keeps putting out there. saying that we're trying to take guns away. i think they're predicated on fear. regards the task force, how do you operate and what is the purpose and light of that? guest: we have to get our message out there. the task force is made up of nra members and non-gun owners. have really important to the nra members go on the task force and the other thing is that i was at an event last night and valerie jarrett spoke about this. i also write about it. gun owners came to the white house because they also want
something done. over 70% of nra members want background checks. the public. we are not listening to the american people. that is the bottom line. also, the american people have to keep disturbing and look at who they are voting for. if they want this to stop or they would progress. host: mike, from georgia, democrat line. you are on. meler: first of all, let congratulate the congresswoman for his or election to congress. i want to use this opportunity to appeal to you to keep corruption and the avoidance of corruption at the top of your agenda. i am tired of seeing my heroes go down in flames. i'm talking about charlie wrangle, maxine waters, and the congressman you replace, jesse jackson junior. know, and congress people
have a low threshold when it comes to corruption. the appearance of corruption or even the talk of it is guilty. we -- all i can think of is the shroud of corruption hovering over her. this was my hero. so, please . the dwn issue for me when i hear democrats talk about the gun issue, and i'm a staunch democrat. it sounds to me when i hear conservatives talk about abortion, which to me is a settled issue, move on. i know the second amendment is an amendment which means it wasn't in the constitution to begin w it was added on as the time changed. talked about a well regulated militia which is the part people ignore. for me also i feel that a lot of laws which already people have mentioned that are on the books that criminals will never adhere to. no matter how many rules