tv Washington Journal CSPAN May 28, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
overhaul of the safety standards in four decades. as always we will take your calls and begin joining the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. host: good morning. topping the headlines, president obama's historic trip to japan. in a speech yesterday marking the first time a president visited the site of the attack, president obama rumored those who died a call for a change in the international mindset about war. he made clear he was not offering an apology. the end of may means college graduation ceremonies are taking place. many drawings high-profile commencement speakers, including
business leaders, hollywood and other entertainment stars and public officials including the president. more and more those speeches have focused on the presidential race and other political topics. which brings us today's question for our viewers, have commencement speeches gotten to political? democrats can join the conversation at (202) 748-8000. republicans can call (202) 748-8001. independents can call (202) 748-8002. we have a special line for recent graduates to talk about their address experiences at (202) 748-8003. you can also reach us on social media, on twitter and on facebook. good morning. let's begin this conversation about the political messages in
commencement speeches by taking look at president obama's speech at rutgers university earlier this month. [video clip] >> you were listening to today's political debate and you might wonder where this strain of anti-intellectualism came from. [cheers] >> let me be as clear as i can be. in politics and in life ignorance is not a virtue. [cheers] [applause] it is not cool to not know what you are talking about. [laughter] that's not it real or telling it like it is.
that is not challenging political correctness. that is just not knowing what you are talking about. and yet we have become confused about this. our nation's founders, they were born of the enlightenment. they sought to escape superstition and sectarianism and tribalism and no nothingness. [laughter] they believed in rational thought and experimentation, and the capacity of informed citizens to mr. our own fate. -- master our own fate. that is embedded in our constitutional design. host: that's speech was met with mixed reviews from rutgers students after the president's spoke and talked about donald trump in that speech. some took to twitter and facebook to give their reactions. one student said it was truly an honor to hear president obama speak live.
a dream come true." this is according to a report by new jersey 101.5. other students were more critical. i think it said he took a chance to inspire students and instead used it to poke jabs at a presidential candidate and further his own agenda." a graduation speech is not about him, it's about the graduates. there are cosmetic, the hard work, their future." inspire them to make a difference without making a political speech." that's the question we are asking you. have speeches gotten to political? the democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000, republicans at (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. we have a special line for recent college grads to call. (202) 748-8003.
note that c-span on memorial day, this monday starting at 12: new will be airing commencement speeches from the graduation season. they will re-air monday night at 10:00 p.m. we will also take a look at another public official who recently made a commitment speech. house speaker paul ryan spoke it carthage college in wisconsin where he talked about the plan after graduation. [video clip] >> the biggest piece of advice i would give to you is this. don't worry too much about the plan. go or you can make a difference. sometimes fulfillment lies in very unpredictable places. all of your life people are going to hound you about the plan, the plan, the plan. what is your plan? that he found a job? are you going to graduate school? where do you see yourself in 20 years?
it will seem like no one cares about what you do so much is where you end up. you will start to wonder whether you should not care either. beware. way, ism, the wrong cynicism in perpetual motion. before dinner services draghi out the stage, let me clarify. i am not telling you to reject the job offer and move your parents basement. [laughter] is wherever you end up, the work itself is the reward. treated that way. like and put your best laid plans through the paper shredder. you may never get that dream job, or if you do it might turn out to be a nightmare. but maybe you are meant to do something else. what seems to you like catastrophe could end up becoming opportunity. don't be so quick to dismiss that opportunity if it does not
fit into the plan. host: that was house speaker paul ryan speaking at a commencement address, one of many that top public officials have been speaking at during this college commencement season. we are talking to you about if you think speeches have gotten to political. y from west memphis, arkansas. are the two political? caller: yes. i think it's gotten to the point about what they wanted to talk and they don't think about what real people go through or have a field. i think the conversation would havere effective if we leadership that today talks about the facts. -- the uberask you
member your commitment address or when you attended persimmons graduation? -- for someone else's graduation? what stood out to you? caller: as a former administrator myself being under the bush ministry should, i left . positive message i just got to the facts. message thattive it will peak and spread to the rest of the world. or the library of congress can expose it to the rest of the world. they can use facts to negotiate real-life situations so we don't
ever have to worry about conflict taking control over our political system. host: that is elroy from arkansas. we have archie from minneapolis. do you think commencement speeches have gotten to political? caller: not necessarily. thank you for taking my call. i think we focus in on what we see our political leaders saying and assume it is political. but when i look at it is they are just speaking how they feel in most cases. most commencement speeches are focused on political information, but they are trying to inspire people for the most part. host: let me ask you this. you saw that little bit of president obama's address at rutgers university where he was taking some pretty pointed shots at the republican presidential nominee, donald trump.
do you think that's ok? caller: i have no problem with it because we really have to pay attention to what is going on in this political season as far as what is being said by all the candidates out there. i think president obama had every right to say what he said about donald trump or any other candidate that is running for president. he did not just focus in on him. thelso tried to inspire graduates as far as what to do in the coming future. point thatought the as we see with these people are saying and point towards mr. trump as far as all the things he was saying, which i totally agree with what the president was saying being a democrat. host: speeches for your own graduations or for loved ones, what stood out the most to you?
was there a particular message you like or did you forget them? caller: they are always inspiring. they tell the graduates you have a chance to do whatever you want to do, whatever you put your mind to. i believe the president also said that. he did take the opportunity to weigh in on the silly season, the season of politics that's going on right now. i have no problem with him adding those comments to what he said. host: that is archie from minnesota. in a post on 538 talking about commencement speeches, it noted presidents are now respected again political speeches. they are getting more than ever. originally back in the truman administration, president truman only gave a handful of speeches
and gradually over time, first with the best between presidents kennedy and johnson it spiked dramatically. it went back down until the george h.w. bush administration where he gave a great number of speeches. ever since then all subsequent presidents have followed suit. -- it has become an expectation that presidents will be a commencement speaker. we are talking about the speeches are getting to political or have gotten to political. up next is esther on our democratic line from michigan. with you think? caller: i don't think the president's's speech was political, nor was it about himself. president -- hello? host: i'm here. caller: i don't feel the president's's speech was political.
i think he was trying to inspire the students to be aware of the political -- of what was happening in politics. they need to understand that doitics will have a lot to with their lives and where they are going in their lives, and what is happening in the world. was talkingesident about donald trump in his speech, whereas paul ryan had a less political message, talking more about the students and the plans they should make. do you see a difference between the two sides and how political they are outside of washington? caller: no, no. i think paul ryan's speech was also political. when a politician is giving a speech he is talking about politics. he is talking about -- politics
is about how your life will be lived and how the government affects your life, or how you in fact affect your own life by the -- understanding the politics and understanding what is going on in this world. and who is to be the president of the country. host: that is esther calling for michigan. we have a lot of college ready to china and about the politics of commencement speeches. we have michael calling you from asheville, north carolina on the independent line. are speeches to political? caller: good morning. yes, my daughter went to the honors college in sarasota, florida. a new college. awesome school. everybody is great as a key -- sat's. it was an honor for us to go to
her commencement. she was a fulbright scholar. amy goodman came on stage and just railed against the united states of america and how terrible this country is. it was -- we had to walk out. it was one of the gravest moments of our lives. education.that i have done a prepaid and we work hard. we sacrificed. i paid for tuitions. we were all sitting there and had to listen to amy goodman, who has been on c-span, spouting about how terrible this country was. host: what message would you have wanted to hear at this address? caller: america is a great country. let's start with that. it doesn't have to be just
railing. and then two years ago condoleezza rice was not allowed to speak at rutgers. she would is the first -- she is the first black secretary of state. host: the first black female. caller: if anyone listened to her talk, such a great optimist message aboutstic how america was so great to her. they might not agree with her politically, can i know that's part of your question, but this is a great country. and to listen to that is just disgusting. it ruined it for us. a new college once money from us. are you kidding me? whoever picked her to come in and do that speech, it was totally unacceptable. host:. let me ask you a question caller: you might want, is up
and socialism like amy goodman. host: let me ask this question. how would you address that? you think universities should have policies about what commencement speeches -- caller: how about a little common sense. these are supposed to be people -- a little common sense. halsey had to do was read into her background for two minutes and you could know she was going to come and make a statement. if you don't know her, you need to read on her. she's a socialist, communist. he doesn't like our country. nobody wants to listen to that at a commencement speech. host: that is michael calling in from north carolina. we are talking about commencement speeches. we are looking at another speech given by associate justice clarence thomas of the u.s. supreme court where he spoke at hillsdale college in michigan, talking about the importance of being good citizens. [video clip] >> i often wondered what
grandparents remain as model citizens, even when our country's failures were so obvious. in the air against my early adult life i challenged my grandfather and doubted the ideals of our nation. where elseasked, so would you live? letteredter demand -- man, he knew our constitutional ideals were perfectible if we work to protect them rather than to undermine them. son, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. that is don't discard that which is precious along with that which is tainted. sadly, today when it seems that recurrences rather than personal conduct are the means of
elevation, this may sound odd or at least discordant, but seemedround us back then to have resolved to conduct themselves consistent with the duties and the ideals of our country demand. they were law-abiding, hard-working, disciplined. they discharged their responsibilities to their families and neighbors as best they could. we were taught that despite unfair treatment we were to be good citizens and good people. if we were to have a functioning neighborhood, then we had to first be good neighbors. and if we were to have a good city, state, and country, we had a first be good citizens.
host: that was justice clarence thomas speaking in michigan. we are talking about commencement speeches and have they gotten to political. as the chicago tribune points out, they are not only political but quite expensive. they took a look at some of the us -- the associated press took a look at what some colleges pay commencement speakers. they range widely. some are quite steep. for example, this year the university of houston paid $35,000 to a retired astronaut scott kelly as a speaker. rockers paid $35,000 for bill oners who spoke at divisions ceremony after the school white keynote speech on the unpaid president barack obama. $40,000 torsity paid each of its two speakers. some other prices that this report uncovered.
the adversity of houston increases tuition paid $166,000 to bring matthew mcconaughey to speak last spring, including $10,000 for his airfare. $100,000 to the katie couric and 2006. both donated the fisa charity but the costs sparked a debate about whether colleges paid too much for the pageantry. we are talking about political commitment speeches, whether they are too political as well as expensive. up next we have dave from wilmington, delaware. already's commencement speeches to political? caller: face for taking my call. i can't speak because i have not really seen a lot of commencement speeches other than what is been shown on the news. if any speech inspires young
people were young voters to become engaged in citizenry, i think that's a good thing. if somebody is playing a partisan gain, that is very unfortunate. basically --are own this world and where it's going to. if they can get engaged and show up at the polls, i think that's a good thing. host: is there a difference between urging students to be good citizens and engage in civic service and going after a political candidate, or really getting into the debate that is going on in politics? is there a line that should be drawn between that? caller: i think when you showcased president obama at rutgers, i -- what i took from that was somebody could infer he
was directing it towards trump. i would take a bigger stanton say it was probably more directed to people, voters who are supporting trump. it's an unfortunate thing. obviously, i have my opinion and i think it's unfortunate that the electorate is ill-informed. if we can draw those distinctions as he did talking about ignorance, ignorance is a bipartisan thing. i think it's a good thing to bring up. host: do you remember your own commencement addresses or commencement addresses of friends or family members you attended? is there something about them that stood out? caller: i'm sorry, i do not. i graduated in 1979. sort of a long time ago. i don't really remember much of that speech. i probably permitted more about
getting out of college and getting started with work. that's about all i can say to that. host: that is dave from delaware. we are talking about commencement speeches and if they had gotten to political. let's look at one more from first lady michelle obama, who gave a speech at jackson state university where she talked about the importance of voting. [video clip] >> one of the purest paths to progress in america runs right through the voting booth. that is been the key to every single stride we have ever taken in this country, from fighting discrimination to passing health care. it all starts with the ballot. you seek tos develop your on strategy to address the problems that still plague our communities, i ask you to remember that the power of voting is real and lasting. you can # all over instagram and twitter, but those social
media movements will disappear faster than a snapchat internet also registered to vote. if you're not also sending in your absentee ballots. if we fail to exercise our fundamental rights to vote, i guarantee that so much of the progress we have sought will be under threat. congress will still be gridlocked. statehouses will continue to roll back voting rights and write discrimination into the law. we see it right here in mississippi just two weeks ago how quickly progress can hurtle backwards. out a smallingle group and marginalize them because of who they are all who they love. we have got to stand side-by-side with all of our neighbors. gay, lesbians, bisexual, muslim, and you, christian, hindu. the march for civil rights isn't just about african-americans. it's about all americans. host: the new york times
recently wrote a little bit about the first lady, about how she is increasingly becoming more vocal in her time in the white house. how she is gone from focusing on andg a mom in chief shedding the reticence to be more forceful about issues, including issues on race, gender and class. just becomeches more personal and often uses " tos like "we" and "us describe challenges that african-americans face. she told the audience she was subjected to a barrage of questions as the nation's first african-american first lady. "was i too loud, too angry, or to emasculating? or was i too soft. to much of a mom, not enough of her career woman? i had a lot of sleepless nights worrying about hurting my husband's chances at winning his
election. would feel- my girls if they heard what people were saying about their mom. some would say she is playing the race card and displaying bitterness." we are talking about the politics of commitments each is today, asking you if you think college commencement speeches are two political. up next we have terry from cb valley, california. -- simi valley, california. caller: if you're hiring that person, you are bringing with that person their philosophy. i think their job is to keep it neutral if possible, but they are for they are. my commencement speech sought three words. "seek every opportunity." i came from a poor family. i can tell you those words have lingered with me every day of my life. i thought maybe i couldn't, i
would listen and hear in my mind and i would go after it. that was the secret to the success i have had. it was very inspirational. you get what you get with president obama. i think he was speaking to the idea that ignorance is not something we need in the world today. host: you say you can gauge the message from the messenger. do you think that schools should invite fewer public officials? caller: yes, i think of that's what you don't want to hear that is who you do not invite. plenty of people have addresses that are inspiring to the graduate. it should be for the graduate. but if you hire a political person, they come those values and you need to expect that. that should be something that the -- they discussed before they hire that person.
host: we have a lot of callers chiming in. we have greg from the republican line from alexandria, minnesota. are speeches to political? caller: power you today? -- how are you today? entirely. i believe they are. that -- theusly runo colors, our state is by the state and county metro. we are all democrats. people called in from minneapolis highlighting what obama had said. republican concentrated on the positive. what this country had offer. thoughocrats seem as they were more concerned with the political. get out and vote, get out and vote.
obama's wife mentioned every single race, but nothing about a white person. -- do you think that perhaps the obamas gave more political speeches because they are currently in the white house? do you think it would have been different if we were in a republican administration what those presidents might have said? caller: that's a possibility. , aelieve if it were then republican president, i don't think he would've been out begging for votes. that's just what i believe. host: that's greg calling in for minnesota. a quick rogue ramming note. have live c-span coverage of the libertarian party, which is holding their national convention this weekend in orlando, florida. we will have live coverage of that beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern, when the candidates will face one another in a debate. on sunday at 9:45 a.m. eastern,
we watch as the party chooses its presidential and vice presidential nominee. on another programming note, libertarian presidential candidate gary johnson will be appearing live on "washington .ournal," tuesday tune in for that. also in some other headlines today, president obama made his historic visit to hiroshima, japan. he spoke yesterday as the "financial times," noted. he confronted the consequences of using an atomic as he visited --oshima to remember instead its dead. host: addressing troops of the marine corps base near hiroshima. choreography intended to show strength as well as sorrow.
he said the visit was an opportunity to honor the memory of all those who were lost in world war ii. his speech was not without some criticism and debate, for example, former alaska governor sale of -- sarah palin was highly critical of the visit as "the hill," notes. oursays obama was dissing vets, and that he believes the greatest generation was perpetuating the evil of world war ii. he said our commander-in-chief lying and -- suggestions to the world that we were wrong to prove that we would eradicate evil in world war ii. that's about the president's visit to japan that he was speaking at the site for the hiroshima tax yesterday. -- attacks yesterday. in our discussion about
commencement speeches, we have patrick calling in from carnegie, and fling it. patrick, do you think commencement speeches are two political? should be more political. i have to correct the individual from north carolina who characterized amy goodman is a communist or socialist. she is a democrat. , a is questioning the system legitimate system, a system that needs to be questioned. that's what it is about being american. it's questioning illegitimate wars that have been characterized as completely illegitimate. the iraq war we know definitively was completely illegitimate. it was based -- host: let me ask you this. some of the students who responded to president obama's speech at rutgers expressed disappointment. they said they wanted to hear him speak to them about their futures. then about the presidential race. do you think that's what students really want to hear. ? caller: not millennials.
all you have to do is excavate into the psyche of the millennial generation. they are the generation of skeptics. they are the generation that examining the real core issues in their lives. when i graduated from college in had ai instantaneously job, and i wasn't a straight a student by any means. i was a c student. these children have massive crisis in their lives now. we are witnessing an entire generation being lost because these children expend huge sums of money, come out of these universities and have no jobs. and on top of this, as if this isn't bad enough, corporations rather than paying these interns are using predatory corporate constructs in order to have these children working for them for free. these are trillions of dollars in corporate profits that have been turned on this nation. add to this component, this huge
component is massive numbers of foreign students who come in, and they are in turn given priority over our own children. to the man from north carolina that called in and characterizes amy goodman is a communist is utterly absurd. that is patrick calling in from pennsylvania. we have a lot of callers want to talk about college commencement. one is liz calling in on the republican line from maryland. do you think that college commencement speeches are two political -- too political? caller: good morning. i think it's incumbent upon the person that gets hired to speak to make sure they are actually speaking to the graduates, it's their day, they spent a lot of money to be there. they should make it something nice that everybody can enjoy. last weekend, i went to my
brother's graduation, he graduated from the law school at american university. and loretta lynch was the speaker. i have to be honest, i thought it was going to be super political, ions is a police officer, i was a police officer in the military, and we were making jokes, kind of, but kind of serious, planning to have she made in a weird political statements, we were going to walk out. but she came in and made a wonderful speech, the whole first half of the speech was focused on the graduates, she talked about her experiences in rwanda, and how that kind of shaped her life, and that she stepped outside of her box and was encouraging graduates to do that. she got a little political near the end, but for the most part, it was a lovely speech, she did a great job, even though i complete we disagree with her policies, i think it was awesome. host: you are saying you think there's a place to balance your messages, even if you have a political speaker, that doesn't mean the speech itself has to be focused on that. caller: absolutely.
i think it should be focused on the graduates. host: that is liz calling in from maryland. is not just public officials who give political speeches. let's take a look at a speech that spike lee made at johns commencementrsity about building bridges with love versus walls of hate. [video clip] >> the matter how one might wish it to be otherwise, we are not making america great by going back to eisenhower and leave it to beaver. [applause] not having it. dayis the time to seize the , take advantage of this unique moment in history, and build bridges amongst us.
we are talking about gender, race, religion, nations on the not walls. let us build bridges of love versus walls of hate. [applause] sidebar number one. here, i'm amongst some of the greatest minds in the world here at john hopkins university. people who are a lot smarter asked can someone please educate me -- me, someone from the public education, in the republic of brooklyn, new york. can someone please explain to me how you can tell mexico to build a 25 foot wall on the borders on top of that, and have the audacity to tell them mexico, you flip the bill too.
host: that was filmmaker spike lee speeding at johns hopkins, talking about putting politics in the messages well. we are to viewers about that. up next on the democratic line, we have robert calling in from tuscaloosa, alabama. do you think that speeches have become too political? caller: no, they're not. this country is run politically. let me just say this. i graduated in 1970, i don't remember one word that the speaker said. i was 36 years old when i got my degree. but i do remember what president barack obama said -- ignorance is not a virtue, and i remember what his beautiful, intelligent wife, the first lady, michelle obama said -- no out and vote. this country is run by politics. i want to agree with the gentleman who talked about amy goodson -- amy goodman. the gentleman was stupid in my opinion. telling what the people
do in this country. this country is a fallacy when it comes to being fair to people of color. there are no white people, they're all black people. but we need to know if you don't go out and vote, then you are throwing away your time. host: let me ask you a question, robert. when it comes to delivering messages, are you concerned that some students may feel either left out or as if they don't agree with the speaker, somehow that the commencement ceremony wasn't for them as much as it was for those who agree with the speaker. no one is going to agree with anything anyone says. i didn't agree with everything that was said that my commencement exercise. as long as i don't remember what was said. you have to come up with your own ideas on how you approach things. you can't rely on the ideas of others. you can use their ideas, and
strengthen your ideas. host: that's robert calling in from alabama. there was another speech that was given by a non-politician that drew some controversy over the political message. spoke at cal state fullerton, and she drew some criticism from some of the students attending that commencement. one of them wrote in an article in oc weekly about that experience. point, it said she began speaking in spanish, and not all the students there were spanish speakers. gradseft non-journalism and non-latinos, non-spanish speakers feeling excluded, parents and the audience and even students began demanding she switched to a more inclusive tone, with phrases such as what about us? it went on to talk about more
for address, saying that tensions worsened and she began offering advice to journalism students to use the tools of media to rebut political figures such as donald trump. that's when folks began yelling things such as get off the stage and trash. video of this moment is shown on the website. it said the racial aggression experienced at recent trump was notin costa mesa something i wanted seeping into my graduation ceremony, but alas, reality sunk in, and the audience began brewing while others combated the voices of dissident with louder cheers. there was one cal state student speaking about her experience at the graduation. denise delacruz wrote that piece weekly,."
sean calling in, do you think commencements reaches her to political -- commencement speeches are too political? caller: i do. look at spike lee, what an insult his speech was a half the crowd. they know what they're speaker is, and their messages to waltz on in there and give a talk which probably half of the students disagree with. they're talking about german shepherds and jim crow, who in the hell does he think he is talking to? it's a presidential year, just about everyone i talk to is talking about politics. should students expect that the politics of this presidential conversation are going to come into play at their commencement speeches? shouldn't expect someone like spike lee to come in and start lying about german shepherds. does he really think they're
going to be cops from the 1960's magically reappear and attack troops of black people with fire hoses and german shepherds? of course not. but that's what he tells his students as if that's the cool way to think. why are they using this time to bash an individual? it's like being a campaign surrogate for hillary clinton or bernie sanders. it's asinine. host: john calling in from illinois. the next we have jared coming in from georgia on the republican line. do you think these commencement speeches and gotten too political? werer: i didn't think they until i saw some of the clips that you shown on tv and i said to myself yes, that's very politicized. i think this should not be politicized at all. on commencement day, that day is not about republican or conservative or liberal ideologies. it's about the graduates and their compliments -- there are a
accomplishments. host: up next, we're talking to james antle, the politics editor of the washington examiner. he's discussing the 2016 campaign. later on, we have professor daniel serwer of john hopkins school of international studies joining us to discuss what's next in the fight against terror following the killing of the leader of the taliban in afghanistan and the ongoing conflict in syria and iraq. we'll be right back. ♪ >> in addition to the graduating , iss all over god's planet wish we were graduating into a world of peace, lights, and love. but that's not the case. , butl live in a fairytale
i guess the 1% does. >> this memorial day, watch commencement beaches in their entirety, offering advice and encouragement to the graduate and class of 2016, from business leaders like michael powell at pepperdine university, founder of oracle, larry ellison at the university of southern california, and the administrator of a small business administration and whittier college. >> you can count on yourself. what makes you special? with distinctions you from others? in business, we call your unique value proposition. figuring out yours is key. politicians, senator jeff sessions of the university of alabama in huntsville, senator barbara boxer at the university of california berkeley, and governor mike pence at indiana wesleyan university. >> to be strong and to be courageous, and to learn to stand for who you are and what you believe. is the way to change here.
and will carry into the balance of your life you. >> and white house officials, joe biden at the university of notre dame, loretta lynch and film in college, and president barack obama and rutgers university. obama: is it any wonder i optimistic? a new generation has reached up and bent the ark of history in the direction of more freedom, opportunity, and justice. class of 2016, it is your turn now to shape our nation's destiny, as well as our own. so get to work. >> commencement speeches this memorial day at noon eastern on c-span. on wednesday and thursday, june 1 and second, c-span's "washington journal," will be live in laredo texas on the u.s., mexico border to talk about u.s. and trade issues
affecting the region in the country. on wednesday look at immigration with a managing director and editor for breitbart, texas. he talks about the flow of illegal immigration in the area, the players and alt, as well as efforts to cover the humanitarian and security aspects of the issue. in a local immigration lawyer will discuss practicing immigration law in the area. who she represents, and the laws on the books related to citizenship and deportation. news," "dallas morning mexico city news chief examines the cartels in mexico, including the violence and smuggling of humans and narcotics. he is the author of the book "midnight in mexico," and on thursday the focus will be trade. a trade reporter with the san antonio express will discuss the flow and volume of trade across the laredo border. the congressman from texas will join us to talk about how trade benefits laredo and the country. and then bob cash, the state director for the texas fair
trade commission looks at how the trade to jobs to mexico. 7:00 "washington journal," eastern wednesday and thursday, june 1 and second, from laredo, texas. join the discussion. >> "washington journal," continues. host: joining us now is james antle, the politics editor at the "washington examiner." talking about donald trump formally clinching the gop nomination. the democratic contest, this weekend's libertarian party convention. thanks for joining us today. guest: thanks for having me. trump hasld officially gotten enough delegates to be the republican nominee. how have things changed after this? guest: i think there's going to be growing pressure on the rest of the party to kind of coalesce around him and consolidate, because they have been these
pockets of resistance to donald trump, and he is obviously a very orthodox -- an unorthodox candidate. choice of a lot of both party establishment leaders, but even more so, a lot of leaders in the conservative movement had a lot of misgivings about donald trump. he has clinched the nomination much earlier than people expected. he has clinched it before the big primary in california, he clinched it before the convention, and he it before hillary clinton did. it's really kind of a significant developments. he faced a field of 16 , andknown opponents hillary clinton is still competing with bernie sanders. i think the outcome of that is pretty well-known, but she has still not secure the majority. it's an important development for trump to have secured the nomination and have done so before clinton has is symbolically important. on a practical level, it affords the party more time to coalesce
and get their acts together, such as it is, head of the convention. host: they may need a little bit of time and. guest: breathing room. host: to come together as this piece in the "washington examiner," notes. the clinching of his nomination was met by somewhat shrugs in congress. with him onoke wednesday, and didn't congratulate him when asked about press reports that he and won the nomination outright. host: is this problematic for the party? where's this limit could be expected after the primary season? guest: it was a very contentious primary. i think paul ryan is trying to play an important role. if you look at the members of
congress, there are very few republican members in either house who are committed never trump activist, people who will not support him under any set of circumstances. whoyou have a lot of people are supporting the nominee, rather than explicitly saying they endorse donald trump. we know who the nominee is, it's donald trump very so the euphemisms don't really conceal very much. but it does reveal that there is still some remaining unease. paul ryan has to lead people from districts that trump carried, people who are trump supporters, but he also has a kind of be a part of the process of uniting some of these republicans who are more skeptical. and remember, ryan is now the only member of the congressional republican leadership who has not endorsed from very -- trump. he is trying to balance these factions and see what kind of concessions to the more mainstream conservative form he
can win from donald trump. host: we are talking to james atle, the politics editor the "washington examiner," about the 2016 race. trump nomination, the democratic race as well convention going on this weekend. democrats can call call (202) 748-8000, republicans, call (202) 748-8001. independents, call (202) 748-8002. have a special line for .ibertarians, (202) 748-8003 you wrote about former governor mitt romney, the last republican nominee, there is still a way that he could possibly take down donald trump. for those in the never trump movements, you say romney offers chanceatives a better that they are realistically going to get at this point, at this late date, romney may be
the only candidate who can realistically do it at all, unless conservatives can find another mark cuban type of billing error -- billionaire. guest: there are two questions. in terms of symbolism, mitt romney could not possibly be worse candidate, because it would really be an open act of establishment sabotage of donald trump, and it would sort of validate everything that donald trump is saying about the party establishment. in his outsider status versus the republican insiders. from a practical perspective, because they have had no success finding anyone else, romney is the only person left who has the money, the name recognition, and probably would get a significant number of votes. maybe even hit that threshold. there was one poll nationally that showed him over 20% nationally if you hit 15% as been the standard usually for qualifying for the debate, he
might be able to get into the debate. if you are looking at a serious never trump third party or independent candidate, romney is probably the only person who could do it. does he want to do it? legacy toed to be his have lost to the democrats not want -- not once, but twice in two consecutive election cycles? i don't know that he does. he's getting close to 70, he has taken his family through this a couple of times now. in this case, there's no realistic prospect he would get in the white house. he probably has a better chance than others might attempted. they would be unlikely he would win. i can understand his reluctance. for those who are really diehard never trump people, romney is probably their last realistic option at this point. host: do you expect him to keep sounding off on social media, being critical of donald trump? guest: i think as you have seen
the blowback the marco rubio has gone after going so far out in criticizing from -- donald trump, it would be very difficult for romney to walk it back at this point. and unlike marco rubio, he's probably done with electoral politics. i think you will still be a leader in the party, i think you still see him campaigning for people in speaking out on issues. it would be damaging to his credibility at this point for him to now say i said donald trump isn't qualified to be president, but he is ok. i think he will be tough to do. donald trump himself speaking yesterday at a rally in san diego talked a little bit about his success with republican voters, saying he would be able to bring them together. [video clip] trump: more important, in the history of the republican party, we have received more votes than anybody by far, by millions. [applause]
and we have 10 states left to go. 10 states. and they will never say that. they don't say that. i might as well tell you. you know the expression if you toot your own corn, no one is ever going to do it for you. this slime is never going to do it. i just read a story by woman named parker and a woman named haberman in the "new york times," and instead of saying donald trump won the republican primary, to me one day, right? they say his style of negotiation and the way he runs and the fact that he did this and that -- all nonsense. they say the republican party -- in all fairness to everybody, even then, the republican party is really coming together quickly. issa, youaw darrell saw duncan, all these people. these are the best.
it's really coming together quickly. up to over 90% in terms of approval rating. host: do think that the news is is good for the republican party is donald trump is make it out to be? he is you are right -- right that you were certain to see rank-and-file republicans who were divided during the course of the primary, home of. it's one of the reasons why donald trump's head-to-head numbers against hillary clinton have improved to the point where he is either tied with her ordinarily ahead, depending on the poll. -- or narrowly ahead, depending on the poll. there was a sense in the primaries that trump had a ceiling on republicans at 35%, 40%. he's now in the high 80's and he really needs to get into the low to mid 90's, but he seems to be headed in that direction. barring some kind of conservative third-party challenger, he looks like he might be in good shape.
hillary clinton may be a unifying figure for republicans in a way that none of the republican presidential candidates could be. host: we're talking to james antle, politics editor at the "washington examiner," about the 2016 race. on the republican line, we have michael calling in from new kensington, pennsylvania. michael, you are on. caller: thank you for c-span and taken -- thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask if he had read andrew sullivan's article, which i read recently in the new york magazine, and which he edits, i thought it was very interesting. country --how our how democracies and our country tyranny.for tierney -- in the form of donald trump. they said he has become so fragmented, and our society has thate so democratic, everyone votes, even those who
don't know the vice president is. and plato's republic, he basically had this idea a long time ago that countries become so democratic become right for tierney -- four tyranny. host: let's get jim a chance to respond. guest: i have read andrew sullivan's piece, it's an interesting piece. i think the country has seen some civic fragmentation, i think we've seen a lot of political polarization. we have moved away from a more constitutionally limited form of governments. we have amassed democracy and the welfare state. all of those things are very challenging for the political system and for any kind of national unity. i think you see donald trump is one of the symptoms of that fragmentation, and of that disunity. saw theis week, we
inspector general of the state department issue a fairly critical report about the former secretary of state hillary clinton's e-mail usage, saying that it would not have been authorized, and that she hadn't asked for permission to set up her at home server. will this really change public opinion? is this still a big issue for the democrats? reinforcehink he will some concerns that a lot of voters already have about hillary clinton. i think if voters trusted her, they might the more forgiving. but i think this reinforces the narrative that she is not transparent, reinforces the narrative that the clintons tend to hide things. reinforces the narrative that she is not particularly trustworthy. even within the democratic primaries, we looked at a lot of the exit polling, democratic voters who said they were looking for an honest and trustworthy candidate were overwhelmingly voting for bernie sanders.
they were not voting for hillary clinton. so i do think this will continue to be an issue. particularly given that a lot of her rationales for her handling of her e-mail records at secretary of state have not really held up well to outside scrutiny. host: as you mentioned, the republican primary race wrapped up before the democrats did, bernie sanders is still campaigning into the upcoming california race, which is coming up in over a week. in today's "new york times," it says for many sanders supporters, the e-mail inquiry is like an answer to their prayers. it says senator bernie sanders may be trailing hillary clinton by hundreds of delegates, mrs. clinton may be treating the democratic nomination is hers, but a stay-at-home mother and i heard sanders supporter --
host: do you think there are folks who are holding out for an indictment? guest: absolutely. donald trump has made one of his if hillarynts that clinton is allowed to run, she will face serious legal jeopardy. i think for someone other than hillary clinton to be the democratic nominee, there always probably needed to be some very adverse developments in the e-mail case for her. it doesn't seem likely that something quite that bad is going to happen, but we will see. the democratic race has been very interesting. for most of it, bernie sanders was a perfect opponent for her. he is strong enough that her campaign had to really be on its
game, they really had to engage, be organized, be nimble. not so strong that he was ever likely to win as long a she and her campaign did with a needed to do. but because sanders has continued to win very late, even if he can't catch her in the delegate math, it has created these expectations among a lot of his supporters that he really is in a better position than maybe he really is when you look at the actual delegate math of what accident determines the democratic nomination. that may create unrealistic dictations that sort of exacerbates the fact that this race is really ending on kind of a contentious note. it began on a more civil plane with sanders saying everyone is tired about hearing about your damn e-mails. now people are saying i hope there is something to this story so that we can have bernie and that of hillary. the democrats have some unifying
of their own to do as they had to their convention. host: we are talking to james antle, politics editor at the "washington examiner," about election 2016. a next we have ambrose coming in from maryland. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm good. what is your question for james antle. ? caller: i've been a longtime friend to get on c-span. i'm a junkie. i'm a pro-democrat. i hope your guest over there will be very fair to say that bernie sanders is going to declare himself as an independent. those who are praying for hillary to be indicted, those people who have given up on the republican party because of what they went through to the bush era. now going to support sanders. bernie sanders revealed to both
major parties but they will never allow people who were not there brand to run. it's not fair. she knows it's not fair, but we know he's not going to lose anything. but his aim is to bring the party down. we know his name will go in the trash as well. host: let's give james antle a chance to respond. guest: it's been interesting, in seenmajor parties, you've people running as third-party candidates within the party. within the major parties. whatd trump has managed some would describe as a hostile takeover of the republican party in exactly one the nomination. bernie sanders has ever appeared on the ballot as a democrat prior to this years primaries. he is always one his aces -- won his races as an independent.
he's affiliated with democrats and collaborated with them, but this primary system where he has challenged hillary clinton has really been the first time he has run as a democrat. he had some success, i think he has demonstrated the power of both an outsider message, the desire of a lot of rank-and-file democrats to move away from what's perceived as a more wall street friendly party, of bill clinton's era, away from the third wave centrist policies of bill clinton's presidency, and sanders has really resonated with a critical mass of democratic voters in been surprisingly competitive against hillary clinton. we have joe calling in from cleveland, ohio on the libertarian line. joe, you are on with james antle. james, i would like to become points, maybe 15, 20 years ago, the news media at a credibility on a scale of one to 10, maybe seven or eight or
nine, now it's down to two or three if that. reason donald trump has grown so popular with different groups is because first of all, he has been in the construction business and he understands the street talk. he hires all kinds of people, lax, asians, hispanics, american indians to put the steel up. he knows the language of these tradesmen speak. he also has employed more women than anyone. people forget that nobody has put more people to work the donald trump in the building industry, not to mention his golf courses and other enterprises. he has the pride in american growth and success. he doesn't want to see the democratic donkey handing out things instead of working for things. i think he truly does care. he may come across as crass, but that's to make a point. this man has a heart that loves america. host: let's give james antle a chance to respond. guest: i think that is's core
message. he's going to argue that you may accuse me of all of these various things, but i'm saying things that resonate with a lot of people. and they may resonate with people who you don't expect them to resonate with. i think that is going to be the real big thing that donald trump tries to take into the general election. i don't think you are going to see you here trunk try to soften. i don't think you are going to see him moderate much. i think what he is going to say is the way i speak is the way a lot of people speak, and there are a lot of working-class folks in america who are hurting. globalization of -- i don't mean that in the pejorative sense, but a lot of people who have borne the costs of globalization, not just the benefits -- it's a much more whense coalition of people you head into a general election, that it is in the republican primaries. rhetoric is's
challenging for him to build the type of coalition that he needs to win. but some of these issues that he has touched upon have appeal far beyond it their traditional republican base, which is why i think in some ways, he is a challenging person for the democrats to run against. host: we're talking to james antle, politics editor at the ," andngton examiner com talking about the democratic race, there's a new poll but from publicently policy institute of california that showed a really tight race as noted here in the "los angeles times," said a poll showed a statistical tie between likely democratic voters. clinton with 46%, sanders with waswith the margin of error plus five or seven percentage
points. how big of a problem is california pose for her? guest: can bernie sanders take it home and win california? it won't actually matter very much in terms of whether he wins the nomination or not, because the democrats have all proportional states. so you really have to win by huge margins, much bigger than bernie sanders has outside of the congress -- the caucus states to make up the ground he has lost. but in terms of momentum, and in terms of reception, and in terms of unifying the party, i think it's a big deal. i think hillary clinton really , not in win california order to win the nomination, i think she wins the nomination either way. but in order to be able to make party is moving beyond the divisions of the primary in uniting around me. if sanders keeps winning this late in the game, a give some
degree of credence to his efforts to keep it going all the way to the convention in philadelphia. host: do you think the efforts to unify the party will be easy for secretary clinton when she secures the nomination? she's less than 100 delegates away. should we expect more clashes like we saw in nevada? that wyomingts out democratic officials are concerned that there will be a similar event taking place during their convention. guest: the problem really comes into play if bernie sanders supporters don't feel like the process was fair. because the democrats rely heavily on superdelegates, and while clinton would lead even without them, or lead to so insurmountable because of them. if they feel that the nomination was stolen from them, if the process is in some sense rigged, it makes it harder for people to come together.
it doesn't mean their complaints is valid, the perception reality. i think trump has made an effort to wade into this contest on the even if he isn't going to debate bernie sanders, and help those sanders supporters feel aggrieved at the party. he would like some of them to move into his camp, and by being against the iraq war and being critical of trade deals, by being critical of a lot of dealings with wall street, he is better positioned than other republicans. and donald trump would like those who can't move into his camp to be demoralizes a helmet. -- demoralized and it stay home. you want bernie sanders to feel like process was fair, and you don't want trump to be able to stoke any anger or resentment that will be lingering after the process is over. host: we have jeremy calling in on the republican line. with james are on
antle of the "washington examiner." caller: i wanted to say that mr. trump is the best candidate in this race we can have as our president. he is honest, and his honesty is the single virtually has that no other politician in our current political climate has. he says things that nobody else would say, not because they don't feel or think the same way, just because they only think about winning the race, and not doing something meaningful for our nation. for example, he says i am rich. times,said this for many and people mocked him for saying this, but this is very valid point, because he is rich, and he doesn't need corporations money or supporters money to donate to his campaign so he their't have to comply to things, the things they want after he became the president.
audio hand, we have this clinton, and she just begs money in a lot of different corporations. she goes and asks for money. and even she stole money from different places. and then she comes out and does anything she wants, and then clears the history of whatever she has done. and now you are talking that mr. trump can be the president. host: jeremy, let's give james antle a chance to respond to those points. guest: that is absolutely the big appeal the donald trump is making. i'm the guy who can't be bought. i'm coming into this race with my own money, i don't need this, i'm already rich. he has even to some extent use the fact that he has been a donor to both parties -- he is been a hillary clinton donor himself in the past. he has used that is advantage. he is saying i have been the
establishment, i have been a special interest, i know how they are working against you, and i'm uniquely capable of working against this and stopping it. each is sinking will be -- trump did not -- the interesting thing will be -- trump did not spend a lot of money in the primaries. he was not exclusively self-funded, but he didn't spend a lot of money and he relied a lot on appearing wherever anyone would invite him to show up on tv or radio. will he be able to do that as much in the general election? he is not going to be self funding in the general election. he is a fundraising agreements, he's going to be reaching out to republican donors on his own behalf and three rns the. does that change perceptions of him as this independent actor? or is that baked into the cake and there's nothing that will alter that? at the development that is worth monitoring. host: let's talk about
libertarians. the libertarian convention is taking place this weekend in orlando. in wrote a piece about it the "washington examiner," saying this is the year where even the libertarian convention is coming with some excitement and controversy. you write that it has an above average libertarian presidential field. former new mexico governor gary mcafee, and andrew napolitano -- host: you also write another this means that johnson is the shoo-in, even though he is seen as the front runner. even to a greater extent than the two major parties, johnson
formerected massachusetts governor bill weld as his running they. tells about what we are expected this weekend. guest: it's difficult, there is no rhyme or a process and no polling. the democrats can be quirky. can be quirky.s but you have three relatively high-profile nominees. gary johnson is running with bill wells, you have the prospect of the libertarians potentially nominating these successful former republican governors, having a typically may have more governing experience than the republican ticket. that is going to be in addition development. johnson got over one million votes last time when he ran. with high unfavorables of hillary clinton and donald trump , the libertarian nominee, whoever that is, has a real opportunity to break through in a way that libertarian candidates haven't before.
the libertarian nominee could be a candidate that some of these never trump conservatives vote for, it could be a candidate that a lot of disaffected independents gravitate towards. having a well-known ticket could really be to the benefit of the libertarian party in this election. the question will be -- to the delegates at the convention in orlando see it that way, or would they rather rally in favor of ideological purity, rather than seizing on a political opportunity? host: c-span will have live coverage of the libertarian party convention this weekend, beginning tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. when the candidates will face one another in a debate. on sunday at 9:45 a.m. eastern, we talk is the party chooses its presidential vice president nominees. also libertarian presidential
candidate gary johnson will be appearing live on "washington journal," this tuesday, may 31 at 9:15 a.m. night, bill wells address the crowd at the convention, and he didn't get quite the reception he was looking for, according to this report by politico. it said it all began to fall apart as antiauthoritarian libertarian party activists loath to be defined as republican like were increasingly a mildly cripple of weld, who joined the party only weeks ago. host: it seems that his message was not received, a lot of libertarians complained that his message didn't embrace libertarian principles like antitax pretzels and things like that.
you think there is trouble in this match already? guest: there could be. bill weld is what most public and think of as a libertarian because he is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. libertarians, have a more exacting definition of what constitutes libertarianism. was a drug warrior within the reagan justice department, he was a supporter of gun control and affirmative action as governor of massachusetts. he did support the iraq war, he was a big mitt romney supporter. he is a late convert to the libertarian party, although he was during a short-lived bid for governor in new york seeking the libertarian party ballot line as well as the republican line in that race. and foreresting very johnson, a doubles down on does the libertarian party want these former republican governors, former elected officials annexed
governors on their ticket? the party has always been divided between its pragmatic and radical wings, then this really does sort of center them if they nominate these two gentlemen, center them on the pragmatic side. happen, to say it won't they nominated libertarians who were republicans in 2008, they are now both republicans again. so it can happen. but for people who want to see someone with a longer history in the party, it is challenging. johnson was always perceived as very libertarian, even as republican governor, weld -- the reviews of him were more mixed. host: on the democratic line, we have tim calling in from conley spring, north carolina. i was going to say that this is the first change that
women have gotten into hundred 40 years to vote for a woman president. do you think they're going to be taking advantage of that? guest: i think that is a huge factor in what will build enthusiasm for hillary clinton's candidacy. and certainly, clinton herself is backing very heavily on the idea that not only will a lot of women voters embrace the historic opportunity to succeed the first african american president with the first female president, but also that donald trump in many ways, because of his past comments, because of his reputation, he is an ideal person to run against the kind of remind women voters of the stakes, and sort of to drive women's turnout in this election on behalf of clinton. i would say the one cautionary note would be that she has not done as well with younger women as one might expect, bernie sanders has with millennial
women and younger women done fairly well in the democratic primaries. that is the thing to watch for as we head into november in the fall. on thealling in independent line, we have jerry calling in from tampa, florida. good morning. caller: i'm assuming you are an investigative journalist. are you familiar with an article written by bernie sanders for a vermont paper where he stated that women fantasize about being raped by three men at the same time? guest: i am familiar with it, yes. host: do you want to talk a little bit more about that? we did hear a little bit about it early in the race. i would imagine the clinton campaign could conceivably have had some thing to do with how that was dug up. but anything you write in the past is certainly fair game. sanders has tried to play it off
idealisticngs of an but maybe not fully mature young man at the time of. it hasn't had an impact up until this point. but there has been a lot of really interesting dynamics among rank-and-file democrats, and among liberal commentators, pitting the idea of the young and millennial in the new generation versus the diverse. votersary clinton, her have been more african-american, more latino. she appealed to a lot of women. bernie sanders has had a lot of younger white liberal supporters. there's been talk of the bernie 's, are they sexist, and attacking progressive women on social media, and how
representative of that of the wholesalers phenomenon is that? maybe the story itself hasn't gotten a lot of leg, but some of these dynamics are certainly things that are being discussed. host: when criticism of some clinton supporters is that sanders hasn't faced the same kind of criticism and hillary clinton herself says that he's been heavily vetted for 25 years, where sanders has faced fairly light opposition in his career. is that valid? guest: to some extent, it is. bernie sanders did face in competitive races early on, vermont was transitioning from more republican state to a more democratic state during the course of his career. he had to unseat a sitting republican congressman to first come to washington. but i think the perception that sanders was originally not considered to be someone who would be likely to win made people not that him as much as you would that the candidate who
is likely to get the nomination. he has become competitive later in the process, and as a result of that, he probably hasn't raced quite the same -- faced quite the same degree of scrutiny. in why he pulls so well against republicans, compared to hillary clinton. clinton is a known commodity, sanders has been in washington for a long time, but as someone who has had a following but, not as someone who was considered a major player. playerbecome the biggest in his career in his 70's, challenging the party establishment. as a result of that, people have an done quite as much. host: we have kelly calling on the republican line from georgia. yes, thank you for taking my call. oddof the things i think is is that the republicans have
already cleared up our nomination, i worry that the democratic convention may be a hot mess, due to the bernie supporters. things -- if you want coming off, i have a lot of democratic friends, and would like to have a lot of friendly debates. the biggest' things that they don't seem to be able to have an answer for is one of hillary's biggest things is we don't need walls, we need bridges. however, if you look at the white house or whatnot, if i'm not mistaken, there's a big gate around the white house. there's a big date around chappaqua. if you also notice, they also get 24 armed guard service for the rest of their life. is, why debaten
my democratic friends is waterboarding was torture, however, they have no problem with obama lighting of a terrorist with a drone. onenot quite sure which would be considered torture, but i don't know, is waterboarding torture? you get to live, or is lighting them up with the drone torture. host: let's give james antle a chance to address those issues. donald trump mentioned her point about the armed security, when he was talking to the national rifle association. hillary clinton, heartless hillary was what he was going with in that speech, wants to disarm you, yet she has the benefit of armed guards protecting her. fence has been a big part of his platform since the beginning. the line about fences make good
neighbors. that his rhetoric on sealed the fact that democrats and moved quite to the left on immigration. the democrats have really moved to the other extreme to the point where clinton and sanders are competing to get to the left of president obama on this issue . competing to see who can legalize the largest portion of the undocumented population the fastest and using the most executive authority rather than the legislative process. well be well advised to try to focus attention on that during the general election. , john calling in on the
democratic line from sterling, virginia. the hillary clinton attack started in 1992. what makes me laugh, when i look back to 2008 between barack obama and hillary clinton, you look at what republicans are saying about hillary clinton. she is qualified, she's a we've seenerson -- donald trump lying to everybody and there is no reporter that has the guts to say, how will you do this? somebody wants to go to the white house telling lie after lie and no one -- the only thing he says is i will make america
great. what is wrong with america? there is nothing out there that donald trump can break. this is only the beginning. guest: it's been a criticism of the media, that trump has not faced the level of scrutiny in his policy proposals that maybe he should have. criticize trump for a lot of things, but one that you cannot criticize him or is not making himself available to the media. himself very available for interviews, unlike hillary clinton. the fact that he has not faced the kind of push back, follow questioning, serious criticism or investigation that maybe he would merit as the front runner
of a major party i think it's a fair point. when he was running in wisconsin, one of the first contentious interviews he had was by a conservative radio talk show host. some people felt that contributed to his loss in wisconsin. it is certainly something that people will be expecting to see more of. host: steve calling in from jackson, north carolina. caller: one thing i found quite funny is bernie sanders and hillary clinton talking about banks, talking about big business not paying their taxes when they are the ones that pay thethe jobs, they payroll tax and their employees
pay taxes. bernie talking bad about all these companies -- bernie and hillary have been involved in one of the biggest businesses in the world. we owed $20 trillion and he has to talk about businesses that pay their taxes and higher people? done ine they washington? fair point. what is a more powerful special interest in the federal government -- than the federal government? it is much bigger than a
business and it has the power to put you in jail. a lot of people have wondered how bernie sanders would pay for a number of his proposals. hillary clinton has raised that she has had to move in hown his direction she talks about the banks and big business. when her husband was president, it was all about trying to moderate the rhetoric and be seen as more business friendly. theers is a symbol of how party has rejected the kind of thinking in 2016. host: up next, david calling in on the independent line vermont. caller: happy memorial day weekend. i just wanted to leave the comment that people keep talking
about we have to vote for hillary clinton is she will become the first woman president. i don't think being born a woman is some kind of achievement -- you ought to be voted into office on your qualifications. guest: trump says she would only have 5% of the vote if she were a man. exacerbate the problems he has with female voters? from "thes antle washington examiner." coming up next, we will be aalking to daniel serwer,
professor at johns hopkins, discussing what is next in the fight against terror following the killing of the leader of the taliban in afghanistan. aner on, we will talk to environmental reporter from "the hill." "ut first, "washington journal will be opening our phone lines for three hours. here's a story from one visitor making her first visit to the vietnam war tomorrow. sprague.e is catherine my father was a united methodist minister. i live in rhode island now.
this is my first time in washington. i've always wanted to be here and experience all the sites. the vietnam memorial means a lot to me because i grew up with that war. it was all i knew. my father was very much a pacifist, even though he served in world war ii in the navy and was in the south pacific. warned against war. my mother and i had pow bracelets and followed the war very much. bracelets madee out of metal. it had the name of the person who was a pow and the date that
they went missing. the idea was that you were to wear them until they came home. neither person my mother had nor believe ie and i found them both today and took pictures of their names on the wall. it was a constant reminder of the sacrifice that people were making. , i remember when the war ended from other was a part of me that said, my gosh, how will we live now without war? what will we focus on? it's been so much of my ecosystem.
it was an interesting thing to live with. come always people thought that would be the end because of everything experienced in vietnam, i thought we would have another war -- we would never have another war. as you get older and -- anything i can see if there's a documentary or anything like that, i watch it because i don't want to forget. it was so much a part of my life. much of theo sadness and the conflict, both there and here. it really is a part of my .xperience and who i am
so, coming here today and seeing the vietnam memorial for the first time is very emotional for me. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is daniel serwer, a professor at the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. he will be here to talk about of killing of the leader the taliban in afghanistan. thank you for joining us. guest: my pleasure. let's start a conversation with iraq and efforts there to take back the city of falluja. where does that stand at this moment? guest: falluja is partly surrounded, but progress is low as it has been generally in iraq , but fairly steady. we can expect that falluja will eventually be taken.
an isis commander was killed in falluja in a u.s. strike according to the u.s. military. a spokesperson for the saidcan-led coalition has the strike wednesday killed a-bilawi.ander maer we expect these airstrikes to continue. what kind of progress are we expecting from these airstrikes? were: the airstrikes essential in helping the iraqi ground forces to move ahead. the progress is very slow, generally the islamic state will booby-trap houses, buildings.
they are very skilled at slowing down the advance of the iraqis and making it very complicated and difficult to take over the town. once they have taken over, there are very few people left because of the fighting. that is a big problem in the aftermath -- had the you get people back -- how do you get people back? how will they be govern in a way that enables them to avoid extremists? host: we are talking to daniel serwer from the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. democrats can call in on 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. a special line for active and retired military. you can call 202-748-8003.
we were talking about the situation in iraq with the airstrikes. may face human shields in the fights in the falluja. one problem they are battling. the extremist groups hold civilians hostage as human shields inside the city. people inside the city have told "usa today" that islamic state imposed a curfew and moved many residents to the city center to use as human shields. how big of an issue is this for the military in this fight? guest: a very big issue because
you want the civilian population on your side. if you kill a lot of them, that will make eating them on your side very difficult. -- getting them on your side very difficult. it is impossible from however many thousand feet to be sure that you're not killing civilians, especially if islamic state rounds them up and puts them near the likely target. -- what isolitically the political aspect of this fight to retake falluja? not just the military action. able toou have to be govern the territory that you retake, you have to be able to attract the population back.
is shiai government dominated. falluja is basically an all s unni town. they have to be careful to be using forces that are at least forces in the iraq he army itself and not the shia militias to be retaking falluja. in the aftermat, they have to be able to govern in an inclusive way. they've had success and the other towns retaken in recent less success and madi.eling -- in rou they may have a difficult time of convincing the local population in falluja that they in and to govern inclusive way. host: we are talking to daniel
serwer about the situation in iraq and afghanistan. we have bill calling in from kansas. a current or former member of the military? caller: i served in the vietnam war. host: what is your question? when itit seems like came to the start of the situation with the bombing of put us -- it put us between a rock and a hard place. bush onons of president the grounds of weapons of mass -- we are a christian nation, mostly.
now, we go over and bomb of muslims and wonder why we are having a holy war. is that theew invasion of iraq was clearly a mistake. orwas based on an assumption evidence of weapons of mass distraction that turned out to be wrong. shadowll forever america's presence in iraq. nevertheless, you have to deal with the situation as it is. qi governmentn ira with which we cooperate and that is working hard to rid iraq of the islamic state. fall -- whatever fault
lies in the original situation, we have to deal with the situation as it is today. host: dave calling in from jacksonville. are you a current or former member of the military? caller: i'm currently on active duty. host: what is your question? caller: thank you for taking my call. in thectually on a ship 2003 timeframe when we started seeing the chemical weapons against the syrian government. the administration making claims they would act against these chemical allegations and little was done. , they'velook at isis approach --ressive ,o you think the next president
the next administration will take a different approach based on what you've seen and read? guest: i do believe the obama administration underestimated the islamic state initially, but they've changed their view on that and they are working hard to defeat the islamic state. it is hard to predict what the next administration will do, but i think the islamic state ranks high in the threats to american national security at this point. what we should do is overestimate the islamic state as a threat. it is not a threat to the existence of the united states. cans a terrorist group that
bring down airplanes, could attack in the united states. but it is not going to bring down this country and we blow the threatlo from the islamic state. we are at war with it in syria and iraq and afghanistan and a where -- and elsewhere. it is basically an insurgency. insurgencies can last for a very long time. host: we talked about the politics in iraq. the caller brought up the politics here. president obama has said our allies would be rattled by donald trump, there rattled by the prospect of a donald trump residency. is that a fair assessment? guest: it is an under assessment of how our allies feel about
this. mr. trump has said things that are on except double -- unacceptable. nevertheless, foreigners don't get to vote. host: up next, jim calling in on our independent line from iowa. you are on with professor daniel serwer. the financing of these , themists by saudi arabia fact that isis -- it's very well documented by the turkish profiting by isis and oil via
islamic terrorists in that region. nobody seems to want to bring that up. guest: there are a lot of questions, but at this point, to me, they are mostly questions the mainnswers financing for islamic state comes from its extortion from -- extortion of money from people who live in these territories they control. ands losing territory united states has been much more effective at hitting oil it smuggles and cash deposits it territory.within its
that said, i don't want to say i don't believe all the russian stories come i just haven't seen them proven. there are a lot of questions about saudi arabia, qatar, other countries allied with the united states. a lot is still very murky. the united states is continuing to back the iraqi prime minister. "usa today" reports that ashton said monday that the united states supports the iraqi prime minister as he confronts a new round of political turmoil threatening his fragile government. facinghe has been internal political issues.
basically rebellion on the political spectrum against corruption in iraq and misrule. it is largely within the shia community that that rebellion is occurring. it is happening at the same time as he is trying to make progress in the fight against the islamic state. difficult forry him. he is trying to appoint a new government, the parliament is unable to get a quorum together. demonstrations that have invaded the green zone, the area in which the government resides inside baghdad have been vigorous and sometimes violent. the permit us to looks very weak as a result. nevertheless, he's the best
us inwe've got going for iraq, he is trying to do the right thing by fighting isis and corruption within iraq. he does merit our support. n calling in on our independent line from pittsburgh . caller: i question the whole premise of these things. just to look at iraq, they've sanctions,s of war, targeted bombings -- before this managed to provide for their people. now, the place is a nightmare and we are surprised that monstrous forces emerge? the whole u.s. military labeled orshould be
criminals. -- war criminals. guest: the question of war criminals is a question or lawyers tofor decide. i think the united states makes genuine efforts to fight wars in accord with the laws of war. nevertheless, i think it is true that the last decades in iraq are terrifyingly chaotic and difficult. war with iran. in many ways is the iraqi seen. in the the color makes a point that -- theer makes a point that
middle east needs states that can govern people anyway that is , that is inclusive and can respect the rights of the people and we are not seeing for inerging, except a few places like tunisia and other places going through slow reform like morocco. for the most part, the autocratic states have failed. state is islamic replacing them, and that is a bad thing. host: we are talking to professor daniel serwer of the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. blog p the
eacefair.net. there was a u.s. drone strike that killed taliban leader maer a-bilawi. how significant is this development? guest: it is significant, but the direction of its significance is not clear. the u.s. has not previously gone after the head of the taliban, so far as we know. now, it is not only done, it is done inside pakistan. which is a clear signal to the pakistanis that we run out of patience with their support for the taliban. whether pakistan collaborated or not it's very difficult to tell the direction in which this will take us. my guess is that it takes us to intensified in the immediate term. the taliban ability to wreak
havoc inside afghanistan is safety inon its pakistan. if that safe haven is that risk, that could spell a change in the military balance inside afghanistan. up to that an editorial in usa today from earlier this week, the editorial hit on that point. saying what is most significant about the drawn strike is in the southwestern pakistani province of falluja stand, where u.s. officials have long acquiesced to a hands off aussie for fear of antagonizing our allies that are debt that are sheltering the taliban.n -- it should not be the last, the
taliban has long made this a safe haven. do you expect to see more of the secretaries? i really don't know. it's a wait and see. we have to see whether if they are willing to tolerate more. the other thing about this particular attack is that there are reports that he was returning. if, in fact, the that turns out to be the case, whether he was returning from political consultations or medical treatment, it suggests something about uranium support for the taliban. it isn't surprising, but it is worth paying attention. host: up next on the republican line, kaufman, texas. caller: good morning.
the reason i'm calling is ifrybody keeps questioning there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq and denying the fact that saddam hussein killed thousands of kurds with a nerve gas attack. nerve gas is a weapon of mass instruction. the simple chemical test to analyze a nerve gas that has been used in syria and iraq is probably the same exact substance. there was universal substance of the fact there were messed -- weapons of mass destruction's in iraq prior to the invasion. even the well known dove, hillary clinton, and voted for it. that was the judgment of the entire international community. saypeople to get up now and
, bush lied and people died. guest: this is a difficult question. i think you have to be very careful about time periods. it is clear that in a rockette chemical weapons and use those weapons. my understanding is that after the american invasion we look very hard for the weapons as withas new clear weapons nuclear material. we did not find very much. i talked to one of the people who was very active during that search for those weapons of mass destruction, and he said that they dumped the chemical weapons. they were literally dumped in rivers and that kind of thing. i find that extraordinary. they killed a lot of people doing it. the first nuclear weapons are
concerned, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars looking for the nuclear weapons program and we didn't find much. i think the nuclear weapons were the only serious justification for the invasion of iraq. in that instance, i think we .ere simply mistaken most of us would say that the president is the commander in chief, and has to take the responsibility for mistaken decision to go to war. so i do blame mr. bush for that decision. the fact is the caller is right. was a consensus before the war that those weapons of mass destruction existed. consensus was pretty .trong
after the taliban leader was killed, the taliban and named a new leader, a lesser-known member of the organization. their newn announced leader, a conservative cleric would take over and continue the group war against the afghan government. how significant is this development? is significant that the actedon -- taliban quickly. somebody who is not really a military leader but is more of a legal scholar. how much you will be able to keep unanimity is up to
question. they have had a number of successions now and they have successfully negotiated those. guest: up next calling in is you are a member of the military? caller: i'm her u.s. merchant marrying, retired. it is a fact we served with a military. when the invasion started in iraq, we were told that we had smallpox --rax and and never knew the side effects. , going to go into my side effects but people died from that. are in a place called by a go garcia. that means where the ships go
out to the world. to address this because it has never been talked about. thank you very much. of not awareraid of the impact of anthrax and small font -- smallpox vaccinations on soldiers and sailors of. there are procedures through which such complaints are handled. we know that there have been many complaints about the handling of agent orange, the handling of other alleged consequences of military service . but i'm afraid i am unfamiliar with the particular complaints in this case. host: i want to ask you about one aspect of the funding in the ongoing conflict in afghanistan. a report by the wall street
journal this week says that the afghan government is giving financial and military support to a breakaway taliban faction. in an effort to show risk within insurgency and notes some of its leaders for peace talks. it is setting the stage for another leadership. this support of this breakaway group. how does this affect the ongoing situation. we always hope for some part of the taliban with which we could negotiate a settlement inside afghanistan, bringing arc into the constitutional , bringing them into the government structure in afghanistan in the hopes of weakening the insurgency.
there is one rebel group in afghanistan associated with them that is already an issue. we will hope for more of that kind of thing. there is a high negotiation committee inside afghanistan which pursues these actions all of the time. it has not been successful yet. we went to afghanistan because of al qaeda, not because of the taliban and. we would much rather be fighting the islamic state been fighting the taliban and. some kind of settlement with at least part of the taliban would be highly desirable. it is also what the president has thought. host: up next on independent line, jack from montana. i was wondering about
the first bush administration, george herbert walker bush. and the american ambassador to quell the chance to invasion of iraq with saddam hussein into kuwait over territory -- territorial disputes. has she had a meeting with him before? we had info from the cia that there were mass troops of 100,000 along the border prior to that. she could have quell that. i wonder if she wasn't a dupe from jim baker from that administration, who told her to stand down and let him do whatever he needs to do in that area. what the bush administration
tried to oust -- host: guest: hussein in with which she supposedly threatened to invade kuwait and she did not say no has haunted the iraq story for a long time. i don't know that he wouldn't have invaded kuwait if she had said, why would that have been decisive? kuwait.nvade they were successful at expelling him. a very different story from the story of the more recent iraq on a miss was based evaluation of the existence of
nuclear weapons program. talk a little bit about the situation in syria impact the ongoing fight against terrorists? the more recent events that are as the islamic state advances towards the turkish border, trapping some civilians. the report goes on to say that the islamic reported to capture rebels know the turkish border on friday and is closer to a town on a supply route. beenardline group has fighting against rebels in the area for several months. the rebels, last month sees a major push against the islamic state. how does this affect the ongoing efforts in afghanistan?
what is going on in northern syria. both battle fronts are quite important. host: charles carling in on the republican line from louisiana. charles is a member of the military. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. just a few comments. about the weapons of mass destruction, one of my , looking the military at the situation form weapons of mass destruction. while we were kicking the can down the road for six months that allowed iraq to transfer all of this nuclear technology and weapons of mass distraction had atraction, it is ran
line disposal, the western has not learned the eastern mindset. ,t doesn't matter what we do you are going to break the bond between those. in that situation, the u.s. iraq , even though it iraq and iran had fought a war, now they are teaming up against the u.s., all things that could be shipped there were shipped there over six months. while we were debating whether or not. the second point about the invasion, the invasion was mishandled. mannednot take 100,000
task force of different units and go when -- go in and think you're going to do. you will win the battle but not the war. second point, i think that's exactly right. we didn't have enough people in iraq at the end of the war to do what we wanted to do, which was to occupy and to start to govern, to set up a democratic system and iraq. we simply didn't have enough people, and we made the mistake of disbanding the iraqi army police force. a lot of mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the war in iraq. so far as the transfer of nuclear and other technology from iraq to iran, i have heard the story many times. i am not convinced. i think iran develop their own
nuclear technology. host: david from winchester, virginia on the independent line. david is a member of the military. hello. comment.ike to make a education, butch i watch tv a lot, and i recall back years ago a lot of things like the -- they had a part in assassinating the shaw of iran. and also different things over the years, like we had with it , the hostages. all the things -- i've noticed all the things and i see things on television.
i also remember seeing on television oprah winfrey showing takenure of dick cheney and shaking hands with said on -- the saddam. been at fort meade and see the bunkers where they are kept. saddam, i remember seeing him on he shot those shells into it ran and killed hundreds of thousands of iranians. is that ouract iranionship with it ran -- was a complicated one overlap. of years. we also hadlved in our embassy attacked and diplomats taken hostage.
moments of almost war i ront ran in the golf, in the gulf. we have to look forward. what we can look forward to, i , that itin iraq continues to establish relatively democratic intitutions and governance an inclusive way. that would be my goal for iraq. ran, iran, i would hope we would get other kinds of cooperation from them. we will just have to do with .hat in the next years it's a difficult relationship.
thank you for joining us today. coming up next we will be , theng to timothy cama energy environment reporter for the hill. first, this memorial day weekend c-span will have an interview with admiral john richardson on newsmakers. ons weekend at 6:00 p.m. sunday. he was asked about a resurgence of completion among great powers like russia and china, with the u.s.. the u.s. navy had freedom of navigation for the last 25 years. now it will see some pushback and some challenges from stronger chinese and russian
navy, in iranian navy and some important strategic waters. broadly speaking and the years ahead, how do you see that changing? one of the things that defines a great power is they can be a player, if you will, across a wide spectrum of national power. great powers about , russia and china, they are ,ble to participate and compete not only militarily, which sometimes we get focused on, but economically, from a diplomatic perspective. there is a much rodders dr. of engagement with these great powers that the military element, certainly there is a
security aspect to what we do. we need to defend america and protect our interests around the world. one of those is protecting our maritime markets, superhighways over which 90% of our trade rides. we are a maritime nation, and it has been -- a consistent policy for the navy to protect access to those markets, so that we continue to prosper. about one third of the world's trade travels through the china sea. that includes a lot of american goods and trade and it is critical to our prosperity. as we move forward over the next will sees, i think you the competition across a broad spectrum of national power continues. that ourbe my goal
navy would provide more options for our decision, particularly in other areas of power. and we allow the military ourent to guarantee security and enable our prosperity. >> this sunday night on q&a, -- talks about various events in history and the work her office does. 1998 as aere in senate historian. said -- they told me we have an election coming up, you have lots of time to settle in and get comfortable in your job. within a few weeks the house had decided to impeach bill clinton and we got very busy very quickly. we had to do a good deal of research on impeachment trials. we had not had in the presidential impeachment sense
1868. the senate leaders really wanted to follow historical president -- precedent as much as possible. washington journal continues. host: we are joined now by timothy cama, a staff writer for the hill. the first overhaul of chemical safety standards for decades. thank you for joining us. give us a little breakdown of this house passed the bill. how does it change the law as it currently stands. guest: the first overhaul of the nation's chemical safety laws in four decades. epa to review the and regulate thousands of that are in commerce
today. these are in cleaning products and furniture and clothing. most of them are probably safe, the vast majority of them, since we use them every day. but a lot of them may not be. the last time that this was overhaul was 1976. since then, the epa has found to regulateowerless a lot of these chemicals on the federal level, which has caused states to step in and regulate them themselves. this would give the epa authority to go back through existing chemicals and enforce studies for new chemicals before they come on the market. host: just a little more about this bill from the l.a. times. it updates the current talks is acttance central -- control by doing several things. toluding requiring the epa
review the safety of all chemicals currently used in items on the market. and make the results available to congress and to the general public. the agency will also be required to consider the effect of chemicals on infants, pregnant women and elderly people but not will have to consider costs. they will no longer have to show that chemical is potentially a rest before testing it. powers scales tax on the . tell us a little bit about that between the states power to regulate chemicals and the government. guest: the federal government has largely been powerless to regulate a lot of these chemicals. what has happened is that the states have stepped in, and they have done their own regulation, some more than others, part of the push and pull to get the
chemical industry on board with this law was to say to them, you can have certainty to have a national framework to look at when they are considering how they are doing their business. they complained for a long time at the state regulations have caused a patchwork around the country. this gives them one national look. to trade-off for being able give the federal government all of this new power, allow them to collect new fees, and some other things that sort of go towards regulating the safety of these chemicals more than they currently are on a federal scale. new: we are talking about house bill that would change the regulation of chemicals that are in a lot of progress -- product you use everyday.
republicans can join the 8001.rsation 202-748- and on point about how this will affect consumers on the house floor tuesday, energy and commerce committee ranking member, a democrat from new jersey lauded the position of the new bill passed this week but added it was a compromise. this law is about preventing injuries and saving lives, attacking vulnerable populations, infants, children, the elderly. is about getting dangerous chemicals like lead, mercury out of our consumer products, out of our environment. this is a step forward in reaching this important goal and let me briefly describe some of the improvements. this bill would make it easier for epa to require testing of
chemicals by allowing them to actor orders instead of rulemaking. it will make it easier for epa to regulate chemicals by removing procedural hurdles and providing more resources through user fees. it will ensure that new chemicals are reviewed under regulated if necessary for the go on the market. it will improve transparency are requiring manufacturers to substantiate claims that information should be included as business information. these are all major improvements over law. .his is a compromise bill it is not the bill that democrats would have written if we were in the majority. host: he talks about this being a compromise and that it everybody thought it was a perfect bill. in what way did lawmakers compromise? guest: democrats went through with a goalprocess,
of letting the epa regulate a lot more chemicals. the republicans took the side of also, the states should have some power taken away from them. that that was a long sticking point for a lot of democrats. senator barbara boxer, for example, did not come on board to the law until a few weeks ago after she secured some changes that she felt made it strong enough so that states in certain instances could still regulate. states can still regulate, but their ability to do so is largely pulled back. thebloom, as you showed on floor, he didn't come on board until this past monday. he and the democratic leaders, nancy pelosi and stanley cup insure some strong changes over the last weekend to state authorities a stronger. there are still some instances a which states can for
limited time. especially if the epa is taking too much time. or there is some other emergency , a state can step in and still regulate. however, democrats would still like that to be a little bit stronger. you have this compromise that came about. representative from new york, he still does not support this legislation. he voted against it when it was in the house. that is largely because of the same concerns of preempting state authority. moderator: speaking about the disagreement on the bill by lawmakers and other groups, time magazine talk about that aspect of this bill. it said a number of health environmental groups, new legislation might not be a new improvement over the current law. legislation.end on
the epa does not say how they would fund the new legislation. they simultaneously we can the authority of passing the own covert legislation. , he wasioned paul tonko critical of this bill. let's take a look at what he said on the floor about it. >> finally, there's been a lot of talk about the preemption second. currently, states are not able to restrict the chemical unless epa decides to impose its own restriction. pre-option has not often been an issue, because epa has rarely acted. states today have a number of options when it does happen. they can come in force restrictions, apply for a waiver, or and a chemical. under this bill, states lose of those rights to ban the chemical. the waiver would be more difficult to obtain than under current law. without a working federal program, it has fallen upon
states to lead the fight to get the most harmful chemicals out of commerce. they have proven to be successful. they have been the champion, the driving force. i understand there are members of states who have not acted to regulate chemicals. please do not think this provision does not apply to you, as well. when states are able to act aggressively, as they have, they can move industry and epa to act. this benefits our entire nation. moderator: talk about this preemption issue. hamstrung really as as the representative says they are? guest: a lot of their authority has been pulled back by this bill. there are still some limited instances, for example, if epa takes too much time tax, then states can act. , once hisn chemicals bill becomes law, those states
will still be able to keep up their laws. however, not always. but really, the overarching principle with this to its supporters is that states probably won't need to do this if the federal government has a strong authority and a strong program that people have wanted for years. many states are still objecting to this. a few states earlier this week wrote a letter to congress saying that they still feel that their authority is weekend too much by this bill. opiniona very strong from those members who think that. nine democrats ended up voting against it when it was on the house floor earlier this week. three republicans. everyone voted for it. -- everyone else voted for it.
for example, representative jared huffman of california was in the california legislature when they passed their very strong chemical safety law. he was one of the authors of that law. he dealt that it was his responsibility to protect california's ability to continue regulating on its own. moderator: we are talking to timothy camera of the hill about chemical safety measure passed by the house this week. up next, we have tina calling on a democratic line from grammar ,tems, minnesota -- grammar is minnesota. my saying that i? >> i'm calling because i am upset of the lack of influence each estate will have on the chemicals. i'm even more concerned about how this funding from those lines that come from the determinendustry, may
which chemicals are going to be approved i this new epa law. moderator: ok. part of what this law did, actually, is a ba did not have very much a funding previously to be able to run this program. that was one of the many problems with this 40-year-old law. there were a lot of caps on what kind of bees that they could collect. however, under this law, they will start getting these from companies regarding new chemicals, existing chemicals, testing, things of that nature. it might take a couple of years before those funds start coming may be a concern. especially since dba in the federal government as a whole are on really tight budgets. however, the intention of this least, isis bill at to better fund those programs so that epa can have a strong federal program even while the states have to roll those back.
moderator: one criticism of this binder -- by resinous a university of maryland professor who wrote that the measure could actually burden the epa as opposed to giving it better powers. writing that a well-funded, politically empowered epa that inflicts the best and brightest of american scientists, will be able to make lemonade out of lemons -- it is far more likely that the agency that we have to they will become mired in paralysis by analysis before it takes action and before -- and if love litigation after it only occasionally acts. slow down inngs terms of the epa can do under this bill? guest: that's a real possibility, depending on how it is implemented. about the environment and health
groups that are still concerned that cite this as a main concern that epa might not have the resources necessary to do this. for example, the house just released its appropriations bill -- opposed appreciation -- appropriation bill for the epa a couple of days ago. the house republicans want to cut its staffing level two about the lowest in 30 years. very big concern for the people who are concerned about this bill. again, the funding mechanisms are supposed to alleviate that, at least somewhat. and again, it remains to be seen how it is implemented. that is still a huge question. this will be implemented largely by the next president, the next administration. it is hard to see exactly how that might go down and what
potential problems of the could be from that. moderator: we are talking to camady camera -- timothy about a bill that was passed this week. up next, we have chuck calling in our republican line. he is from new mexico. you are on. caller: high. have a common in some observations. i'm really concerned about the epa giving all of this central power. have -- why not into the wild river. there's no water in the creek for the year. the power of the epa is out of control to me.
are elected officials. to give them more power is troubling to me. i just don't like that. timothy a let's get chance to respond. guest: that is a criticism that we have seen of the epa a lot, especially during the obama administration with the amount of power they have. especially under existing regulations. this is the largest new environment a law and about 25 years. over 25 years. the clean air act of 1990. that is a concern. senator rand paul held up the bill in the senate this week, preventing quick passage that the senate leaders had hoped for. one of his main concerns was this new authority that epa has. he wanted more time to be able to read the bill, analyze it, and see if that is something that he was ok with. the chemical industry are the ones were being regulated.
a lot of business groups are very supportive of this bill that the house passed. it was a compromise among factions.ting it really got all of these groups together. the fact that the chemical industry really wants that centralized authority so that there's just one voice nationwide for chemicals, because they are sold interstate, internationally, all of these things up in the industry really feels and businesses outside of the industry, as well, feel that it is important to have one voice nationally on these regulations. moderator: michigan congress and fred upton tweeted about the bill. he called it good for jobs and good for consumers and good for the environment. he sends a link as to where to learn more. we have people who have tweeted
with concerns about the epa's power. one thing that president trump will put them back in their place. you expect us to become a big campaign issue? guest: as for this particular bill, probably not, mostly because of the bipartisan support that is has. some of the worst critics of epa in congress are supportive of this. on off from jim is a very vocal critic of the epa. he was one of elite sponsors of this. david bidder, another senator from louisiana, another loud voice against epa, he is very happy about this, as well. they really .2 the very specific language regarding the authority that they are giving epa here. a specific scientific studies and scientific standards of the epa has to undertake here. they really feel that this is
different from the authority under the clean water act clean air act. the had more attention on campaign trail and politics in general about the amount of authority that epa has. moderator: we are talking to timothy cam of the hill about new legislation passed by the house. we have met from baltimore, maryland. caller: thanks for c-span and ma foryou mr. ca commenting. i'm a former director of science and technology for the navy. in the 80's, i was tapped to become the technical director of epa. in washington, that is known as extraordinarily potential for attorneys. i'm afraid that that is exactly what it has become. the danger in this act is that it expands the power of epa to
litigate. that part has not been mentioned. and yet, it is really the cracks of what they are trying to do. several years ago, the evil r&dd to get rid of their organization and become purely an organization that would put out regulations unrestricted and unregulated. moderator: let's get timothy a chance to respond. the epa is a very controversial organization, especially under the obama administration will stop that is part of the reason that republicans, when they were compromising on this when they were negotiating, they felt that they needed to set a strict standard for the way the epa can use this in trying to prevent
out-of-control litigation, out of control regulation, they were really afraid it could stem out of this. , thosea lot of that criticisms of epa, revolve around its authority over air pollution, climate change, water pollution, things of that nature. that was really high in the minds of people who were negotiating this to prevent that. moderator: in writing about this bill, you pointed out that the 403-12 by the house by is a significant step after years of legislative work. nine democrats and three republicans avoided -- voted name. that is a bipartisan measure passage. why is this the issue that congress can come together on, especially in a rancorous presidential election year. is a given fact that
during an election year, you can too much in the way of legislation. this has really been years in the making. it has just been a matter of when they could get things together. this is something that lawmakers see as a strength for them to get done. and to show that congress can actually get things done. it is not all that controversial gh, and gotyou said strength -- support in the congress and president obama supported it. election was not on lawmakers mines on this. it is on the money for everything else, probably. moderator: what is the next up for this measure? mentioned senator rand paul
block print consideration in the senate, saying he needed more time to read it. what are its prosthetics in the senate? -- prospects in the senate? guest: in the senate it has a support. onlyor paul's block is the one preventing it from quick consideration at this time. on thursday, the senate went on recess. they will be on recess all of next week. there are hoping to vote on it on thursday and get it on the presidents desk by this weekend. but now they have to wait until after the recess to do that. they have to go through the , assumingedure senator paul has his hold on it. he wants to read it and understand it. he wants to understand this new authority in these new regulations that epa has the power to do. once he gets through that, it potentially could lift his hold on that. like i said, senate passage is very likely. then it goes to the president.
the obama administration has been clear that they support the strongly. they've been working with congress throughout this entire process for the last few years. they put out their principles and request for this overhaul, because they knew it was something that congress was talking about very seriously. they've been working with congress every step of the way. the administration put out a formal statement earlier this week before the house consider this saying they strongly supported. the president's signature is very likely. moderator: up next on the conversation on the passing of the law is richard calling in on our republican line from amherst, new york. richard, you're on. caller: thank you. withhy, i was sitting down a yellow legal pad and pen writing a first draft of this. i can't take credit or blame for what went into the congress
committee. much ofo ask you, how an option is there today for citizens to participate? -- to raise issue to the epa for whatever reason that might not want to or be able to address. how does epa, given this wide authority. because theized world of chemicals is vast and the pressure is immense. guest: thank you for that. relations from the clean air act, clean water act, even to chemical regulation, there's is usually a procedure for private citizens to partition epa to take certain action. epa can respond to that. usually, that is a process that is prescribed by law and can be appealed to the course. i can sometimes get very high on to addrts and forced epa
one way or another. for example, the authority the epa has two regulate greenhouse gas emissions. that originated with petitions. that is something that citizens in usually are able to do. or interest groups, or associations, or things of that nature. as for -- i actually forgot his second question. moderator: i did too. guest: i'm sorry. moderator: let's move on to sheila calling in from nordic, on the independent line. caller: high can you hear me. more -- i say more power to the epa. let the people wise up. congress gets paid from all of these, like the koch brothers, to push these chemicals and his companies. wake up. the white house has that sign that says time to wake up about
global warming. isay people, your health more important than the almighty dollar. the president should issue an executive order to do a clean sweep and make every store and the u.s. take products with dangerous chemicals off-the-shelf as of yesterday. and explainar on tv to people as to where to take the products in their homes to get them disposed of safely. newspapers and should also get on board and print instructions as to where to take the products and dispose of them. goodelf only use old-fashioned vinegar and baking soda to claim. aalso for products such as company in new jersey's chemical free product. i won't buy anything with lots of chemicals in it. i buy with the intention of less is more. moderator: to sheila's point, is there a public awareness or
public information campaign that should accompany this? americans are aware of what chemicals are in the products they use. guest: part of the principle behind this is to look through all of the existing chemicals that are currently in commerce. thousands upon thousands of them. hundreds of new chemicals introduced into congress every year. epa will be looking through all , undere under this law this bill. they will try to find out if there's anything harmful to the human health. to your point about the company's -- the chemical companies. is,iving force behind this the previous law put a major burden on epa to prove if it wants to regulate or been a chemical, it had to go with the so-called least burdensome standard.
some thing that takes into account the cost of these regulations. however, under this bill, that we change to a purely health-based standard for epa to decide what to regulate chemicals are not. it epa does decide the chemical is harmful, there will be mechanisms to get those chemicals out of commerce. of course, that is going to take a few years of regulation and study before epa would be able to do that with any particular substance. moderator: talk a little bit about the lobbying behind this bill. was there a lot of efforts against it by lobby groups? by any sort of trade organizations? guest: the trade organizations realize early on in this process within the last 5-10 years that this is something that the public was really going to support and that congress really wanted to do. there's a lot of lobbying. hundreds of companies and organizations were lobbying on this, both on the company side on the environmental and
health organization side. the driving force was to try and law for theire constituents and for their members. lest a sort of stop this process, but more to make a favorable. there's a lot for a lot of groups to like. out, some of the health and environmental groups are still concerned it is not strong enough. they didn't get everything they wanted. however, everybody moved it in a way that was favorable to them through those of vigorous lobbying over a year by hundreds of companies. moderator: we are talking to timothy cama, staff writer for the hill. on independent line we have charlie calling in from mineola, new york. good morning. caller: hello. the reason our cancer rates are so high in this country is because epa has not been doing the job in the past.
we have more toxic chemicals in this country than any other industrial country. i don't know why we get them in these chemicals and they don't allow them in europe. i doubt this bill will do anything, because i don't have -- i thinkn what they all sold out to corporations or whatever. they have not been doing their job. our cancer rates are over the roof. up? will they wake i think american people need to demand another epa. moderator: let's give timothy a chance to respond. illnesses,s of cancers, things of that nature, i really one of the reasons that some of people got behind this effort to overhaul this law. with the new authority that epa has, they will be a look at those statistics if there is an increase in certain illnesses or cancer to try and link that to any particular chemical.
you mentioned some other countries such as in europe, the health and environmental groups lobbying on this really saw europe's structure as a model for what they wanted to get out .f reforming these standards as still didn't go quite as strong as they would have liked and to the european model. it is greatly improved. again, this is health-based standards as opposed to taking it in the cost considerations into the industry and to the people who are manufacturing and selling these chemicals. moderator: talk about that point. cost is not taken into consideration. what sort of impact you think that might have on companies who have to comply? guest: this was the main criticism of the previous law. consider thed to cost of compliance and a lot of
those instances. these chemicals are you so widely, a lot of times those costs were high. asbestos is a prime example of a chemical that epa was not able to regulate previously. lateattempted that in the 80's, and that was struck down by a court in 1991. note then, epa has regulated any new chemical under this law. has since 1976, the epa only regulated five chemicals under this law. tot really fed into the need do something different about this. a lot of that was because of the structure of the old law. it tied epa's hands in that way. moderator: we have bill calling in on our democratic line from fort pierce, florida. caller: good morning.
my question involves the storage of chemicals. i know there was a problem with that in north carolina with their storage. they seep into their waterways. there's a report that the state of texas doesn't even require for help -- companies to state what chemicals are stored. i was wondering if any of this is addressed in the new bill. chemicals storage of is part of this process that epa is looking at in terms of where and how chemicals could potentially be harmful. also also epa's -- epa has supposed to be looking at particular -- under this bill they will be looking at particular populations that could be affected by way of chemical -- by the way a chemical is used are tested. in the case of storage, and our workers who are around this chemical a lot, epa has to look
at those particular populations and their effects when it comes to studying whether chemicals should be regulated, how they should be regulated, things of that nature. a, and for timothy cam joining us today on washington journal. guest: thank you for having me. moderator: that is all for washington journal. we will be covering the libertarian party convention this weekend will stop and is holding his convention in orlando. we will have live coverage of of the event tonight at 8:00 p.m. stop they will face each other in a debate. on sunday at 9:45 eastern the party will choose as presidential and by presidential nominees. also remember that libertarian presidential candidate gary johnson will be appearing live on washington journal of this tuesday, may 31. that is at 9:15 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. eastern time. on tomorrow's washington journal, we will have bart
jansen, a transportation reporter, talking about tsa and a port delays. how the tsa results -- contest has to result long wait times and current staffing. jeremy butler, the rack and does it -- and afghanistan better -- veteran will be on to discuss veterans issues with memorial day on monday. discussing issues regarding veterans. thank you for joining us. have a great saturday. ♪