Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

tv   Washington Journal 02022019  CSPAN  February 2, 2019 6:59am-10:00am EST

6:59 am
if they could speak, what could they tell us? >> c-span's newest book, the thete transforms you inside wings of the senate bring you the rich architectural details of the senate chamber including the private working spaces and a labyrinth meeting rooms. there are beautiful color photos of the art and architecture that pervade the senate space. order your high-quality, paperback copy of "the senate" or just $18.95 plus shipping coming up on "washington journal" myesha braden from the lawyers committee on civil rights and jeffrey clayton talk about cash bail reform efforts. at 9:00, our spotlight on magazines with cq roll call kate
7:00 am
ackley. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." they returned to a military draft would become commercial, but some officials are now wondering whether women should be draft eligible in the future, just like men. a commission is studying a gender-neutral draft, but it is causing deep concerns about america's ability to fight future wars. what do you think about women possibly setting up for a future military draft? the phone lines are open for your discussion on making women eligible for military service. if you think women should
7:01 am
register for the draft, we want you to call (202) 748-8000. if you think women should not have to register, we want you to call (202) 748-8001. if you have ever served in the armed service, we want your opinion on this subject. we want you to call (202) 748-8002. you can always reach us on social media, on twitter, and on facebook. joe heck is the chairman of the nationaln on military and public service. this was set up by congress to study whether women should be allowed to register for a future military draft. here is what he had to say about the debate requiring women to sign up for a draft. [video clip] >> i cannot tell you. we are still collecting information.
7:02 am
we want to hear from the american public. over the course of the last year, people have very definitive opinions on this issue. it is not like when you ask the question they have to take a moment to think about it. it is a visceral response. it is either yes, it is a matter of equality. or it is no, women hold a special role in society. that is what it comes down to. i don't think there are many people that are on the fence when it comes to deciding whether or not women should have to register. the growing issue is the civil-military divide we have in the country. for the men that do register, most of them do not realize they have registered. this passive process takes away from the gravity and solemnity of recognizing what it is you are actually doing when you register for the selective service. you are putting your name into the system to be potentially
7:03 am
called to defend this nation from its adversaries. when you go to get your drivers license, and they say check this box, or when you are filling out the online fafsa form, and they ask you whether you are register for the selective service, they automatically take you to the website so you can fill out the form. there is a lack of awareness. thatpeople are unaware women don't have to register. they are surprised when we tell them that by law, women are prohibited from registering for the selective service system. host: currently, the people who are required to register for the selective service, the system that sets up a possible future draft, all the people that are required to register our mail u.s. citizens and immigrants
7:04 am
between 18 and 25. you are required. women are not required. women are actually prohibited from signing up for the selective service. let's see what you think about this process. let's go to douglas, calling from south carolina. douglas is retired military. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about the idea of women signing up for selective service for future military draft? caller: i think women should be drafted if the selective service board was activated again. i spent 24 years active duty. i think women should be part of it. host: why? in our past, we have not had women be part of the military draft. caller: that was in the past. we are in the present and future. women are part of society.
7:05 am
they need to fulfill their obligation to the country. host: what branch did you serve in? caller: united states army, infantry and military police. host: did you work with many women while you were in the military? caller: i have one woman in the military police. she was good. draftedwomen should be if the selective service board is activated. host: do you think there should be a military draft, or do you think we would do ok with an all volunteer army like we have now? caller: i think maybe we should go ahead and start the draft for maybe about five years, see what fromof reaction you get women and men and retirees. host: let's go to ronnie from
7:06 am
texas. ronnie is against the idea of having women sign up for the draft. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't believe women should be required to sign up. i think it should remain an option if they want to, just like it has been in the past. i think it has worked ok. i am 57. i signed up when i was 18, never volunteered, never been mandatory. i think it should stay the way it is. i think it works fine the way it is. host: women are now serving in combat roles in all of the military branches. if the women are serving in the same roles as men, shouldn't they have the same responsibilities as men? to, theyf they choose serve in combat. if they choose to, i don't think they should be were wired to --
7:07 am
required to. host: do you think a draft should be necessary? caller: i don't think a draft is necessary at this point. hasink the all voluntary worked in the past, and i think it will work in the present -- i'm sorry, in the future. ken, callingo to from mississippi. ken is in favor of having women sign up for the draft. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: thank you. andgistered when i was 18, it is just a registration. there has not been a draft since 1973. they ended it, i believe in 1973, 1974 may be.
7:08 am
is just to have people ready to call up if it comes down to it. the all volunteer army is working pretty good even though we are stretched right now. host: do you think that we should allow the military draft should -- to come back in the future at all? caller: it is necessary just to have people ready that are having available if they have to have a draft. i would hope not. you never know. host: ok. there have been some organizations that have come out of ast the possibility military draft for women, including the washington times, saying in an editorial, treating men and women as equals would
7:09 am
open up the possibility of inuiring women to serve combat roles, where they could and death., rape, joinmen are required to men on the battlefield, america is surely destined for a brutish future. women have certain responsibilities to bear, but going to war is not one of them. that is an editorial from the washington times in 2017. let's hear from jeff calling from wisconsin. jeff is against the idea of women signing up for the draft. caller: good morning. caller:good morning. up for the draft. good morning. caller: good morning. i think you are asking the wrong question. some of them can go into combat, men or women.
7:10 am
we should have a national service for all very young people, and then we can use that . army, wevolunteer don't get a cross-section of america. we just get mostly the people that are signing up for the benefits. it is sorry to say, but that is kind of the way it is. we would not need all the private contractors that we have paying the extra money for that. we would have all these people in the service, the national service to take care of these other jobs, and they could help our country that way. host: i think a lot of people in the military now would disagree with you that they signed up just for the benefits. second, what kind of national service do you think young people should sign up for? people shouldng be required to sign up for the
7:11 am
peace corps, teach for america? caller: those are two of the things they could do. they could also do stuff for the things inke cooking, the army, navy, coast guard, the background stuff if they don't want to be in combat. of course, if there was a national emergency, they would have to go and do what we need them to do. tore are all kinds of things do to help the poor and things the volunteers are doing now that these national service kids could do to help america. there are thousands of jobs that need to be done, whether it is helping doctors or cleaning areas of the environment. i'm sure there are plenty of things they could do. glenn in's go to
7:12 am
arizona. caller: good morning. how are you today? host: i am good. go ahead. caller: women believe in equal rights, so i believe they should sign up for the draft, too. theve believed that since 1970's. it is only fair that if men have nd if women are equal to men, they should have to sign up. that if you believe they have to sign up for the draft, that women should be able to serve in all the combat roles that men do? caller: yes, i do. host: that includes the dangerous on-field combat roles? .aller: yes they should be able to do the same duties as men. al fromt's hear from
7:13 am
toledo, washington. al believes women should sign up for military service. caller: good morning. i agree. junet into the service in 1952. i am a very old man now. i was privileged to serve 30 years. during that time, i served alongside women. i served as a supervisor for women. i served under captains who were women. alongside five different four theat sea and short -- ashore. advent of thethe all volunteer force is, we have a problem because we have to have certain intellectual requirements otherwise we cannot
7:14 am
train the people to do the jobs, not the mediocre jobs, but the very vital jobs of protecting this country. they have to have that intellectual component. then they have to be physically fit and psychologically levelheaded. have 74% of the high school graduates who volunteered to enlist who cannot pass one or the other requirements. that means we need more and more women. jobse seen them do the that other men cannot do. much of today's army, air force, navy, marines, coast guard, all the armed forces, it is not all hands on toil and drudgery. much of it is pushing buttons
7:15 am
after being trained what to do and what not to do. considered every bit as equal to us guys as we are to them. they can do the job. there is nothing that should stand in their way. on the field,at if they are physically able to do the job, they should be there. they can be just as heroic as men. we have had women serve in every single war that this country has had. from the very beginning of the frontiers, they could pick up a blunderbuss and shoot when they needed to. serve on thehem sotlefield in male clothing they could serve this beloved country of ours. i am adamantly in favor of women being able to sign up for the draft and to be able to serve in
7:16 am
code that specialty the military has that they can do. female, person, male or in a job, in combat or a .eacetime here is one benefit. , we had our heads stripped bald. then we were treated like pieces of garbage, and then we built up. we came to have unit cohesion, and people learned to rely on the other person and challenge themselves to be the person the other person could rely on. it made us better citizens because we learned we are all in this job together.
7:17 am
-- about more by this country. we learned not to be so worried about what might happen. america, let your women serve. let them sign up and serve wherever they are needed, in whatever jobs they can do. if they are physically fit to be a seal, let them be a seal. there are some that can do it. we have had pirates. host: let me stop you wrote quick. if i'm not mistaken, you served in the navy. i served 30 years, two years in vietnam, one year off the coast of the amount. i was on the taiwan defense patrol between mainland china chinese --as the
7:18 am
weapons to bear, less we precipitate world war iii. host: would you be in favor of a draft being put back into service? caller: i would be in favor of it. i would want everybody to have the chance to train to do military service. they do it in switzerland. if they do it there, we can do it here. host: let's go to cheryl, who is calling from los angeles, california. cheryl is against the idea of women having to register for military service. caller: good morning. i would like you to afford me the same opportunity to speak without being cut off. women beingto drafted for these reasons. one, women have menstrual.
7:19 am
there are certain jobs we cannot do. if we are captured, where going to be raped to no end. i am surprised the american men that want women to go to these hard on the battlefield fighting. what kind of men in our country would go for that? i am appalled. we have children. we may be pregnant, and we may not know it. we are on the battlefield pregnant. there are so many reasons i think women should not have to -- that it would be mandatory for women. those are my reasons. if america is coming to the point where we have to force vote, weregister to are in a sad situation in america. thank you. womenas my viewpoint on
7:20 am
not loading -- i mean -- host: joe heck is the chairman on military, national, and community service. that is the commission studying whether women should be wired to register -- required to register for military service. here is what he had to say on that. [video clip] >> our research team has done an exhaustive review of what is done in other countries. the commissioners held a meeting hosted by the norwegian embassy where we had representatives from other countries talk about their military service programs and public service programs, which in many cases have mandatory participation. we recognize in the u.s. that while those may serve as a model or provide best practices, in the u.s. we have our own unique andof mores, values, constitutional requirements to
7:21 am
address whether or not service is mandatory or voluntary. host: let's go to some of our comments from the internet. jim says, absolutely, women should be forced to register for the draft. they want to be treated as equals or better if they volunteer. fair is fair. let's go back to our calls. george is calling from alabama. george is against the idea of women being drafted. good morning. caller: good morning. i am just afraid that is what is going to happen is you are going to have two in the same family, and it is going to be hard for someone to take care of their children because they have both been drafted. it is going to be a lot of paperwork before you figure out mom has got to stay home because there are two kids, and she doesn't have grandma to take
7:22 am
care of them. that is what i have to say about it. host: let's go to rachel calling from pennsylvania. rachel is for women having to register for military service. go ahead. caller: for a long time i have thought that women should not only be allowed but required to sign up for the draft if there is a draft. that thereeve actually should have been a draft way back when we went into thatar in afghanistan and they should have been equal gender. host: one of our callers earlier made the argument that women could be pregnant and not know rape the possibilities of on the battlefield. what you say to those that put
7:23 am
up those sorts of arguments against military service? caller: there are also problems for everybody, not just women, but men as well. you can sort of defeat any purpose by just nibbling away at what if this, what if this happens? have enough abilities to figure out the problems as they come up. host: do you think women should also serve in all of the same combat roles as men, whether it is on the battlefield or in close combat situations. caller: absolutely. sue, who isgo to calling from michigan. sue also thinks women should be required to register for military service. go ahead. caller: i believe they should
7:24 am
have to register. i believe they should have registered when they fought for women's rights years ago. why are they so special now? we are like men, let's register and prove you are like manner. that is my opinion. host: do you think there should be a military draft in the future? do you think we are doing ok with the all volunteer military forces we have? caller: i believe everybody should serve at least two years one way or another. host: do you mean like some type of public service as well as military? caller: not federal job, not a little pansy where you work for the government at the social mean actuallye, i with the military. host: ok. kentucky,. jim from
7:25 am
jim is retired military. good morning. caller: good morning. you're darned right i think women should sign up for selective service. yeah. well, first of all, i would like to say i love "washington journal" but you are my favorite post. host: thank you. -- host. host: thank you. caller: the show is way more entertaining when you are on. women should have to sign up for selective service. host: what branch of the armed services did you serve in? how long did you serve? caller: air force, 10 and a half years. host: did you work with many women? oh, yeah. host: what did you think about
7:26 am
it? caller: we were all professionals. everything worked out fine. host: do you think the draft should come back? should we stay with the all volunteer military we have now? caller: i think the all volunteer force we have in place of theknocking it out ballpark. i think we are getting great people to sign up for the military. some of the best in our society. i understand it is under 2%. these are good people. meansgo to a draft, that our country is in a desperate situation. we are in total to toe combat with china for example. toe combat with china for example. if we get in a situation, everybody needs to have skin in the game. host: the james calling from
7:27 am
michigan. women having to register for military service. good morning. caller: good morning. a reason why i feel this way is because women have a central calling in life. if it was not for women, we would not be here. woman to war, i went to vietnam myself, and we had women aiding the red cross. you equal. women bear children. some men believe it is politically correct to say let the woman go to war. how would you like your daughter to go to war and may not come back? we overstretch. i feel who is good and who is
7:28 am
not good. a lot of men like me came back from vietnam. we had ptsd. i also had prostate cancer because of all the agent orange. people talking is just a lot of talk. host: a pentagon report shows that men are registering for selective service at a pace of about 2 million per year. if women were required to register for military service, the pentagon reports they would add up to 11 million to the selective service system database in short order. it appears that for the most part, expanding registration for the draft to include women would enhance further the benefits presently associated with the selective service system. registrationral would convey the added benefit of promoting fairness and equity
7:29 am
not previously possible in the process and would comport the military selective service system with our nations values ofe fairness and equity. let's hear what he has to think about the idea of women being required to register for selective service. steve, good morning. caller: good morning. drafte drafty in 1967 -- 1967, went to vietnam, served in the infantry. came home, thank god. i am kind of on the fence with this, with the draft. the reason i could go either way on it is that if anybody wants to look up the statistics. when you get drafted, 90% of the time, you are going into a combat mos.
7:30 am
you are not going into a clerk job, a cook, supply. you are being drafted because there is a great need. very few people sign up for the infantry. let's just cut through the nonsense. that is my hesitance. can women be in the infantry? i don't know. i will be the first one to admit it. i know that carrying 80 pounds on your back and humping 10 or 12 miles a day is pretty tough on a male. can females do it? i'm sure there are females that can do it, but it is difficult. i have no problem with registering, but i think there's going to have to be some -- i am looking at if we draft females, hopefully we never have another draft, are we going to put them specifically combat or the infantry?
7:31 am
that is my comment. going to take a quick shift. we're going to talk about one of the issues in the news right now. the virginia governor is in the midst of a firestorm in richmond following the publication of a photograph from his medical school yearbook showing a man wearing blackface next to a man in a ku klux klan robe. northam has apologized for this product and has not said which men in the photo he is if he is in the photo. from theto patrick richmond times dispatch to find out what is going on in virginia right now. good morning. guest: good morning. thank you for having me on. host: this all bubbled up yesterday. what is the latest with what is going on with governor northbound right now? guest: this is something that developed very rapidly in a very
7:32 am
surreal wait for a lot of people. so many people, democratic politicians, congressional candidates, former governor terry mcauliffe, have called on to resign onham this that pretty much everybody in the political world expects a resignation announcement today, although we are waiting to find willhat governor northam do. this is one of those photos where people are scratching their heads. how did this never come up northamly when ralph was running for lieutenant governor or governor? after he had a controversial week about remarks he made on late-term abortion, friday afternoon, this photo services blog, andaces on a quickly news media found out that this yearbook photo was on
7:33 am
page to theebook governor acknowledged he is in the photo and apologize. it is not clear if he is in the person in the photo in blackface robe, but the political damage from this unfolded so rapidly over the course of the evening that by the end of the night, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that governor northam would have to resign over this because of the political damage and racial hurt that it photo like this creates even one that is from years ago. the virginia legislative lack caucus was among the groups -- black caucus was among the groups issuing strongly worded statements on this. host: has the governor himself made any indication that he was thinking about resignation?
7:34 am
i remember a video from last night where it sounded like he thought it would be able to keep his job. guest: to my knowledge, publicly, he has not given any indication to that. he has said he wants to heal the damage that his conduct has caused and serve his four-year term. as those statements were being made by the governor or shortly after, virginia's democratic senators, party elders issued statements saying he should carefully consider what he does next. waser governor mcauliffe among people that called for him to resign. , is unfolded so quickly think we will definitely have some news this morning. we are waiting to find out what the news will be. host: is anyone defending the governor in this situation?
7:35 am
is he facing a complete firestorm from both sides, republican and democrat? there is very little defense among politicians and elected officials. early, when this was unfolding, dig fast law, the democratic party leader in the virginia state senate was defending governor northam. evening, he issued an updated statement. the voice of the legislative ofck caucus is what a lot democrats are signing on with. there are people that are very hurt, i think, that are saying ralph northam has been a great man. i have known him. he has done great work. little to no defense of this yearbook photo and the
7:36 am
way it was presented. host: for those who are not familiar with virginia politics, explain to us what happens if governor northam resigns. in virginia, governors can only serve one term, and if he resigns, he would be replaced by the lieutenant governor. people last night were probably online reading the state constitution looking for details of this. governor is the only one in the country that cannot run for reelection. they serve 14-year term. the current governor is a democrat. governor is a democrat. he is african-american. he was elected to the statewide office that oversees the state senate but is generally considered a launching pad into the governor's seat.
7:37 am
resigns, theor lieutenant governor would become the second african-american governor. becomes justin fairfax governor, would he only serve out the last of north comes term, ornortham's would he be able to run for his own term? guest: this is something i will have to check out. the thought would be that justin fairfax could serve out the term and then run for election. as a reporter, i need to check into that before we would say something more definitively. we will be reporting on that today on richmond.com. host: we understand this is an ongoing story. fore have any timetables
7:38 am
when we might hear something from the governor's mansion today? is this still just a moving target? guest: i have been told that there are plans for a press conference this morning, although i have not received official word of that yet. i don't have the timetable. i don't have the timetable. host: from your experience as a reporter in richmond, what do you think the governor is going -- i don't think that there is a
7:39 am
way that governor northam will survive this. host: anything else you want to add in that we have not talked about? this is a quickly moving story. i know things are changing by the moment. anything you want to add that we have not talked about? guest: one thing that is of interest is how rapidly this developed yesterday. it was one of those stories that quickly went on to national news . it was on the new york times homepage pretty quickly. it seemed like every five minutes there was a new tweet or statement from someone calling for ralph northam to resign. the video that the governor put up on social media and on twitter where he was trying to make his case, apologize, and hishe wanted to serve out
7:40 am
term, i scrolled through for several minutes of comments on that. twitter is not always the healthiest place for discussion. many of the comments said resign or resign immediately. it was not even a conversation. a lot of these people were just people that live in virginia. it was not a national audience. in terms of being a reporter, this is a little surreal because it happens so quickly. , andkes on a lot of life not in anyone's control. this photograph that emerged became what it is, and now here we are wondering if and when the governor will resign. host: one last question. how did this photograph exist without anyone finding out about it before now? this is a longtime virginia politician. you would think that a reporter or even opposition research against him would have turned up something like this?
7:41 am
how did this get by for so long without coming to the public eye? guest: that is a great question. opposition researchers look for these things. journalists do background checks on candidates and look for these things. staff of thes, the candidate will ask the candidate to tell them, anything in your past that can hurt you, you need to tell us about it. they will really grow their own candidate to make sure they know ll their own candidate to make sure they know what is out there. this is something that made it through the cracks. there may have been people that know about this or remembered it. it never came out previously. on friday, it came out. here we are. would like to thank patrick wilson, political reporter for the richmond times dispatch. thanks so much for your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: we are to go back to our
7:42 am
phone lines. we are actually going to talk toout -- we going to try merge these conversations. whether you want to talk about virginia governor ralph northam or whether women should have to register for the military draft. let's go to the phone. edward is calling from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you so much. i was hoping that you would not just move on with the topic because i had something i wanted to say about women serving in the military. host: go right ahead. caller: my answer to the question is yes, i think women should be required by law to register for military service just as men should. i also think that it should not be a volunteer military service. we should have a draft.
7:43 am
congress should pass it where everyone is required to serve. i think this way we will have more voter participation and keep our system honest. i echo what the caller from wisconsin was saying. won't have as much abuse. where we just it sign up for benefits. you push back on the caller. i want to push back on you. there's a lot of structural poverty. recruiters recruit from the inner cities and rural areas. it is just the truth. can i just have a quick comment about the governor from virginia? host: go ahead. caller: i was impressed with virginia that the governor can only serve one term. i think that is amazing. thatnk it is unfortunate
7:44 am
we are in this place where we have to wait on them to resign. i think with the picture coming out, it was so long ago, we need to hear from the governor. 30 or 40 years ago, you were in high school, you were this way. where do you stand now? what do you think about black lives matter? before we judge him and condemn him so quickly. if he is still in that place, what if he chooses not to resign? it is so toxic and violent, people should not be forced to have to deal with him finishing his term. thank you very much. host: we are taking calls on should women have to register for military service? if your answer is yes, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. if your answer is that women should not have to register for military service, you can call (202) 748-8001. we want to hear from active and
7:45 am
retired military, your opinions on this at (202) 748-8002. let's go to david, who is retired military calling from winston-salem, north carolina. let's hear what david has to say. good morning. caller: i'm sorry. i feel like i served 21 years. --eel like women should not if they want to volunteer, it is fine. i don't think they need to register for the military. if they want to volunteer, they can. register, having them and suddenly there would be drafted into the military. they might have the draft again, just like the vietnam war again where they had the draft when
7:46 am
they drafted the men into the military war. it is like over. a lot of women, i have served with women in the iraq war and the gulf war and desert storm. a lot of women have seen combat firsthand of men getting their arms and seen a lot of blood. really the women did not come back all messed up with ptsd. host: let me interrupt you quickly. which branch of the armed service did you serve in? caller: the army. host: would you be against any military draft coming back? would you be for a military draft? should we stick with the
7:47 am
all volunteer military we have now? caller: if they want to go in, voluntary. if they don't want to go in, don't make them go in. host: would you say the same thing for men as well? would you get rid of the draft completely? caller: i would get rid of it completely, the same thing like the vietnam war. host: let's go to john, calling from new york. john thinks women should have to register for military service. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. can serve in military service or political positions. there are a lot of critical issues caused by women lying to the state department. those politicians who support position growth in iran, and she
7:48 am
answered those and had relationship with them who are united states employees. obvious that large amounts of obvious that large amounts of politicians get money caller: it was just a short time after graduating high school in 1968 that i received my draft notice. soolunteered for three years
7:49 am
that i could get into the military police. in that time, young men fresh out of high school were brought together. we learned how to take orders. we learned how to follow orders, and we learned how to get along and work with each other. , believe the military draft doing away with it, was one of the worst things that ever happened to this country. the young men today getting out of high school have nothing to do. that is why we have one of the problems we have in this country today. thank you for taking my call. callingt's go to dee from pennsylvania. he is against women having to register for the selective service. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't think we need a draft at this point. my feeling is that on a
7:50 am
mandatory basis for women, i don't think they should be forced to register as men do. my son is active military. my daughter-in-law is a veteran, having served four years out of rotc. i have had a lot of service with women in military, and i have great respect for them and the fact that they have volunteered. i am against the mandatory aspect of it. in a situation where we would have a registration for national service as a mandatory kind of thing, whatever time, two years maybe, i agree with the last caller that it would women to giveand
7:51 am
them some direction and some discipline, whether it was in a military process or another public service aspect. host: here is joe heck, the chairman of the commission on military, national, and public service talking about women serving in combat roles in the future military. [video clip] >> women in selective service was the biggest behind genesis impetus behind the genesis of this commission. we feel this is just as important. we have to answer that question. we have talked to military leaders. we have talked to rank-and-file members of the armed forces. we have talked to faith-based communities. we have talked to the general public about their opinion if women were required to register.
7:52 am
why are not women required to register? heretofore, the selective service system was looked at as a process by which we provided combat replacements. allowedwomen were not in combat roles, the supreme court ruled it was ok to discriminate against women and not have them register. in 2015 when all combat roles were open to women, that prohibition would no longer hold valid. we are at the discretion point where we find ourselves today. redefinition of what the selective service system is. nowhere in the selective service system statute does it reference it being a two over combat replacements only. the potential need for different skill sets, if the selective service system is modified to
7:53 am
actually look at having a ready of individuals with a broad and diverse array of potential skills that would be necessary to defend the nation against foreign aggressors, perhaps the idea of everybody being drafted going into combat takes away from the argument of women registering. host: let's see if we can get a few more calls on the subject before the top of the hour. robert is calling from new york. good morning. most right-wingers are always saying that with rights comes responsibilities. most left-wingers say that women should have rights equal to those of men. assuming that both sides are right, it follows that women should have the same obligations as men, including to register for the draft and serve in combat roles if necessary. i would like to say that i
7:54 am
oppose conscription per se because i consider it to be the last redoubt of slavery. it is involuntary servitude. it puts people at risk. in the voluntary army, you assume the risk. people that volunteer assume the risk for themselves. conscription would make this involuntary. addition, in the old days, if a man evaded the draft, he faced the possibility of five years in prison. off scott free. think if reasons i there is going to be registration for conscription, it ought to apply to women as well as men. sandy, callingto from virginia. good morning. caller: yes, good morning.
7:55 am
i absolutely agree. i am prior service, u.s. army. that say for my experience i served during desert storm. there were instances where some females were discovered to be pregnant. they were allocated to other jobs that could be done that did not put them in harm's way. the military is really quite diligent with looking after people. they won't just put you on the front lines if you are having some server problem, or if there is a medical concern. there is always something else in the organization that person can do and contribute towards the cause. idea fort is a good everyone in our country to at least serve two years if they are capable of that.
7:56 am
host: which branch of the military did you serve in? caller: the army. host: the army. face much opposition from then when you were serving during desert storm? caller: no. it was a very cohesive environment. we were all on the same team. it was a lot of camaraderie of you watch my back, we are all in this together. i never had that experience at all. host: sandy, after desert storm ended, did you stay in the military? did you find the same type of camaraderie during peacetime, or did it change? caller: yes, i did. it was the same level of camaraderie. it was not as high didn't because -- heightened because the combat do not happen
7:57 am
anymore, but that stays with you regardless. as a veteran now, i have that same sense of camaraderie when i go to the v.a. we all served during different work times. it stays with you. there is a deep appreciation and pride for your time in service and sharing stories. it really is a good thing. they will put you in a job that you can do. they are not just going to put you on the front lines if you are pregnant, or if you are struggling with ptsd or something like that. they are not going to put a weapon in your hand and put you on the front line. that does not make sense. they would not do that. may i also chime in on governor northam? i am here in virginia, and i did vote for him. i'm a person of colored. host: go ahead. caller: i agree with a previous caller. i want to hear from him. i want him to come out and
7:58 am
discuss, what was he thinking? it was back in 1984. of course, people always judge something from somebody's past. i would like to hear from him. he has done some great things for the people in virginia of all colors and all walks of life. i would like to hear how he has transitioned in his mindset. i see the goodness that he is doing in the community now through different legislation. i would like to hear from him. i don't want him to just cave-in. i want to hear from him first. then i will make a determination whether or not i think he should throw in the towel and excuse himself from the job. host: let's go to daniel, calling from maryland. daniel is retired military. women beingnk about required to register for military service? caller: i think that we all need
7:59 am
to broaden our understanding about how it is that military service members operate in a combat environment. aether or not you are specific combat mos does not mean therefore you don't have to worry about behaving differently. for that reason, i cannot imagine why you would not want to train as many eligible people as possible for any of those roles. it is not really about should they or should they not. the question is if you have any need for people to serve, then should you not train those people also? host: coming up next, we will toe a closer look at efforts reform the cash bail system with
8:00 am
myesha braden from the lawyers committee for civil rights under law and jeffrey clayton of the american bail coalition. we focus this week on the nra and its lobbying. we speak to cq roll call reported kate ackley at the top of the hour. we will be right back. eastern,, 9 p.m. former new jersey governor and presidential candidate chris christie discusses his book. it is interviewed by the cbs news chief white house correspondent. >> if not for bridge gate, would you have been the vice presidential running mate or his
8:01 am
attorney general? >> if not for bridge gate, i might have been the nominee for president. gate induced people into the race. i don't know that donald trump would have run, but for bridge remember, 2013-- reelection, i had gotten 51% of the vote in a blue state. 29% of the african-american vote. i won the female vote against a female candidate and i onwon 65% of the independent vote. i was modeled to be the new person in the republican party to get those consistencies -- constituencies to vote for you. >> watch it on c-span2.
8:02 am
biplanes,issance , we tour thenage cold war museum in virginia. >> area 51 and the atomic bomb. technically, no one is allowed to go over there. it doesn't exist. onat 7:00, a discussion russell kirk and conservatism. >> i discovered early on from reading him, that for him conservatism was about far more than politics and in fact politics was the handmaiden of a decent society. on the p.m. eastern presidency, a tribute by president ronald reagan at the
8:03 am
library's anniversary in 1989 of fdr. offdr renewed the charter the founders around nation, that had created a government of, we the people, through a depression and a great war, crises that could have led us in another direction, fdr strengthened that charter. >> this weekend, on american history tv on c-span3. >> washington journal continues. host: we are joined by myesha braden of the lawyers committee of civil rights under law and jeffrey clayton of the american bail coalition. jeffrey, can you explain to those who don't have experience with the system, exactly what cash bill is and how it works? >> the way it works is the process of release -- how do people get out of jail? are they available?
8:04 am
is there a hold, whether immigration or on probation or parole that stops them from getting out? then, what security are they going to put up to get out of jail? in the u.s., in felony cases, less than a majority will post financial security. when financial bail is ordered, there are several ways it can be posted, either by property, your own cash, third-party cash or calling a licensed bail bondsman to post. ultimately, when you show up for court, if you don't show up there is forfeiture process where the person who put security down will lose that security, if the person does not appear. policys this a national or does each state have its own system? guest: both. there is a right to bail, both
8:05 am
the eighth amendment would suggest that as well as the judiciary act. bail has existed in the nation for many hundreds of years. it occursrisdiction, in different ways. the ideal system does not rely on money, monetary conditions to determine whether someone is released. there are other alternatives beyond money. for the lawyers committee for civil rights under law, our concern is with promoting equal justice under law and in a monetary system or a cash bail system, the poor and particularly african-americans are disadvantaged. the system becomes the system for determining whether you are having one type of justice because you have money to obtain that justice or whether you miss out on the opportunity for
8:06 am
justice and liberty because you are poor. host: do you agree the monetary bail system is unfair to those who do not have enough money? guest: i certainly think it can be. a lot of times, judges and lawyers do not take the time for appropriate due process to tease out issues, particularly in municipal courts at lower levels. that is where we have seen most of the problems. the maurice walker case pending before the supreme court now, sat on bail for 100 days, and that just cannot happen in the united states anymore. host: what states still use monetary bail? monetaryere are bail systems existing with every state and there are differences. host: counties, cities, towns, statewide? what are we talking. guest: yes. host: [laughter]
8:07 am
guest: one state, new jersey has done away with money bail, for all purposes and intent. the district of columbia does not operate under money bail system. the federal system is not really a money bail system. within any given small town, jurisdiction or location, money bail operates. host: what is your coalitions position on monetary bail? should be reformed? should it go away? should it stay? guest: we think it should be reformed. we do not think it should entirely go away. alternatives, is the question. if you go to our website, we have the fourth generation of bail reform in america. it is primarily due process, cracking down on systems as collections mechanism and trying to get rid of nuisance fails at
8:08 am
the lower level that ensnare people that don't really do anything. host: what is the origin of the system? did it exist before the united states? was it out of england? guest: it dates back to the magna carta in 1275 out of england. bail was criticized in 1835. it has existed on this continent for a long time. host: what type of efforts is the lawyers committee putting forward across the country to get these type of laws reformed, changed or eliminated? guest: it operates primarily as a litigation house. if there is an opportunity to bring advanced policy reform, we do so. one thing the committee is doing that is not happening, where most efforts at bail are looking at, money bail systems, the
8:09 am
lawyers committee is also looking at the issue of consumer bail options and improving the way states are enforcing the regulating the commercial bail system. we currently have litigation going in maryland. there is a bail operator not properly licensed, seeking to inain nearly $900,000 penalties, from citizens in and around baltimore, people who are least able to pay these premiums, but they have filed lawsuits to obtain payments when they should not have been operating as a bail company in the first place. the system is so large, so vast that judges prosecutors, public defenders have a different difficult time regulating what is happening. so many times, efficiency
8:10 am
overrules justice. any opportunity we have through litigation primarily, also through public education, policy reform, we try and apply those leverages. viewers inll get our on this. if you are in the eastern or central time zone and want to join the conversation, we want you to call (202)-748-8000. zones,n and pacific time (202)-748-8001. theou have experience with cash bail system and you want to talk about ways you think it could be improved or what you think about the system overall, we want to hear from you at (202)-748-8002. keep in mind, we are always reading on social media, twitter facebook.nd a
8:11 am
com/cspan. is there another option to the monetary bail system? everyone wants the system to improve. as soon as someone is released and commits another rent is crime while they could have been in jail, everyone will say the system should go back. is there another reliable more option -- more reliable option? guest: there is. i am sure i support it. everyone plays the willie horton card on this. they are lower in felonies and misdemeanors. they know the hammer is about to come down. the alternative is the federal system. preventative detention, based on risk assessment. when judgeses,
8:12 am
don't have the option for bail, they lean more heavily on detention, which is what we saw in baltimore during the first year of their new program. host: same question. is there a better option than the monetary bail system and what happens if someone gets out of jail, they were not on monetary bail and they commit another crime? guest: that is such a rare circumstance. i don't think that should be the basis for consideration. it rarely happens. bail do notetary have to be the same thing. there are multiple ways to ensure people obtain right to bail. they retain the right to liberty. when a person is accused of a crime, they are accused of a crime. they have not been convicted of a crime. we have to uphold the principle a person is innocent until proven guilty. by allowing a person to bailout, either through recognizance
8:13 am
bond, where they sign an agreement to come back or if they sign and agree to come back, if you don't come back you are forced to pay, if there are property bonds or certain conditions of release, for example, that is the ideal system. a system that looks not only at risk of a person not returning to court but also resources necessary to ensure the person returns. for example, studies have shown a simple reminder via text is very helpful for insuring a person returns to court. some people have trouble with transportation. a court looking at whether or not the person has the necessary transportation to return, that the person has childcare, job considerations have been made, if a person has a drug addiction problem that they are attaining drug treatment, mental health issues, those things are better
8:14 am
moreators than they are, likely to assure a person's reappearance at court than simply paying money bail. of particular concern to people of color and people who are poor, when there is a fixed monetary system, then your access to bail becomes dependent upon your ability to pay. is.: define what that guest: fixed money bail means the amount of bail is set to the crime you have been charged with. charged with are drug distribution, the person who somehow has money or access resources who committed that crime gets to walk free. that person who is free is better able to assist in preparation of defense, to have discussions with their attorney, to examine evidence to help locate witnesses.
8:15 am
the person who cannot afford to pay that fixed money bond is forced to remain in jail. that person is more likely to take a guilty plea. that person is more likely to be sentenced to incarceration and that person is more likely to receive a longer sentence. host: tony, oak hollow, florida. good morning. 4 minutescan spend talking to these people but i wanted to bring up points. i would like to ask how they feel about replacing what they have now with common-law? courts are for profit. bond that isates a sold to investors, eventually big banks profit from this and judges profit.
8:16 am
murder, for example is a one million-dollar case. if you ask me, the problem lies with the bar association. bar association is authority register. they basically have control of our entire court system. i would like to ask, how do you feel about changing to a common-law system? thanks. guest: he makes 1.i agree with. we cannot continue to fund the criminal justice system on the backs of defendants. i presented to a group of judges who burst into applause. that will not help people rehabilitate. if we settle them with fines going forward, it will not help them get to where they need to get to. as my colleague has said, substance abuse, mental health disorders, these are problems and we need real solutions. we cannot fix the bail system to fix that. we need to think bigger. getting rid of fees and fines,
8:17 am
stopping the court system being funded off of that is an important move forward. guest: i agree. of that has gotten out of hand. lawyers committee brings litigation to address fines and fees as well as pretrial conditions that result in money bail. tony hits on something very important. the bail industry is an industry. there are insurance sureties making upwards of $2 billion per year from the operation of bail industry. a judge once said the bail bondsman holds the key to the jail in his pocket. that is because the industry that determines who is worthy of surety, of being bailed, of taking the risk, takes the decision out of the courts. that is a problem.
8:18 am
you have people whose first concern is profit, and not justice, who are controlling the keys to jail and access to liberty. host: you said the bail industry is a $2 billion industry. how much money goes to the court system because of bail? guest: we don't know. forfeitures are paid by bail agents that go into the court system. jailing arrest fees, posted when people get out of jail, are wrong, they are also a source of revenue. some states go all kinds of programs, in north carolina, the forfeiture money goes to the school board. there is money being thrown around. guest: not much is going through the courts. commercial bail industry is a commercial industry. they are providing a service to the courts. the courts only receive money if
8:19 am
a person jumps bail. when the commercial bail industry is involved, that money is going to a private commercial industry. host: larry is calling from tuscaloosa, alabama. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: just fine. go ahead. caller: good morning to your guests. i agree with the attorney and also with the other party about the court system, the way it is. according to amendment 8, constitution, i have been noticing on some cases where a defendant is charged with excessive bail. what i mean by that -- the crime they committed, a person might go in and get caught with a gram of crack cocaine. be $100,000.
8:20 am
another person might go in and commit that crime and get caught with cocaine, instead of crack but his bond is lower at $50,000, which he might be able to afford an attorney and get out. thed they change the law, law for excessive bail, would be just punishment for the poor person instead of a way out for the rich? you foryou -- thank everyone who participates in c-span and that has called today. i agree with the last caller. he was right. the court system is railroading. thank you very much. guest: there is tension. everybody wants equal justice. we both did the same thing, the bail should be the same but that is not how the system works. you get cases where people commit the same crimes and the bonds are different.
8:21 am
that should happen if the system is functioning properly. guest: there is also something interesting. there have been studies as necently as november, a economic journal determined racial bias is an issue in bail determinations. stereotypes and often believe certain people are more of a risk than others. as a result, you have people who would be charged with the same crime receiving different bail because a judge would determine one person is more of a risk than a another person and that implicit bias, the influence of racial stereotypes within the bail system are a huge concern for civil rights advocates. tried toifornia just get rid of its cash bail system. can you tell us what happened
8:22 am
and whether you like or dislike what they did? guest: california has gotten rid of it system, a problem for many, is that the system in california will not rely on risk assessment tools. risk assessment has worked well in the district of columbia. 94% of people in the d.c. system are released. 88% of those return. so, it is working. there is a concern with risk assessment tools because they are algorithms, man-made and the bias any individual implementing algorithm has will be baked into the system. a number of protections need to be put in place to ensure there is not a systemic bias. against algorithms programmed to fix bias against a
8:23 am
judge who has bias that is ingrained that you may or may not know about, making the determination and civil rights advocates disagree. host: you called the effort reckless. why? guest: it is a move to preventative detention. a system where we will label things, low, medium, high. that is stupid. the state of california in their thirst for incarceration will spiral out of control if this law sees the light of day. it is reckless. it is a civil rights disaster. we will use the algorithm to decide who is in jail. the california constitution does not allow for this expansion. courtlifornia supreme will have to opine on that. guest: i disagree it is automatically a change from one thing to another. it is not automatically requiring preventative
8:24 am
detention. 94%he district of columbia, of the people are released. they obtain bail. that characterization or framing is incorrect. guest: if you know about prosecutors in california and the class of offenders because of progressive reforms, the pressure to preventative leak detained will be high. look at the bail schedules judges set in california. host: joseph from spotsylvania, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for allowing me to have a discussion. three quick questions. has ankle bracelets been effective in terms of getting people to return back to the court system? in terms of states that have
8:25 am
elected judges, is there some data that shows the amount of dollars bail bondsman donate to judges? therefore you have a reoccurring industry, the young lady made a comment about this being an industry and it would be if you are paying judges to keep my bail bondsman industry going? number three. managingin terms of the bail bond industry -- i understand -- how do i want to rephrase -- they are not policeman but sometimes they may be reckless in getting the defendant back to court in terms of how states can regulate that bail bonds person so they do not go off the deep end? i think you understand what i am talking about. in terms of the regulation of bail bondsman. thank you very much. host: three questions. guest: reverse order.
8:26 am
laws regarding the industry, we need greater odo oversight and loss. can have arrest powers, they are unregulated in several states in the western states. that is wrong. we need to fix it. elected judges, i am sure there is a lot of money going around from attorneys and bells monument -- and bail bondsman. we need the missouri plan. third point on ankle monitors. i do not think they generally have a great impact on appearance. they are more conditions of conduct. monitors and supervision should be reserved for higher risk cases. role ofoseph noted the the bail industry in lobbying. we have seen that in maryland. maryland, one year ago, passed a new rule concerning bail,
8:27 am
requiring the presumption of release. the lobbying effort to combat that new rule was substantial. in the state of maryland, lobbyist ranked third, spent more in maryland than they did in all other states except two, trying to combat that legislation, to make sure the industry did not lose its profit based. that is a huge problem. regulationf not only of conduct of bail bondsman but also ensuring bail bondsman are not allowed to violate the civil rights of individuals, is a huge concern. there is a case ongoing in louisiana, where the bail bondsman held a person hostage until someone could bring the money they were demanding. that is a problem. that happens in an industry so closely tied to profit. host: more and more people are
8:28 am
on probation, being put under electronic lock and key, ankle bracelets. if that works for probation, why would it not work for bail? guest: it could work for bail. that type of ankle monitoring, is a potential condition of release, as is drug testing, returning to check in with pretrial services. cost isern becomes the passed on to the accused and if an individual could not afford to pay bail, they most certainly cannot afford to pay the cost of wearing that ankle monitor every day. ensuring that cost is not passed on to the accused is a very important piece of implementing conditions of release. guest: that is right. we just got the schedule of fees from los angeles county. for a person, average income $60,000 a year to be on an ankle
8:29 am
monitor for nine months is $9,000. that is a lot of money. one public defender said, if you want to understand the bad side, follow the money. don't replicate the system another way, if you don't like it. primarily, i don't think they are effective. superexpensive and labor-intensive. if you don't respond to a violation, it is a worthless piece of equipment. host: scott from south dakota. scott has experienced with the bail system. caller: good morning. i appreciate you letting me call. i try to be flexible on my bond recommendations in my career but your speakers, seems to be pie-in-the-sky to me. i don't know. i mean. host: let's make sure -- are you a bail bondsman? caller: no i am a prosecutor. host: their ego.
8:30 am
keep going. -- there we go. just wanted to make sure we knew. caller: i have worked in states systems, reservations, pretty poor places. it seems like the proposal is they want to model the municipal system on the federal system. the problem is the federal system is very resource intensive. it requires a lot of personnel to make sure pretrial systems are working. we simplyve worked, don't have those resources to hire those people. we don't have resources to buy income monitors. we don't have those kind of things. it sounds like the proposal will be taxpayer intensive, it will require more money to do that. you are not wanting to put that money on defendants, so i worry
8:31 am
that this is kind of the proposal we had for the mental health system that aids ago, where we did -- decades ago. we did away with asylums. the resources never came for the communities and people were left in the streets. that is my concern with the proposal. guest: his point is valid. i am a former federal prosecutor. he is right. there are advantages to prosecuting in a federal system. there is a robust pretrial services system within the federal system. however, i think it is sacrifice equal justice under all to economics. we cannot say it cost too much, so we cannot do it. you're talking about a loss of liberty. people suffer injustices when they are detained in jail even
8:32 am
for a short amount of time. they risk losing their job, their home, single parents risk losing custody of children, people risk losing their housing, not to mention the , beingons of confinement in a regimented system rather than being re-, being -- free, being cut off from the outside world, being exposed to the risk and dangers of being incarcerated. i think in this country, the value of liberty and democracy must outweigh the value of the dollar. guest: it is always good to work for the government that prints the money. a good story, i was in las vegas, clark county, federal magistrate explaining how the federal system worked. the district attorney's office said, how many bales did you set this week? the answer was 4. caseloads are huge and cost has
8:33 am
been the primary determining factor on these reforms at least for the last 10 years. the systems are primarily, preventative detention and supervision is expensive. if you cannot go all the way, the answer is -- how many more pathways out of jail can we find? guest: there are other answers. part of the problem, the reason the system is so huge is so many things are criminalized. if we take a look at decriminalizing low-level crimes, you won't have a system that is so bloated. it is not simply fixing the bail system. we must fix the criminal justice system. guest: it bail bondsman are to go out of business, the crimes have gone away, we find other civil accountability whether restorative justice or another way -- the point is, people need to pay their debt, restitution,
8:34 am
they need to take care of what they have done. that is what the criminal system should be designed for. we are moving away from a system where we think punishment will be effective. guest: we cannot forget, individuals require bail because they have been charged with a crime. they have not been convicted of a crime. therefore they are entitled to the same liberty as everyone else, until they are proven guilty. host: john is from washington dc good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about the prosecuting attorney and how they advance careers on convictions. they do not seem to care if you're innocent or guilty. if you go to a courtroom, they are telling the judge every single defendant is guilty. if you are falsely accused of a crime and you are put into jail and you lose your apartment and they evict you, you come out of
8:35 am
jail, your stuff is gone, you don't have a job, they destroy people's lives just because they are trying to advance their careers. they make backroom deals with judges and the judges has his mind made up before he has seen you in the courtroom. host: how much do judges take into account what the prosecuting attorneys think bail should be? is that always agreed to? are those different numbers the prosecutor throws out? the judge comes up with a different number? guest: if bail is not set by schedule, it will happen in open court. prosecutors -- judges lean heavily on what was accused will say. -- prosecutors will say. there is prosecutorial misconduct. i have seen it. what i have seen more, is the run-of-the-mill situation, there just is not time to have individualized consideration we need. guest: prosecutors are essential
8:36 am
parts of criminal justice reform. the overwhelming majority of prosecutors have no interest in incarcerating someone who is innocent. there is no career, no thing that makes that a part of a prosecutors job. i don't agree with that at all. however, the system is bloated. there are opportunities to lose sight of the fact that a prosecutors first job is the pursuit of justice, not the pursuit of conviction, the pursuit of justice. there are many inflection points within the system where we need to do a better job of ensuring justice for all. costing thech is it criminal justice system to keep in jail, people who simply have not been convicted by cannot afford bail? is that costing the jail system lots of money? guest: it is costing an enormous
8:37 am
amount of money, millions of dollars. that is a part of the smarter on crime principles that eric holder discussed when he was ag,, let harris discussed -- kamala harris discussed when she was the attorney general in california. it is costing more for low-level crimes, to keep people detained in jail pending trial. that is an opportunity for us to be smarter on crime by looking at releasing those individuals not a risk, who are likely to return if we put the proper resources in place. if that happens and if we can focus on that, there is an avenue and opportunity for bipartisan agreement, not only in bail reform but in criminal justice reform. guest: that is right. the other thing is nonmonetary holds. -- you are one
8:38 am
probation, a good example would be the kalif case. you commit another low-level crime, you're not available, and three years later you get out of rikers. you cannot have that situation. we have generational mass incarceration. i don't think anyone can say we don't. how to solve that is the question. i don't think policies like california, expanding the ability for the government to detain is going to get us where we want to go. host: vincent from indianapolis, he has experienced with the monetary bail system. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm fine, go ahead. caller: i had a question about the conditional release situation, whereas a person is low-leveld he and doesn't make much money but he scrapes up enough money to make bail but then he is put on
8:39 am
a conditional release to have a ankle bracelet or a monitor or something that will cost him $14 a day. based on his income, if that owion is in for a dui or and he drives for a living, he cannot drive so he does not have a job. them onhey put conditional release to have him pay $15 a day when they already know and he has explained when he went on their, he wouldn't have a job because that is what he does? he doesn't have a license, a job, until his case comes up and once his case comes up, if he wins, he gets his license back, or if he loses, he is without a license until that court date, so he does not have a job, but they still put you on conditional release, where they charge you $15 a day and expect you to pay.
8:40 am
guest: least restrictive form of release. we need to look at the basket. bail, or release or supervision's, individually tailored to the person and hopefully judges will fix the situation. you're going to lose her job and you are under -- your job and you are under present and of innocence, because of these technologies, that is something judges need to look at. guest: bail decisions cannot rely exclusively on risk. judges must consider resources. what resources will ensure this person returns to court? what resources well protect public safety? additionally, going back to the issue of prosecutors, when bobby kennedy was attorney general, he ordered federal prosecutors wherever practical, to pursue no detention, need for bail because people should be released. that is something prosecutors,
8:41 am
elected prosecutors around the country can do right now. tell your prosecuting staff to limit those opportunities where they are seeking to have individuals detained unless absolutely necessary to protect public safety and ensure reappearance court. is where we need to go back to. the 1970's, the move toward preventative detention. a professor from yale testified this in 1989 saying the original design of what we were trying to do went too far and relied heavily on preventative detention. host: michael is from portsmouth, virginia, and he has experience with the cash bail system. caller: good morning. my name is michael. i am a bail bondsman. a couple points. first of all, i wanted to
8:42 am
address myesha. i am a black man and i take issue with the argument that everybody is in jail is brown and poor. there are brown folks, black folks, hispanics that are doing pretty well. not every person who is black or hispanic, a person of color, is poor and cannot make bail. the second thing i wanted to say is that, there is something i feel people miss when we are talking about bail reform. we do business with family members and friends. i understand magistrate has to assess situations and they can deem as a person to be legitimate but 90% of the time when i get a phone call from a bond, it is a family member or friend calling from the outside and they want to get their friend out of jail. we talk with that person and ask
8:43 am
that person if they are employed, if they have a job. we only deal with people who have been employed for at least a year. those people make the payments that bail people out of jail. not the person in jail. the idea that we need to do bail reform because the people in jail are poor is a misconception. who, business with people with cosigners. they have to be at least on the job for one year and they have to be able to make 10% payment. another point is pretrial, alternative to bail is killing us. essentially what it is his probation before you have been convicted of a crime. that is problematic. if you have not been convicted, there is no reason for anyone to be put on probation, which is pretrial services. the cost ofnt is
8:44 am
incarcerating people across the country, in washington dc, is $65 million, somewhere around that number, to implement these pretrial services programs. california will cost $3.9 billion and in virginia, it is 10-12,000,000 dollars for these pretrial programs. right.michael is i do not disagree. the vast majority of black and brown people committed no crimes. they are not incarcerated. that is absolutely right. the problem is that of those people who are incarcerated, they are disproportionately black and brown. he raises another very important issue. we tend to focus on individuals incarcerated or detained pretrial. it is the families, people who have neither committed nor been accused of committing crimes, who are paying the cost. in baltimore, or in maryland for
8:45 am
example, over a five-year period, families, individuals paid more than $150 million in bail premiums. that is not the cost set by the judge. that is 10% on top of cost set by the judge that bail, commercial bail bondsman are able to set. of that, more than $150 million, $75 million of it was for individuals ultimately found not guilty. families were spending money they did not have, wealth was being transferred from the poor to the commercial bail industry. that becomes a huge problem when the bail industry is not properly regulated and when onividuals are operating scrupulously. that is the problem in baltimore, that is the problem with the case that the lawyers
8:46 am
committee filed against the company, 4ace. they were not licensed, yet they have obtained all these premiums and they are suing for recovery of additional premiums when they should not have been operating as a bail bond company in the first place. it is the families that are suffering, not just the accused. guest: the one point he makes i would like to latch onto is, bail is a core right. i have the right to bail somebody out. it is the right to control my own destiny, our own destiny as a family, to challenge the government. primarily the reason for the eighth amendment, was the locking up of political opponents. if you want to sell preventative attention -- preventative detention, you asked whether donald trump should have the power of preventative detention? most people would say, no, he already has it. it is a way to challenge the
8:47 am
state when it overreaches which is a reason to keep it around. host: online follower said this here, md, says listen to the callers. if you are a law-abiding, taxpaying american citizen realize there are many people who sympathize with the criminals, not the innocent and the taxpayers. is talking about bail ignoring the victims of crimes? guest: not, absolutely not. first of all, it is problematic to assume anyone charged with a crime is automatically a criminal. there are often people who are charged with crimes who are innocent. in this country, the principle of innocent until proven guilty is the very foundation of our criminal justice system. releasing a person so that they retain their liberty right while they are accused and before they have been convicted does not in
8:48 am
any way ignore the victim. they are not related in any way. shrift victims rights in bail, that is changing. victims have a right to be heard at hearings. judges will set bail, so they do not have a hearing, so the victim does not show up. i think we need to do a better job getting victims in bail decisions. host: evelyn from baltimore, maryland. caller: good morning. have bailltimore, we whatman, normally 10%, they are doing now is they are can go to place you and they charge 1%. the thing is, even if the person is found not guilty or was
8:49 am
unjustly arrested, the family member that puts up that 1%, ok $60,000, i think 1% of that is $500, i am not sure and even if the person did not do the crime or whatever, that person, that family still has to pay that bail. which to me, you are taking out a loan to get someone out of jail. the family still owes that bondsman $4500. i remember, 29 years ago i was arrested. they gave me a $30,000 bail. i had never been in trouble. i was living in my neighborhood for years. my house had got rated. -- raided. i could not understand why i had $30,000 bail. i was not able to go anywhere.
8:50 am
they do not take any of that into account. i also heard, i am not sure, in the constitution, might have been california, unconstitutional to give a bail to a person that is -- [indiscernible] host: want to jump in? guest: she hits on an important point. average bail is set at $10,000. for individuals who cannot afford to pay that amount of cash out right, they go to bail bond companies. premiums are set and those have to be paid regardless of conviction. the transfer of wealth happening, particularly in poor communities by family members, grandmothers, aunties, taking out loans, cashing out savings in order to pay these bail premiums, is a huge problem. additionally, women are
8:51 am
particularly disadvantaged in these systems. women are more likely to be accused of women are crimes and facing bail determinations. women are less likely to have family support available in order to cobble together money necessary to pay bail. as a result, these women are more likely to be detained pretrial. there are problems across the board with the cash bail system at many inflection points. that is why we advocate the elimination of cash bail and reform the bail system wide scale. guest: all the consequences that flow from an arrest not leading to a conviction are nonrefundable. that is something we should look at. we should get -- i was trying to make a point, maybe there is a time when it is so grossly
8:52 am
mishandled, there could be compensation. host: ed is from jackson, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. history does not furnish a single instance of a government once established, voluntarily yielding up powers to secure the rights of the people. james madison. the criminal justice system is a sham. what happened it is better that 10 guilty escape, then let one innocent suffer? when you compare other countries incarceration rates, in europe and all, for every 100,000 population, 60 are locked up. in the united states, 600 out of 100,000 are locked up. it is the over criminalization of everything. the system is broken. this -- i'mith trying to find the quote -- "we
8:53 am
can have justice when those who have not been injured by injustice are as outraged by it, as those who have been." aren't we the only country that has for-profit failed bondsman? -- bail bondsman? united states and philippines? host: re:? -- are we? is indemnity contracts all around the world. generational mass incarceration is a real thing. out, whyicle, teasing did this happen? the argument is over labeling people as risky. no trial can exonerate that. once your dangerous, you are dangerous. it never seems to end. it starts small and magnifies overtime. we have over criminalized ourselves and rely too heavily on incarceration. no doubt. guest: i agree. host: mike is from annapolis,
8:54 am
maryland. caller: good morning. panelfollow-u to the member who wanted to go back to camelot days, where the attorney general instructed prosecutors to do pretrial release to everyone pending trial. what federal crimes are considered nonthreatening to the public? drug trafficking, child exploitation, even white-collar stuff, predatory in nature, what crimes are nonthreatening to the public that deserve pretrial release? guest: it is not simply an issue of the crime. we discourage the crime determining release. there must be an individual determination. there must, you must look at the individual charged with the crime. is that individual likely to return to court? does that individual place the
8:55 am
public at a risk? premise is a flawed premise. thatld also be concerned we remember in a bail system, individuals are innocent until proven guilty. that has to be the foundation of all our considerations, when we are having discussions about reforming, fixing or ending certain types of bail. guest: traffic would be my example in the federal system. federal system detains 10% of all traffic offenses. traffic gets released. i don't think any of those should be detained. on federal system is based individualized determination, not necessarily just the conduct . that is probably the right approach. host: mark from salem, oregon.
8:56 am
caller: good morning. my son is mentally ill. he is homeless. since he was 17, i couldn't get help from the school. but he was doing in school, -- [indiscernible] -- disability efforts. now he keeps going to jail. he is on the street. [indiscernible] they set bail, they let him out. he pleads guilty because he doesn't know what to do. [indiscernible] months, so he could come back and plead guilty. it is ridiculous. they referred him to services. he won't go. he is schizophrenic. when he is in jail, it is a relief for me but it is not fair to him. he keeps getting more fines, probation. he will be in longer and longer. host: do you keep bailing your son out? caller: i do not bail him out.
8:57 am
i don't know what to do with him. he has schizophrenia, autism. i am on disability. [indiscernible] we don't, i don't know what to do. i don't have the resources. host: how much is the bail system affecting people with mental challenges? guest: that needs to be one of the considerations. we cannot simply focus on risk. we have to focus on resources. if a person like her son is a flight risk or a risk of harming the community because of his mental illness, simply locking him up in jail does not help him. it does not help the community. what needs to happen is this person needs mental health treatment. having a system that provides those types of opportunities and that makes that type of consideration is where we need to be heading. guest: survey of 1000 bail
8:58 am
agents around the country asked how the system works when they deal with mental illness, substance abuse and disorders? the system is poorly equipped to handle these people, whether pre-conviction or postconviction, that is probably the number one thing i hear traveling the country and talking to bail bondsman, this issue of, these people do not belong there, they should not have been there in the first place and sometimes the family does not want to bail them out because they have a disorder and they are afraid they will die if they get released. it is a bigger problem than people want to admit. host: one more call from jacksonville, florida, noel has experience with the bail system. caller: how are you? host: i am fine, go ahead. the question is to the
8:59 am
bail bonds representative. what did he mean by the statement he made, working for the government that prints the money? question.t: second the bail bond publicy a private industry or the government, the industry with the government and the bail bond system, therefore they are working the government that prints the money? guest: that was a joke. the federal government can spend all the money it wants. it tends to do that. the answer is no. contract is a three party contract. there is some contractual duty
9:00 am
from the bail industry to follow through on obligations under the bond contract. host: we could keep talking but we have run out of time. i would like to time. i would like to thank myesha braden, the project director for the lawyers committee for civil rights under the law, and american bail coalition's jeffrey clayton for being with us for this conversation. guest: thank you. host: coming up, it is our spotlight on magazine segment where we will speak with cq "roll call's" kate ackley on the nra and its advertising muscle. we will be right back. ♪ >> i am always enthralled, the
9:01 am
walls, if they could speak, what could they tell us, what would they tell us? newest book, "inside the senate," takes us inside, its unique hallway, private workspaces, and elaborate meeting places. it is still with the architecture that pervades the senate's banks. to order your high-quality paperback copy of "the senate" for just $18.95 plus shipping, visit c-span.org/senatebook. ," the casen "q&a that brought down vice president agnew. spiro
9:02 am
with ron liebman and tim baker. >> we believe we can bring down spiro agnew, and his lawyers, among the positions they took with that, that he could not be prosecuted, that he was close with community. he did not want to go to jail, and he had a get out of jail free card. tim: what was that? this is watergate. richard nixon was a walking dead man, politically speaking. matter of time, most everybody understood, before he would be forced out of office. his would make spiro agnew, vice president who we have under investigation, president. could you imagine how the country would react? president nexen, a crook, leaves office. agnew, a crook, becomes president. sunday.n's "q&a"
9:03 am
over the last year, the world has seen what we always knew, that no evil on earth are so fearless or daring or determined as americans, and if there is a mountain, we climb it. if there is the frontier, we cross it. if there is a challenge, we tame it. if there is an opportunity, we seize it. so let's begin tonight by recognizing that the state of our union is strong, because our people are strong. [cheers and applause] the state of the union, first postponed because of a government shutdown, whe will now take place on tuesday night. watch as president trump delivers his state of the union address live from the house chamber, beginning at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, followed by a democratic response by
9:04 am
gubernatorial candidate stacey abrams. watch on c-span, c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. with katee back ackley from cq "roll call" and our spotlight on magazine segment where we will talk about showsgue that says "nra signs of decline." kate, good morning. guest: good morning, and thank you for having me. host: the nra, the national rifle association, is their influence over washington politics waning? guest: the answer is definitely yes. we saw a number of people when election in november on a message of gun control. we saw people who are now ir negativeout the
9:05 am
ratings by the nra, and you also solve them say in if democrats win control of the house, we will look at new gun-control measures. including a bill that would basically require background checks and all gun sales, including at gun shows a what have you. so the answer in the house is definitely yes. are other things going on, also with the national rifle association, which has really synonymous with begun lobby in recent years. there are other organizations that are also grassroots in nature and do a lot of lobbying on gun issues, but the in has really been sort of the number when it comes to lobbying and political money for second amendment rights organizations. that is why it is so high profile. it makes it a target of opponents, as well as exercising
9:06 am
a considerable amount of tests.al and legislative i will say, though, that things like the bill that democrats have proposed in the house, while that may pass the house of representatives, likely on a partyline vote, i do not expect it to pass the senate. i would not expect president donald trump to sign something like that until all. that we willk necessarily see something major in active this congress, but you will have to look at moves in the house and are there things that the senate could get past there? it remains unknown. host: so the nra has lost influence in the democratic-controlled house. what about in the republican-controlled senate, and in president trump's administration? does it still wields the same
9:07 am
power there? guest: republicans still remain strong supporters of gun rights, second amendment rights. i do not think we are seeing that chip away in terms of elected officials, elected it isicans, you know, part of a broader conversation, probably anywhere in america, nts to come up with solutions to gun violence, particularly high-profile mass shootings. we have just seen so many of them that people are searching for answers, and i am absolutely certain that people who are supporters of gun rights are, too. may beust that where the majority of people are right now, they are looking for expanded, you know, background checks, things like that, something that might help address the problem.
9:08 am
but in the senate, there have already been introduced bills. i looked at this in my story for "cq roll call." there is a bill that would essentially make it so that if you have a concealed carry permit in one jurisdiction, you can go to other jurisdictions but also allow concealed permits, sort of make that sort of have a federal, you know, blanket policy for the. host: and that is senator john cornyn's bill, right? guest: that is correct. that gunt does show rights advocates certainly have champions in the republican-controlled senate. again, i do not see the republican-controlled senate taking up big new gun-control measures and moving them, so i think the answer is -- that is a much bigger hurdle for
9:09 am
gun-control activists, to move something in the senate. but, when you asked about president trump, who was very much endorsed by the nra, had a lot of support in the gun rights movement, but we saw after the las vegas shooting, that was in october of 2017, that was just a terrible massacre at a concert, and -- a country music concert. and after that, the shooter in that instance had modified a rifle so that is sort of worked like an automatic. host: the bump stock. guest: the bump stock, right. after that, there was a call, kind of an outcry, "we should ban these. why are they allowed?" people who are hunters say they like to use them, not for
9:10 am
illegal purposes, most are not used for illegal purposes, but there was an outcry. after that, the trump administration works to impose a ban, and those are now banned. i was looking, in writing this story, the nra, what the nra car that people who already own bump stock/ s -- host: grandfather. guest: yes. i know i think it shows yesterday they are certainly allied with the trump administration, but it is not mean that they will get everything that they want. host: ok. let's make sure that our callers can get involved in this conversation. memberare an nra or supporter, we want to hear from you on this topic at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the nra, we want
9:11 am
to hear from you as well, at (202) 748-8001. and if you do not fit in either one of those categories, we have a phone line for you as well. that is (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, we are always available on social media, on twitter @cspanwj, and on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. now, we know they have lost support in the democrat-controlled house. maybe in the administration. maybe in the senate. other signs of possible in array weakening -- of possible nra weakening? yes, and part of that size to the las vegas shooting. before the shooting or right around that time, house republicans were considering a bill that would have eased restrictions on silencers, which make gunshots quieter. host: less loud. guest: silence of the.
9:12 am
host: right. guest: which was controversial in its own right. but after that terrible mass shooting in las vegas, even house republicans basically put that agenda item to the side. group secondghts two nra that were pitching for that, that when off the table, so they did not get that. and you see with all of the elected officials, you have a republican-controlled house, a republican-controlled senate, and a gun rights friendly republican in the white house, they did not move that measure, therethink it shows that really has been a backlash as a result of some of these surrenders mass shootings -- karen this mass shootings -- horrendous mass shootings. host: can you give more background on the national rifle association? how they started, how many
9:13 am
members may have come into their president is right now? guest: their president right now is lee oliver north. host: we oliver north? last: yes, who took over year. there is some transition going on. i want to mention one other aspect, sort of tracking the national rifle association. we looked at their tax forms, as nonprofit, all of them have to form a form 990 with the irs, we looked at their 990's, and there was a revenue decline of 15%, total revenue at the national rifle association. host: for what year? and 2017.ween 2016
9:14 am
about $366ue is million, and then that had dropped in 2017 according to the nra's own tax form to about $311 million. would say in my story that a spokesman for the nra said that was a temporary guest, and and in fact,ft, they say this year their membership that an all-time high of about .5 million members, so it may -- 5.5 million members, so it may be that in the next season the revenue is back up. in array membership is at an all-time high in the group's about 160-year history. it is a group that started about 150 years ago to basically educate people on firearms. it supports hunting and learning how to shoot, handle weapons and
9:15 am
things like that. it has increasingly, in recent years, been more engaged in sort of the social wars, i guess, if you will, the political conflicts that are much more partisan, and gun-control and gun rights have become very partisan, as everyone knows, where you have pretty much democrats, it is a horse like a litmus test that you have to be for gun-control to be a democrat. and on the other hand for you have to be forgotten rise and not for haveontrol, even when they had agreements that sort of fall apart, even after the new town school shooting in 2012, there toe efforts from senators have a bipartisan compromise, and that did not happen. host: let's let some of our callers take part in this
9:16 am
conversation. josh is calling from oklahoma, and josh is an nra supporter. good morning. caller: good morning. i heard your guest state one of the things that they are looking at is extending background checks to gun shows. like nobody in washington actually knows anything about gun shows or background checks, because they already do that nationwide. it is, like, unbelievable, people in washington want to regulate and change laws, and they do not even know the existing laws. m, i think there is probably a lot of confusion about when two people have to undergo a background check. certainly when you sell to an individual -- host: a private sale. guest: a private sale, there are calls for background
9:17 am
checks in those cases. the caller makes a good point, if you go to a gun show, you might be required or they might do a background check, but that does not mean that is the case with all gun sales, individual sellers at all gun shows are confined with that. i think the point of this is to make it uniform, federal government, all across the united states. host: let's go with johnson, who was calling from killing, texas jonathann, texas, and opposes the nra. oppose yes, sir, i do the nra, but not for the reason many people are expecting. the nra has actually turned its back on so many gun owners. that is the reason their rates are dropping. the grassroots organizations such as open carry texas in many
9:18 am
other states are the ones going to bat for them. jonathan, what way do you think the array has turned its back on its members? caller: i am sorry, i did not hear that. host: in what ways you think the nra has turned its back on its members? the bump stock band, it did not fight hard enough for, then we have the concealed han handgun licenses. and some of the banks of the nra is actually for, then the next step on that will actually be 50-state registration, because they will already have all of the paperwork from all gun shows at all times, and it is just a click of a mouse to say that and have gun registration in all 50 states. host: kate, is there a split happening amongst nra members? guest: it sounds like there is among some. i think that is an interesting point that they caller made, backthe nra did not fight
9:19 am
hard enough on the bump stocks. obviously, that is his interpretation. it may well be that the nra looked at the situation and they sort of figured they were not like io win on it, but said, they put out public statements and were certainly doing lobbying on that and on other issues, so, i mean, obviously that is the perception. there are other organizations that lobby on gun issues, including gun owners of america. i guess we will see, do some of the members moved to other groups? i don't know. the caller made an interesting point. republicans controlled the white house, the house, and the senate for the first two years sf president trump'
9:20 am
administration. were there any legislative wins during that period for the nra? guest: not any big legislative wins. inre was that silencer bill the works in the house, and after the las vegas shooting, that basically got taken off the agenda, and that was house republicans taking it off of the agenda. host: give a point to the supreme court? guest: yes. i talked with people in the gun-control movement, the gun rights movement, and there is no question that president trump's tw appointeeso to the supreme court, neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh, are widely viewed as proponents of second amendment rights. that is an area that you can look at for gun rights supporters as a win. any cases there be before the supreme court, where these two new justices brought by president trump will be able to take an interest in gun laws in america?
9:21 am
guest: i am sure they will or it i ensure they are working their way, and i would love to turn to my colleagues that cover the supreme court and ask them specifically. there have not been any new, you know, big, federal laws to challenge, so we will have to look at what is happening in the states. so i think it remains to be seen. but certainly that is an area where the supreme court has weighed in. and not taken complete -- has upheld restrictions on certain types of firearms in the past. you can do -- lawmakers can an restrictions that will likely be upheld, but you're absolutely right, there is a changing dynamic on the court right now. host: let's go to john calling from louisiana, and he is an nra
9:22 am
member. i am pretty sure i pronounce the name of your city wrong. caller: it sounds great to me. host: [laughs] all right. go ahead, john. caller: the nra was founded to promote marksmanship. the second amendment defense came on much later, and they do a lot of that through the nra institute for legislative affairs, which is a little bit of a separate thing. silencers -- it is not silencers, it is suppressors. silencers have been around for years. they are tightly controlled by the bureau of alcohol, firearms, and tobacco. there are all kinds of restrictions to you have to pay a hefty fee. a silencer is nothing more than a muffler on a car. it cuts the noise on the gun, which is more for those of us who shoot a lot. i do a lot of target shooting. protectors,ring ear
9:23 am
egg on his noisy, so it is a safety issue just to make me so i can shoot more, have fun, and not lose my hearing, which i lost years ago because i flew airplanes for the air force. ,ne other thing, the nra you talk about their loss of support, there are a lot more organizations, i would call them organizational-specific as opposed to big picture. for instance, concealed carry, the reciprocity, which is what we are talking about, just like driver's licenses, my drivers license is good in louisiana and in texas and all other 49 states. concealed carry, they are talking about microsof reciproc. concealed carry permit holders that are charged with a crime, exercising their rights under the concealed carry, so there are a variety of other organizations that have come
9:24 am
into existence. another calledis the civilian marksmanship program, which they actually take military weapons from world war ii, 1911 pistols, and they put them into the civilian population. it is an organization that was legislated many years ago, and most people do not understand that. it is perfectly legal, it is perfectly ok to do that. and then the final thing is, to this day, they still do not have a motive for the shooting in las vegas. they do not know why that guy did that. was, i would say, deranged, but i am not a psychiatrist. i can only guess that. bump stocks were originally put out there as an accessory, not part of the firearm. it is like power steering and a car. some have been, some don't. nra the, i was ambivalent about
9:25 am
that, because i do not have a bump stock, and i have no use for one. but there are saying that are kind of true, and i do not fault iu for not knowing, because do not know if you are a gun owner or not. i do not know if you participate in gun shooting. but there are a lot of buzzwords that are tossed out that are obviously not accurate, and they are tossed out in that way for a political agenda. let's get back to what seems to be his main point, that is a victim of its own success. there are now a lot more groups doing some of the things that the nra is doing, which might account for some of the people not being in the nra anymore. guest: right, and he mentioned some issue-specific organizations, and thank you for pointing that out. it is interesting to note, maybe if your real issue, if you're a gun owner and you're really
9:26 am
issue is concealed carry, maybe you want to join up with a group that that is their total focus, so that is interesting that there might be sort of offshoots or other things. i will note, though, that the nra says right now their membership is that an all-time high, so we will see. i did want to point out also that the nra's lobbying spending for 2017 and 2018 was also at an all-time high, at about $5.1 million for both years. so that is another way to sort influence,a group's something that organizations report how much they are spending, again, about $5 million, or you can say a little over $2 million for the first two years of the trump administration. to also note, though, that one of the two things i looked at him the story was in the 2018 election, when we outside spending, i've
9:27 am
looked at money tracked by the center for responsive politics, a nonpartisan organization that looks at money and lobbying and political spending. outside groups that were for sort of gun rights, this is mostly the nra's outside political type spending, they were at about $9.9 million, i think. i cannot remember the precise figure, but for the first time, theirntrol groups, outside political spending was more, closer to about $12 million. so i think you are seeing, whatever you want to make of that, you saw the 2018 election, outside spending by gun-control advocates, including the group formers founded by congresswoman got big efforts who was a victim of a shooting herself.
9:28 am
those groups, every town, another one, which was connected to former new york mayor of interest int the 2018 elections, and i will mention again that there were lawmakers who lost their campaign for reelection, people who in the past had a ratings from the nra, like karen handel in georgia. she lost to lucy mcbath, whose son was a victim of gun violence, and mcbath has made gun violence a signature issue. jason cloak, a democrat, who another whoffman, had an nra rating. whether gun control was central in these races almost does not matter. point is that you saw candidates win election in november on an unapologetically "i am for
9:29 am
gun-control" message beating out sided with who had the nra in the past. host: let's go to brad calling from international falls, minnesota. brad, first of all, how cold is it today? it changed dramatically, from about -45 to about 1 a bus today0. , that is a pretty big shift, but 10 above is still pretty cold to us in d.c. yes, but i do not sensationalize weather, like you have to do for suburbanites. nra or againste
9:30 am
the nra, you know, so when i am hearing people push the foolishness of it, i ask myself a couple of questions. the one question is -- have any of you ever heard of the nra committing any of these things, the mass shootings? you don't. base thing that by putting more laws onto the books, that is going to help something or it does not. so what are we going to do, you know? this is just a political football for the democratic party, so if you look at the gun violence throughout the whole united states, it is basically, if you took seventh intensities in the united states and then in the unitedties states in the united states and then use those numbers that are democratically controlled, we are less than those countries. the problem is democrats do not
9:31 am
get what happens when they pen up their own people. guest: well, i do not know that there was specifically a question there, but thank you .or the comment i do think that obviously there has been news from the nra in solutionso look at for mass shootings. they call for more security, armed security in schools and things like that. some places, in some jurisdictions, that actually but in many places, i think there has been a reaction against that. i didn't want to bring up another thing that has come up that is specific to the national rifle association and not related, necessarily, to some of these offshoot groups that might be looking at concealed carry and whatnot, and that is this
9:32 am
investigation into foreign interference during the 2016 elections, and the nra has sort of gotten looped into the. -- that. from oregon,yden, a top democrat on the senate finance committee and also on the senate intelligence committee, he has been looking into ties between the nra and russia and looking at -- could there have been donations coming from russian interests? and of course it made big headlines, the nra's connections with maria butina, who has pleaded guilty. she is a russian national who pleaded guilty to basically being an unregistered foreign agent in the united states. so that is another thing that the nra has had to deal with, that has really had not anything to do with mass shootings and gun violence specifically. but they are sort of under the on the russian
9:33 am
interference situation as well as some other campaign finance allegations. the magazine "mother jones" had a story in the last couple of about potential and appropriate coordination between the nra and candidates. the nra does a lot of outside spending, and it is not supposed to coordinate directly with candidates. the story basically alleged there was an appropriate coordination going on, so there may be some investigation of that going on as well. host: we are running out of time. we will ask calls, them to make a quick question or comment, so we can get in as many as possible. let's go to rick, who is calling from portland, maine, and he opposes the nra. rick, good morning. caller: hi. ackley like to ask ms. what she knows about gun-control laws in other countries. australia -- hunting is very but i think there,
9:34 am
it was a couple of decades ago, they had a mass shooting. they very much revamped their laws. canada -- these are countries, again, hunting popular, maine, hunting very popular. i want hunters to have the guns that they actually use, but they do not use handguns, they do not use automatic weapons, they do not use bump stocks, and they do not even use semiautomatic weapons. they don't go out with magazines, carrying a couple dozen bullets or more. so what can we learn from these other countries? i am sure we would have to reinterpret the second amendment or rewrite it, but what can we learn from these other countries, where hunting is popular, and yet they have controlled the supply and the availability of guns that kill people? you definitely have seen gun-control advocates use data
9:35 am
from other countries. australia is one. where they say if you impose restrictions or ban certain types of weapons or certain types of high-capacity magazines and things like that, that there can be proven results. do we know that that would work in the united states? do we know that that would be upheld by the supreme court? i think it remains to be seen, -- we have not seen certainly we had an assault weapons ban at some point. it has expired. their oare -- there are lawmakers who are trying to reinstate that. i am sure we are looking at what the data might be from other countries, but the caller made a good point, that we have the second amendment, and that has to be taken into account. host: we would like to thank kate ackley from "cq roll call" for being with us today on her the nra article, "
9:36 am
shows signs of decline, even in trump's america." thank you. guest: thank you. host: coming up, we go to your calls and tweets. it is open phone time. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will go to those calls after the break. "newsmakers"'s guest this week is matt. about president trump and whether he and the aclu will support president for the upcoming election. i absolutely support the president, and i am overjoyed that he has governed as a conservative, the most dedicated
9:37 am
conservative we have seen in our lifetime. ronald reagan is a patron saint, donald trump has been even more conservative than reagan. a lot of conservatives have admitted that. they were dubious that he would govern this way. the theme is what makes america great. our theme is not maga. it is an event where we talk about mostly policies and what are the conservative solutions, so our theme is not going to be "make america great again, it is going to be what makes america great. >> will the group endorsed for 2020, and when? matt: the conference will not do that, because that is not the purpose of the conference. group is the concerned, the american conservative union, altogether, i will pulls, together and ask the question.
9:38 am
we have 30 some odd. i am completely confident that we will endorse the president again. i am positive that i will do that trick here is what i do know. anybody on my board -- i have heard from nobody on my board who has any reservations about how donald trump is acting as president. our board is excited about the policies he has implemented, and i have heard from not one single board member out of almost 40, who have expressed any reservations to have donald trump back again as president. >> "washington journal" continues. host: once again, we are back for open phones for the last 20 minutes of our show today, so let's get right to it. let get to larry who is calling from killeen, taxes on the republican line. larry, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call today. i am seeing a little bit of gun and i just do1,
9:39 am
not understand how that could be. i mean, voting on that should be 18. at 18, i should be able to own a gun. host: all right. dick, who isto calling from middleborough, massachusetts on the republican line. dick, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am an nra member, but i like to go to original sources. if you recall, back in the cites -- i asked him can i eastern establishment liberal university, and he said oh, yes, my colleagues and i agree with this that gun-control being the uncontested liberalism.
9:40 am
he longed to be justice department, where he wrote 1000 pages of report. he would go through the statistics and the foundation for gun control once and for all, and he found out that there was not. -- none. a love other people who write papers on that take the attitude -- they did not take that attitude. they published what they found. the people who are supporting gun control can go into congress and say here is the track record that is what gun rights want to know. opposed to public safety. the nra is not detrimental to public safety. it is true that the nra , but it helpsney us a lot when our opponents don't have anything to
9:41 am
really offer. i have all of the sympathy for the people, and look at teddy kennedy, a family for gun-control laws. had, idn't business he might have an irrational fear of guns and gun owners, too. former congresswoman giffords, in aas personally injured terrible, foolish incident. i cannot blame her for disliking i think gun owners, but the facts are on my side. people have concealed carry for personal self-defense, crime decreases. i think we should be host:
9:42 am
confining the gun-control issue and looking for ways to do something that will largely have an effect. here is a tweet that just came out from politico. we will keep our eye on what is going on in virginia for you. let's go to dan who is calling port huron, michigan on the democrat line. dan, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i am a first time caller. anyway, i just want to make the nra members aware of the russian trip that a bunch of nra members withthat went to russia their russian spy who's sort of sponsor that trip. concernedust really
9:43 am
why is moscow supporting the nra and the connections that are involved with that. that is all. let's go to leonard, who is calling from colorado on the independent line. leonard, good morning. caller: good morning. well outu are doing there. i am going to tell you, ok, i am a veteran, and i think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the nra. first of all, i am not a member. i own guns. and i do not believe in the nra. the realok back at definition of the nra, and i am not talking about wikipedia, it was started by members of the after the civil war, and it was to make sure that people of color at that time were not able to own guns, so of course that is related to choose, catholics, and other minorities at that time.
9:44 am
good friends know, who are members of the nra, have the fear that oh, the government is going to take my guns away. realistically, that would have happened a very long time ago when very few people owned guns. you have to look at ok, are there any members who have done any mass shootings that are involved with the nra? well, dylan roof, for example, young man whose dad bought him a semiautomatic pistol for his birthday, comes out, he was making all of these racist comments. just this year, his sister came out and said my brother was 100% right, all blacks should be killed, blah, blah, blah. thing that gets me about people who are anti-gun, they say guns kill people. no. if you look at the school shooting in sandy hook, for ,xample, a mother by her son
9:45 am
about making him a man, because she was divorced and not have any mails around him, but buying him a gun and getting them involved in what she considered a manly sport, you are giving a gun to somebody who already has mental issues, and look at the consequences of what happened there. if someone is going to buy a gun -- and i have no problem if i buy a gun of taking some type of mental condition testing, if i am mentally responsible to own a gun. you talk to them, and you bring that mental test up, the people who do not need to own guns will say i do not want to take no mental test, i do not want no psychologist telling me what i can it cannot do. but the thing is, guns are just a tool. it is just like saying hammers build houses. planes fly the earth, humans don't fly.
9:46 am
they are just tools. of course now we have drones, you can throw that in and they look, but still, there is a drone.unning that the thing is, first of all, you look at how many people own guns in this country in the military, they are not going to go against, you know -- i know people who own 40, 50 guns. why do they have that many? i don't know. had an individual saying there is no need for semiautomatic pistols because they are not used for hunting. why did i stop hunting? because there was a guy with a semiautomatic pistol with a scope on it. he had not even taken the gun out, this was the first time he had shot it, he did not take any gun classes or anything. semiautomatic weapon third i think they are catalogued into one category that should be more defined. using a semiautomatic shot, and people who hunt fowl -- docs,
9:47 am
birds, pigeons, quail, whatever -- we lost him.hink this weekend, the c-span cities tour explores as booktv and american history tv travel to california to see the city's history and literary life. coming up today, all of our literary programs from the city timeair together on one block. here is george, author of "a walk around visalia." george: to me and many folks, it is full of independent stores, independent folks, and it has grown up in the last 30 years or so. we fixed up the fox th theater down the way. we have shows all the time, and
9:48 am
we have sequoia and kings canyon national park. yosemite is not far away. and of course if you want to go to the ocean, it is only a couple of hours either direction. make sure to tune in as we get booktv and american history tv as we travel to visalia, and to watch videos of visalia and all of the cities we have visited on the c-span cities tour, go to c-span.org /citiestour. calling to bj, who is from scotts valley, california on the democrats line. bgj, good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling because i think most people do not realize that three out of five firearm deaths in the united states are suicide. and also, most of the suicide in the united states are on the are white males in
9:49 am
the middle and late years, and they tend to use guns. the national rifle association and the national sports association have partnered in an effort to reduce suicide rates from firearms. and firearms dealers in the united states who are members of the national shooting sports foundation as well as the club, are all gun receiving toolkits, with flyers and posters identifying the suicidal warning signs, when someone is going through a rough time, whether it is a friend, family member, a colleague, it is extremely important to remove access to that firearm, to that gun, and to all the guns in the home when someone is having -- may be at risk for suicide. if it is very easy to do
9:50 am
those who are, who realized that someone is in danger, can approach them in a nice, friendly way, explain to him we do not want to take your guns away. five a loved one who would like to take and hold your guns. -- find a loved one who would like to take and hold your guns. like someone who is on drugs, or lost their spouse, lost their job, financial problems, criminal problems, legal problems, if they are going through a tough time, we would like to keep your guns for you until you feel better. back on a solid, emotional half. host: -- path. to sarah who was
9:51 am
calling from virginia on the republican line. sarah, good morning. . sarah, did i lose yo? sarah, are you there? yvette calling from pennsylvania on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. my comment is just -- host: i think i lost yvette. let's try sarah. caller: good morning. host: i got you back. good morning, sarah. caller: good morning. thank you so much for c-span. c-span is where i get my true reflection of what is going on, when you watch what is going on in congress on the house of representatives. it does keep me as more informed. on the subject that we have this morning going on at the governor's mansion this morning, we do have protesters out there. , i was -- this last election
9:52 am
for our governor was one of the most racially-charged. republican, i was supporting gillespie, and i was called everything under the book. it was terrible. we need to stop trying to find our differences in this world and remember a commonality. the more that we find our differences, the more that we are divided. we need to remember that we are all of one race, and that is the human race. we need to find love and compassion in our hearts. we have two different issues that our heart needs to reach out to here in the state of virginia. one, our racial issues have to go away. society today
9:53 am
that we love everyone. we show it. and on the other front, the abortion issue is something that we do need to readdress as the difference between when it becomes something that is very detrimental to the mother's physical health. of course we want to address the mother's health. the mother's health needs to be there for the baby. but we still need to remember that that is a baby inside of know,owing, and that, you that is a precious thing. so we do have some large discussions that we need to hear -- have here in virginia, but we need to go at it with love and compassion and commonality, not the differences. gastonia,s go to
9:54 am
north carolina on the independent line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? first of all, they should have a segment on white supremacy, you know what i mean? i am calling because i do not think all white people are racist, but they do have roots in white supremacy. as long as you live in that system, i believe we will have the nra, because most white people fear black people. that is why they have guns. they can say all they want to say about hunting and all of this nonsense, no, it is because they are scared of black people. i am black and proud. it does not mean you cannot be white and proud and stupid. you can be both. host: let's go to mickey: from new jersey on the independent line. mickey, good morning. caller: good morning. life member of the
9:55 am
nra, and i wish we could get back to our original purpose. saiduy that called and that the an array was started by ra was started n by the kkk, he is lying to you. soldiersas started by from the civil war, and they saw comehat were being drafted in, and they were so unsafe with the guns, they had never handled the. they were so unsafe, these officers, they wanted to teach firearm safety and marksmanship so that when civilians were drafted into the service, they already knew how to handle a gun safely, and they were more worried about these people shooting each other than shooting the enemy, so they started the nra to teach civilian marksmanship and
9:56 am
safety. and i wish we could get back to that purpose. has become political because they have been attacked for the last 50 years. and people need to realize that most of the safety training has been developed and written by the nra for our police and for our military. their original purpose is to teach civilian marksmanship and firearm safety, and i wish we could get back to that and stop being attacked by all of these politicians. host: let's go to mike, calling from modesto, california. good morning. caller: good morning. some of these people are over was as bad as me. but given that, anyway, fake news, the whole basis for fake
9:57 am
news is people called the election wrong. you think nate silver cares about being wrong? it is not care about anything but being right. there is your fake news. and paying for the wall. mexico is going to pay for the wall, jokers elected him because mexico is going to pay for the wall. now you want me to pay for the wall. no thanks. kudlow,got your larry who in 2008 set everything is cool, don't worry, everything is going to be great, then everything hit the fan. then when obama's program started to work, kudlow and the others said this is not working, this is not goin working, so there you go on that . and the people who nominates, my goodness, rick perry and betsy devos, functional morons. general kelly, god bless him, at
9:58 am
least he did not leave on an empty barrel. i am sorry. host: let's go to bill calling on the independent line. bill, good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to back up what the caller from new jersey said. he is absolutely right about marksmanship being the true source of the nra. your california viewer, he had some interesting comments, and speaking of being a moro he really should know a lot of themn,. host: that will wrap up our show today. all of our callers in our guests for being on the show today. be sure to join in two "washington journal" tomorrow, where you see a discussion on how democrats can gain support from economically declining areas of the united states. "the daily caller's " stephanie hamill will be here to discuss president trump and the 2020 campaign.
9:59 am
and the former u.s. ambassador to venezuela will discuss the political unrest in that country. once again, make sure you have a great saturday, and make sure you tune in tomorrow again for another "washington journal." have a good day, everyone. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up, we will hear from some new members of the house talk about their first few days on capitol hill. then the defense department officials will testify on what type of military support is needed along the southern border. that's followed by diplomats and leaders of the venezuelan opposition party discussing the political situation there. the 1on

49 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on