of tennessee. we will also be joined by freshman sen seen -- freshman senator chris >> on this vot , the yeas are 58. the motion is not agreed to. host: good morning, and welcome to "washington journal. republicans launched a filibuster to stop the vote and former senator chuck hagel to serve in the president's cabinet. a new vote is scheduled in 11 days. what you think about the gop's efforts and mr. hagel

'snomination? nomination?s here are the numbers -- online.also find us send us a tweet @cspanwj. here are the headlines in the morning papers. the washington times -- this is the headline in the baltimore sun -- have line in "roll call -- the headline in "roll call" --

meredith shiner joins us. how unusual is it to have the president's pick for defense secretary block at this stage? guest: it has never happen before. a senate has never filibustered the president's pick for defense secretary. the most bizarre thing, and the thing that is most frustrating to people watching this outside washington, is that a former senator hagel is a former -- is a former republican. with 58 bouts, and the reason why it was 58 was because majority leader harry reid had to switch his vote to know to bring the vote back up again after the senate comes back from recess. you have a lot of republican senators who said as recently as last week that they did not want

to see the choice filibuster. even if they wanted to vote no, he at least deserved an uptown vote to be approved. there was no precedent -- precedent to filibuster president's choice like this. the republicans decided they wanted to try to use this vote as a way to extract more information from the white house on the issues like the terrorist attack on benghazi in september. they submitted to passing hagel when they come back. it way you're looking at, is delaying the inevitable. chuck hagel will be confirmed as defense secretary. he is just going to get to wait 11 days. to me, it seems like you should confirm him, because you're going to confirm him anyway. it is just another delay in what

the senate is trying to do. harry reid set a new vote for tuesday, in 11 days. what do republicans want to see in the meantime? guest: they say they would like answers again from the white house, more details about what the president did and did not do in the hours following the terrorist attack in libya. the white house sent a letter to senators john mccain, lindsey gramm, kelly ayotte, who have been demanding more information. they hoped from soundness yesterday or the day before that they would be able to change minds and make these centers -- senators vote yes. there is information that republicans say they want. it also seems like they were

unhappy with his pick, they wanted -- wanted a different tack, and they did not -- they did not want to be conciliatory about it. host: 1 vote for present. why did they go that way? guest: senator hatch of voted present. it beats me why he did. you either vote yes or no. there is a rumor that he did not believe in the filibuster. if you do not believe in the filibuster, you should probably vote yes. republican leadership was actively whipping. that would be the reason. of the people who voted to block it, one was center collins --

senator collins from the northeast. also, senator johanns from nebraska, who was one of senator hagel's colleagues from nebraska. host: what happens from here in terms of having a defense secretary? guest: i think the white house is irritated. democrats are irritated. you saw that on the floor multiple times when you saw senator reid railing against republicans and their decision to do this. it does not look a great. it sends a message to the world our senate is so dysfunctional that it refuses to confirm one of its own. 11 days from now, there will be

a defense secretary, and it will be final. host: meredith shiner, thank you so much. we're asking you what you think about this turn of developments. senate republicans have blocked the chuck hagel nomination. it will proceed in 11 days' time, when harry reid set the next vote. here is a statement from the white house -- as we go on, we will hear from republicans about why they voted the way they did. we will read some more in the news. but he would brandon has a say in ohio, a republican column. good morning. caller: i live in the north-

central part of ohio. i believe that the republicans did the correct thing by mounting this will not to proceed. it is very frustrating for somebody like me to see the majority leader harry reid, on the senate floor and give ashe deal -- come up on the senate floor and give a temper tan trum. i do not believe the president has the right to have his defense secretary affirmed. it is the senate's job to affirm the nominee. if republican senators want to vote no, that is their choice. the majority leader should not shamed the republicans into voting yes because he thinks that is the correct thing to do. host: what do you make of the

reporter we just talked to, mentioning that he may get confirmed in two weeks' time? does that change your opinion? caller: i think there is more time to review his record. you had two days since he was approved by the armed services committee. i do have concerns about his record on nuclear weapons with iraq. senator reid said he thinks iran should not have a nuclear weapon. his concern about north korea. clearly his record in the past points otherwise. i think it is important to choose somebody who's concerned about these serious threats, more than chuck hagel has shown. host: from north carolina, on the democrats line. caller: i think republicans did

the right thing. i generally do not accept anything they do, because i think they are totally dysfunctional, but in this instance, i am concerned about chuck hagel as a defense minister. he has shown a whole flip-flop on his decisions, when he was interviewed by the republicans. his refusal to divulge investments concerns me. his views on israel -- i do not think he is a good choice. i think this is the one time republicans have smacked it right on the nail. look at onetake a of the republicans who spoke on the floor yesterday. lindsey gramm, of south carolina. >> there are very uncomfortable things about this nomination,

but having said that, unless something new comes out, we should proceed to a vote up or down, and i'm willing to invoke cloture, because as senator mccain said, the weekend. it will give us a chance to answer these questions. -- the week period will give us a chance to answer these questions. there was a speech by senator hagel, and one of his aides, posted based on his notes, what he said on the web site. senator hagel said the united states state department was an extension of the israeli government. things like that are unnerving. there is at least one speech he gave that he did not report that we think there is a copy of that we may get in the next few days. that is why i should -- i would

oppose cloture today. i will vote for it after the recess. host: senator lindsey gramm of south carolina. joe is on our independent line. caller: i have interest in giving you a call because i have been doing research on the government. at this time, i have to publicize to the world that the government has committed an act of tyranny. they are doing what they should -- -- they are not doing what they should be done -- be doing for the sake of our people. and this time to play hardball against these individuals were shown in the past 80 years who have not been in the better interest of our children. that means 300 million of us need to get really involved in our government and participate. these guys do not care about this.

history is showing it. the congress and senate -- this is why the federalists, james madison, set up the federalist act -- the new that this would transpire. -- they knew that this would transpire. these loopholes that congress is pushing past and pushing back, they are never going to truly do it for the better interests of the people. the people need to truly wake up. we are seeing these guys getaway -- get away with an act of tyranny. host: this is from time magazine. filibustering the nominee has only happened twice in senate history. 1987, when ronald reagan nominated commerce secretary --

he eventually passed 84-11. the second came when george gabi bush -- w. bush nominated and interior secretary -- he was confirmed by voice vote. nine presidential nominees have a been brought down by failed votes in the senate. tower had an abysmal confirmation hearing, which lost him support. let's listen to what john mccain had to say on the senate floor yesterday talking about the history of the john tower nomination. >> the distinguished chairman and i were here back in 1988. on december 16, john tower was nominated to be secretary of

defense. on january 25, 1989, his confirmation hearing began. on february 2, the committee postponed confirmation votes after allegations raised. on february 8, the committee vote was delayed until february. february 23, he was voted out of committee. march 10 was a time when the senate rejected the nomination by 53-47. i was there. i saw one of the worst things i have ever seen in the history of the senate, the way they dragged out senator john tower, a good and decent man's reputation in allegation after allegation, all of which turned out to be false. i would like to inform my colleagues, this is not the first time we have had a delay in confirmation of the secretary of defense. i will be glad to go over what i saw, including allegations that were thrown out week after week,

that destroyed a good and decent man in john tower. host: senator john mccain talking about in 1988 incident when a senator john tower was the secretary of defense nominee for sec -- for president george h. w. bush. our next caller from tennessee, on the republican line. caller: i think republicans made a mistake. i remember the john tower. -- tower period. a number of things came out about his personal life and things people did not particularly care for, but substantively, i like the fact that chuck hagel voted against movement into iraq. our local congressman did that. i supported that at the time.

very frankly, they made a mistake there. war is not something a secretary of defense always assets -- has to support. chuck hagel as a combat record that exceeds most of what people have done in this area. he has been in the senate. senators know him. he will be confirmed later on. i think it makes the republican party look silly in this case. i understand the have and advise and consent role. i support that. however, in this case, i think they made a mistake. host: the washington times examines what happens now --

jenny in seattle, washington, a democrat. rather, jerry. caller: what i would like to say is, the filibuster, it is designed to obstruct and blocked president obama as a president. i feel like a democratic president should be able to put into the cabinet who he wants to put in that position. the simple fact is, he is the president. why should a democratic president allow people like lindsey gramm, john mccain, who ran for president -- the federalist papers speaks directly about the filibuster. hamilton's book about this. when a small minority is able to -- is able to stop the progress of the american people, please put somebody in

have of them speak on the filibuster. pull some -- put somebody in and have them speak on the filibuster. host: here are some quotes about the luster -- the filibuster. an independent culpa --call from michigan. caller: there are more important issues. i think this is a slap to our presidency and an insult. host: on twitter -- being park, illinois, chris and the republican line.

caller: if you look closely at what republicans are objecting to, it is one or two things. especially because mr. hagel is a republican, he looks alarmed getting attacked on those accounts. if he has an honest disagreement with them, they should take that up in another form. to bring that to national defence seems to be tit-for-tat at this that are dick at this point. it seems they are going to nominate him anyways. -- tit-for-tat at this point. it seems that they are going to nominate him anyways. host: on twitter -- you can join the conversation on

our twitter feed by writing @cspanwj. we'll take a look at facebook comments singh. doris, in chicago. caller: i think what we have is the tyranny of the minority. i think the republican party and the conservative movement, they are anti-american. they hate the american government. why would they filibuster ahead of the defense department when we have a war going on in afghanistan, we have unrest in the middle east, we have on rest in africa, and they are playing politics with the department of defense? senator cruz reminds me of john mccarthy. these are the mccarthy hearings. they are bringing them back. they are unpatriotic. to wrap themselves in the flag and pretend like they love this country -- they wrap themselves

in the flag and pretend like they love this country. 25% of republicans want to secede from this country. host: brian from cincinnati, ohio. caller: this woman's statement was a democratic byline. this is the way the senate was supposed to work. it would be nice they pass a budget. senator reid does not want to bring that up. it would be nice if they took up the 26 bills the house of representatives sent them. now they are moaning and groaning. host: here is what "the wall street journal s" says --

steve, minneapolis, a republican color. caller: hello, i think it is a good thing that his nomination has been blocked so far. the reason i say that is because everyone appears to agree that his nomination hearing was somewhat underwhelming. it occurs to me that if he cannot accord himself well before his own peers, why in the world would he make a good defense secretary? i think people need to ask that question. that is all i have. host: let's look morena "the wall street journal" -- more at journal" --street

let's listen to one of the defenders of senator hagel. this is senator jack reed, democrat of rhode island, talking about the former senator's credentials. >> the other thing that is so impressive is that it is not just one dimensional -- was a businessman, successful, created jobs, created opportunity, was the deputy administrator of the veterans administrative -- administration. he has run a large federal administration. very seldom do people come into one of these positions being the second-in-command of large -- of a large federal agency. then being a united states senator -- he knows the procedures of the united states congress.

to me, one of the most compelling endorsements comes from those who did the job before him. when bob gates says this is the man for the job, you have got to believe them. host: senator reid talking about the chuck hagel's nomination to be defense secretary. hunter in tennessee, on our democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i cannot believe the republicans possibly having an altered -- an ulterior motive -- have experienced this in my life. i am a veteran, as is senator hagel. the biggest guys you get for, they turn them into war,

have never served or their sons or daughters. secondly, it seems an attempt for them to win over some friends in israel. my opinion is, he has been selected for the secretary of defense of the united states, not secretary of defense for israel. that is where i stand. thank you. host: alfred, an independent from louisiana. caller: a couple of things, i will be real brief. first of all, i think the problem with hagel is the iraq war. he flip-flopped. if you see that something is wrong, you change your mind. second, he has to go purple

hearts. if this is a filibuster, whether they call it or not, he has a majority of votes. they are not allowing a full vote. that is a filibuster. israel -- why is it that anybody questions anything about what america does with israel, or questioning what israel does, it is on american -- un-american? disclosure is something that other defense secretary nominee is -- that is nothing new. that is another reason why they are holding him up. republicans will not win if they keep doing stuff like this, because it makes them look amateur and they are better about the politics.

host: here are some comments on facebook -- you can join that conversation on our facebook page. lindsey is up next in miami. she is a republican. caller: good morning. i'm calling to respond to this woman -- i think she is from somewhere, maryland? somewhere on the east coast -- she was accusing the republicans of being unpatriotic.

i want to tell her that i think senator graham is one of the best minded senators i have seen on tv. i think he lays everything out. i was watching him earlier too. he lay everything out so methodically. he made his point. the problem is, senator graham is one of the best centers we have in this nation. he is definitely patriotic. along with him, all these senators questioning the nomination of chuck hagel -- the layout step-by-step why -- they lay out step by step why.

the election -- so many people boded for barack a pauma just because he is black. they have no concern about -- voted for barack obama just because he is black. they have no concern about his views. he is not protecting the united states of america. host: let me ask you a question. former senator chuck hagel is a republican. caller: it is not whether you're republican -- that is just to show you, they are being fair minded. they didn't vote for him just because he is republican. int: let's hear from john district heights, maryland. caller: listen, i do not watch

sports to keep up with these politicians. i have been watching john mccain and lindsey graham for as long as i can remember. they are despicable hypocrites. it is unbelievable how american people cannot go back and look of their voting records, the eight years when george bush was in office, and see how many times they voted for his policies. it blows my mind with allies and hypocrisies. dealing with chuck hagel? the man as a combat a veteran. this man has seen combat, seen people die, and understand the value of life -- the only thing these guys can win about is his personal statements and his international view on the nation of israel. if i was in the middle east, i would feel highly insulted and put aside that everytime something comes up, israel is the only state over there that

has america with any concern. the only thing they talk about this man about is his statements on israel. what -- what he is saying is true is about israel. the only thing they can hold against him is what he says about israel. israel is its own country about nuclear -- and country with nuclear weapons. -- own country with nuclear weapons. host: let's look a comment on twitter. ken looks at the filibuster. our next caller is in auburn, washington, stuart, an independent. caller: i should say that i'm a disenfranchised republican. i was a republican for 30 years, until barack obama was elected. on election night 2008, senator

mccain pledged to work with president obama, yet he has done nothing but obstruct since that very night, that speech. i agree with the last caller. senators mccain and graham are neocons who i think are angry that the president has chosen a republican nominee and they are in fear that we are not going to launch another war in the middle east, which is really what they are hungering for. host: what do you think about the power of the senate and their ability to debate and discuss and choose not to move forward with something? caller: i think that -- when he mentioned the senate, the first thing that came to my mind was ted crews from texas -- ted cruz from texas, who is making a bad

impression. i think they are abusing the process, and they are not giving undue deference to the president for his choice. as the last caller pointed out accurately, a look at their voting record, they have never done this before. look and's take a other stories in the news. in the baltimore sun, an award for former secretary of state torrey clinton -- you can see hurt joking with leon panetta yesterday after former secretary clinton was presented with the defense department's highest award for public service. clinton resigned earlier this month and was replaced by john kerry. we read a little bit that defense secretary panetta does plan to stay on the job for a little while longer while things move forward with chuck hagel's nomination. the senate's oldest number -- oldest member will not seek a new term in 2014. frank lautenberg face a primary.

he was a staunch advocate of gun control and public infrastructure and a champion of the amtrak system. he announced he will not seek reelection in 2014 triple -- 2014. the new york post -- some other stories in the news -- president obama made a pitch yesterday to expand preschool access. he took his message on the road from the state of the union earlier this week to georgia. he handed out high-five's 24- year-olds. he toured a public preschool in georgia yesterday. we'll talk more about the

president's plans for that with our guests later on with a member of the house and a member of the senate. in the "usa today" -- another story from "usa today" this morning, this one on their front page --

that is according to reporting by "usa today." we're talking about the senate gop moved to block the confirmation hearing of a former senator chuck hagel, who is the president's choice to be secretary of defense. our next caller is james from detroit, on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i get so upset when i hear these republican imposters talking about blocking the best guy that they can find or the secretary of defense ticket it is ironic -- secretary of defense. it is ironic -- i used to be a republican before reagan came around. then they had the contract on america, and my standard of living has been going down ever since. they have the audacity to complain about the cost of living.

i just don't get it. republicans or democrats -- these people that call themselves republicans are imposters. host: what do think about what happened in regard to former senator hagel's nomination? caller: i think he will be nominated. john mccain is a traitor. he said he was a war criminal before they brought him back out of vietnam. people forgot about that. i do not know about senator graham. host: senator mccain defended the reputation of former senator hagel the other day. does that change your opinion at all? caller: i know he did. mccain is on both sides. from let's go to a clip the debate yesterday. this is carl levin, democrat of michigan. he talked about why he thinks the senate should move ahead on

this confirmation vote. >> i think the continuation of what amounts to a filibuster, since 60 votes are required, is it too bad when there is a secretary of defense who is leaving to go back to california, and we very much need to have our new secretary of defense in place, given the circumstances in this world. we have a budget crisis in this country, where sequester is confronting us. that sequester will have a damaging effect on the defense department, on the men and women in uniform, and on programs, the equipment, the training that they need to be ready for any kind of contingency. host: here's a comment on twitter -- david in gibson, louisiana, an independent color. -- caller. caller: i was watching the armed services committee when they

were debating, talking about chuck hagel, as to whether or not -- the hearing. call was listening to both sides, and there were a couple of people on the republican side -- they wanted to delay, at that time, for any new information that would come back -- come up. the chairman wanted to vote on it now. the democratic side, their argument was, his resume looks good, he answered all the questions right, and his reputation, pitt is job reference was impeccable. i'm thinking to myself, this is a background check, these confirmation hearings. the republicans were asking four little bit more time to review some new information, which i thought was pretty reasonable. i also thought to myself that

all the reasons the democrats were for the sky -- this guy, the same could have been said about robert hansen. his reputation was impeccable. i think if there is a question about him, they should at least be able to represent. they wanted to close it. i did not think that was reasonable -- we're not going to change our mind. we'll take a vote. i thought that was a little unusual. to me, it is a background check. if there is any doubt about anybody, regardless of reputation, it does not really matter. they should just be able to let that information come forth and be presented. host: here is what carroll writes on facebook --

gina in mississippi, a republican. caller: i would like to agree with a lady who called in a few callers ago who said that the majority, the democrats, they want, just like the president, because he is black -- they say republicans want to get rid of barack obama because he is black. they just like him because he is black. frankly, i do not know what they are all going to do when he gets out of office. i think they are going to have to form some kind of religion and go to church every sunday and worship him. it is all ridiculous. all the political -- it is just a game. nobody even wants to go or listen to the sides even more. the want to be right. host: what keeps you from being that way?

caller: i watch politics continuously, every day, i listened to all sides. i believe in listening to the facts. i do not care if you are republican or democrat. i am a patriotic person. i care about this nation. sake, we are $16 trillion in debt. if we go bankrupt -- host: respect to the topic about hegel nomination. -- bring us back to the topic about the hagel nomination. caller: there is some reason why the bottom. host: this on twitter -- here is another tweet --

in clinton, maryland, a democrat. caller: this is politics as usual. i will cannibalize -- they are eating their own. here is a guy who has been in a warrant -- a war. he has endorsements from other secretaries of defense. you have a leon panetta who wants to get on with his life. politicians in washington are playing politics as usual. i think it is sad. it is nothing but the same. host: one last comment on twitter. iran says -- ron says - -he will talk more about hagel nomination with our guest coming up. we will talk with representatives marsha blackburn, republican of tennessee, and vice chair of the

energy and commerce committee. then chris murphy, a democrat of connecticut. we will be right back. ♪ >> i think the women themselves in many cases were interested in politics, but had no vehicle to express that in their own lives, so they were attracted to men who were going to become a politically active or were already politically active. >> each of them, i find, intriguing. probably half of them, in particular, especially because they are so obscure historical. half of these women probably would be almost totally unrecognizable to most men and women on the street. >> this president's day, c-span premiere's its new series "first lady's couple -- "first ladies."

we explore the lives of the women who serve as a first ladies from martha washington to michelle obama. season one begins monday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span, c-span radio, and c- span.org. what the program earlier live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> saturday, booktv is in savannah, ga., for live coverage of the savannah book festival, starting at 10:15 eastern with vice-president al gore on "the future." at 1:30, cnn's chief washington correspondent jake tapper on the war in afghanistan in "the outpost."

gary willslock, asks, "why priests?" this is live on saturday at c- span2, starting at 10:15. >> "washington journal" continues. host: marsha blackburn joins us. a republican from tennessee. good morning. president obama has been on a tour is a visiting places like georgia, north carolina. we saw him give the state of the union address. how are republicans getting some air time? what is your message this week as the president takes his message to the street? guest: how unfortunate that he chose to leave d.c. then rather trying to sit down with us of trying to address the nation's problems. jobs, the economy, out of control spending -- we would have loved to have had the opportunity to talk to him and

work with him. the way republicans are getting our message out is through what i call the network of you. is our constituents. you have seen republicans very active on social media this week. you're seeing us a very active with a telephone and town halls. we're talking directly to our constituents, those in our districts, and we are going to be heading home. each and every one of us have a very busy week and next week as we visit with our constituents, meet with chambers of commerce, employers, and find out what is and is not working for them. host: nbc has a recent scoring -- story --how are you tweaking the tone? guest: i think our core philosophy and principles -- different people are for.

free people, free markets, a small, centralized government, making sure we focus on individual freedoms. the communication of that message, it gets muddied a lot of time -- a lot of the time. we have not been very successful, as you have seen in the presidential election. maybe we need some different messengers, some younger messengers, who are out there. we need to be sensitive to it. if we want people to hear us, it is important that we have individuals that they will listen to. host: other stores in the paper, the sequestration, the automatic spending cuts set to take in -- "the new york times" says the senate democrats are offering a proposal. this comes from "the washington " -- what would mean to your district?

guest: i have been for spending cuts. i have called for across-the- board spending cuts. i did it in the state senate in tennessee. cutting into the discretionary budget is a good thing. we need to cut even more. a lot of my constituents want it to be cut 10%. cut that budget and%. when it comes to the military, we want to protect -- 10%. when it comes to the military, we want to protect that. the party taken a $500 billion reduction over 10 years. -- they have already taken a 500 billion reduction over 10 years. the president's addition to the sequester was quadrupling the cuts to defense. what we need to do is cut the

non-defense discretionary more and lead defense alone. my constituents want to see across-the-board spending cuts. they want to see stabilization in trust funds, which are medicare and social security. they want to see reform and reduction in the entitlements. they continue to push us to do it. yes, sequestration will go in, and what you're going to see republicans do is offer some ideas and legislation on how we protect the military during this process. host: if you would like to join the conversation, with marsha blackburn, you can give us a call at these numbers -- let's go to the phones and hear from a democrat in shelbyville, indiana. hello? steven, are you with us?

let's move on to parents in maryland, on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with congressman blackburn on the lack of leadership from obama. i think he is out campaigning all the time across the country and across the globe. we have real problems here. we really need to solve them. i think the reason republicans have had to do what we have had to do is because we have a lack of leadership. there is nobody bringing republicans and democrats together. the president should as leader of the nation. he is tabling silent. he is not in the white house. -- staying silent. he is not in the white house. host: who do you see as republican leaders? caller: i think they are

representing my ideas, my belief system, and my conservatism. i think they are doing the right thing. host: any leaders in particular? we saw senator rubio give the gop response. caller: i think mark rubio, john mccain, ted cruz, a lot of these congressmen who have been in government for a while, and some of the new ones are doing the job that they were sent there to do. they are representing the constituency from where they are from. the democrats do the same. i know we have differences on both sides of the aisle, but i believe that being able to -- being able to work together and coming together as a nation and congress has a lot to do with barack obama as the president. he was reelected. he needs to be in the white house. he needs to lead this nation. he does not need to be out in

campaign mode. that is all i have seen from barack obama. campaign, speech -- let's get everybody in the white house, and let's get things done. guest: a couple of points -- we hear this from constituents, that they are frustrated that they are not seeing the leadership. what he is saying really plays into that. leaders are team builders. they know how to bring people forward to find consensus. the president's speech the other night was all about the president and about his plans. it was not about the items that are on the wrong track in this country. it was not about coming to work with us. indeed, the president said, if you do not pass this, i will do it by executive order. that is not leadership. that is not what people are wanting to see. people want to see us sit down and work these issues out.

second thing -- when you asked him about who he sees as a republican leader, one of the interesting things that i think he and others see is, we in the republican party do not have one single standard bearer. we have lots of individuals across the country, at a local, state, and federal level, who are moving forward in leadership positions, men and women, who are carrying forward. that is because we as a party put the emphasis on individuals developing their skills and talents and abilities and using those for the betterment, not only of themselves, their families, but their communities and their country. host: bill joines -- bill joines is on the independent line. -- joins us on the independent line. caller: president obama was

reelected by a pretty healthy majority. we reelected him because we want $9 for a minimum wage. we want women to have a contraceptive coverage within their health care plan. their employer should not be a factor. we want a ban on assault weapons. ned.ant large clips ban if weapon is found or used in a crime, the serial number should point to the registered owner. education -- we want the government to either provide or help states provide early childhood education for children. obama was reelected. i wish republicans, instead of standing in the way, would jump on board, because the liberal agenda is going to move forward.

thank you, and have a good day. host: he has his opinions. what do you make of what he said about early education? he was in georgia, close to where you are from, talking about preschool expansion and early education proposals. guest: i had an e-mail from a teacher as they were giving this speech. it was somebody i have known for a long time. it was -- are you kidding me? more paper work. so many of our educators, when they hear these programs coming from the federal government, they are thinking, that is another slip of paper work that i'm going to have to do. teachers are so weighed down with that. teachers i am talking to, the one state and local control, off-site based decision making. they do not want the federal government. they would like to see states with control of education and

would much prefer that than having the federal government come up with this initiative and that initiative. they know what works. let them teach. host: if there was local control in your district, would you approve of the ideas like preschool? guest: they're working with the parents and teachers. let them do it. do not put something out here from the federal government that is going to be another incentive to pull you in, and then the hank the money and you have local governments-- they yank the money and you have local governents -- let parents and teachers make these decisions. host: marsha blackburn is a representative from tennessee. barbara, from maryland. guest: i am republican in full

support of president obama and in these wars. i am an anti-war person. i think it is a misallocation of our resources. i am sick and tired of my party always pushing one more after another. it seems like this is a business. that is why we are conducting them. my second point is, you talk about free markets. we do not have a free market anymore because the free markets or the markets are manipulated by the people that control the money, as well as the industries. that is what globalization is all about. here's one last point -- for example, electric cars, solar panels, that was something that was around 40-50 years ago, and former president carter even had solar panels on the white house. if our government would have been smart back then to continue that trend and take one oracle -- 1-2% of our economy every year to convert to green energy,

we would be much further ahead. i'm so tired of the republican party to always be anti-green. we have an issue on this planet. i would like to see some things done in regard to that. green energy is important, and we should pursue it. thank you so much. guest: the federal government does not -- the department of energy does not need to be putting money into programs for companies like solyndra and others -- they have gone bankrupt the. have gotten hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for loan programs and all of those companies that got those loans with that taunt of money have gone bankrupt. something is wrong with the vetting process and something is

wrong with technology that it is not working in the marketplace. i had solar panels on my house in tennessee as a test keys thursday as a test case 30 + years ago. they're looking to see if we could get enough heat units per day in solar panels. we never got enough to run our hot water heater. we were happy to do it and see if it worked. we are saying let's bring things to the marketplace that will work but let's let the market decided it does not have to be taxpayer money that is being used as venture capital to see if unproven technologies are going to work. host: "from the washington post."

what do you think of those proposals? guest: i think we need to look very carefully at wind power. are we generating a lot of wind power and the answer to that is, across the country, some areas are successful and some are not. you take our area in tennessee and you look at tva and the electric power generation source and see what you are pulling in that electric power generation bred from wind power and it is a miniscule amount. , even on the best days. you have to questioned that. you'll notice that what the president is trying to do is disallow coal. i think it is inappropriate to disallow our national -- natural resources especially one where

we are so rich in coal and there are clean coal technologies that are out there. i've got some problems with where he is trying to go with renewable fuel standards. host: our next caller is from ohio, on our democrats line. whatever are you from? go right ahead caller: you had some good speakers before me. my father worked 41 years in a factory. the people have spoken and obama is the president. what is wrong with the old days where we got behind our president and did something for the people? the people have spoken and i want obama. they want what he stands for and i challenge all the republicans to spend a weakening nursing home where my father is at and see how we take care of our older people it is shameful it is shameful to be in a country so rich and we get so little to our people white is it an

entitlement for someone who worked 41 years n.a. factory to get social security? how was that an entitlement to? guest: i did not say it was an entitlement. i said that medicare and social security are trust fund for you and i are in agreement on that. it is a trust fund for it because federal government has had first right of refusal on your money. they take that out of your paycheck every yourperiod. heirs money that goes to medicare and social security and i think it is just is so inappropriate that the federal government does not use that as a trust fund but they move immediately to the general fund and stack up iou's that are sitting in a cabinet in west virginia. we need to make certain that individuals know exactly how much of their money has gone into their portion of social

security and that they have the assurance from the federal government that those obligations are going to be met. right now, i think it is so sad that we are at a point where we are taking in less than we are sending out cuwith social security. it is because those funds have not been set aside in a trust fund as they work legislatively and by law as opposed to -- as they were supposed to have been done. you look at those two trust funds, stabilize those and entitlements are medicaid which is the largest of the entitlements. the spending runs on autopilot. if any of your viewers like to go to my website, there is some explanation on the federal budget and the difference

traunshes. there is non-military discretionary, the fans, your trust funds which are medicare and social security and your entitlements. all of those different pieces of the pre and the full federal government. host: from twitter -- how can the house republicans be a leader? guest: the way we do is through our actions and that is one thing that has been so incredibly frustrating to the american people. one of the callers earlier said that actions speak louder than words. tell me what you are going to do. take the action. what the american people want to see is across the board cuts from that discretionary spending that will take place and stand

firm and allow those spending reductions to go into effect on march 1. house republicans are standing firm and they are going to allow those reductions to take place. i think your listener on twitter would probably like to see us lay out an orderly process, other items we will reduce in the federal budget. there are so many things when you look at the inspector general's report where there are redundancies in programs. here is an example -- economic development programs -- we've got 340 to economic development programs. we really knows? >> -- do we really need those? start to break them apart. economic development is the jurisdiction of the local and state governments. it is not even the jurisdiction of the federal government.

focusing on what should be the priorities of the federal government and beginning to whittle the size down and get back to those constitutional priorities, getting back to the things that we should do and priority number one is to provide for the common defense. host: leon panetta has 1 foot out the door but the white house says he is not leaving yet as we await what will happen in the senate with the chuck hagel confirmation process. do you want to see that move forward? guest: i think there are real problems that lie ahead for chuck hagel in this confirmation process and people are uncomfortable with some of his past statements. i know he is the president's choice but i am not so certain that it will happen. host: are you concerned about having a defense secretary in place? you said you'd like to see some of the defense cuts haeded off? >guest: i think everyone has

concerns with that and they want to make sure the pentagon and military posts have strong seasoned leadership teams. regardless of having the secretary or not having one is a portent concern. -- a point of concern. you have a good strong team that will be able to manage through this process. they have seen this coming. as you would expect the military to do, they are prepared. host: new hampshire, and the pennant caller -- caller: morning and thank you. i am so tired of the irresponsibility of the republicans. the chuck hagel thing is preposterous. how does it serve the nation to delay the president's choice? it is the first time in history that a filibuster has been used against a cabinet the sequester

is the height of irresponsibility. why risk a potential double dip recession just so you can score political points? finally, you criticized the president for being out of washington and yet, -- that was and finally -- hear you are supporting a filibuster and finally, though you partly answer the question or just now, what your district and tails are large installations, i assume, other than fort campbell in your district. my brother died from the 101st airborne in fort campbell. i am familiar with that so thank you. guest: thank you and thank you for your family service and dedication to our country. the 101st airborne is one of the

divisions that is there at fort campbell, the 160 a special forces, the fifth division, and they are all wonderful men and women who serve this country so well. we thank you and your family. what we would like the president to do is focus on solving problems. we talked to constituents every day and they want us to get the problems solved. it would be wonderful if he were to return to d.c. and say to members of the house to sit down and discuss these issues. members of the senate, let's sit down and discussing this, but that is not what is happening. host: to members of congress spend enough time in washington? guest: i think they do. with the availability of technology, we can work in the district and we are able to meet

with our constituents and hold meetings. it helps them to not have to come to washington to see us. i think it is a very efficient way of doing things. host: the next caller is from indiana, democrat blind. --line, caller: i would like to ask about the defense. we have military bases in 170 countries. they are not there for free. how much money is going to them? and to the country's? guest: what he is talking about is getting to one of the points that many of us as republicans have made. we need to provide the defense department with the flexibility

that they need to manage the funds that have been appropriated. there may be one traunch of money but budgets are done in five and 10-year traunches. you will see some legislation that will allow the defense department to re-program some of that money and move it from one silo to another and that is the kind of flexibility -- when you see this states and your counties and cities do that across the board -- spending reductions generally, they do it with flexibility to the different departments can re reprogrammed-and replace and adjusted. that's the way it should be. host: from twitter --

guest: the keystone xl pipeline is a good point. it has been awhile since the president has delayed a decision on keystone. as bipartisan support and the governor of nebraska has said let's get this rolling and keystone is a great idea. that would be a great first start. permitting some oil exploration and drilling and development is another one in that same sector. you can look at what has happened in north dakota with the amount of drilling and production. another thing the president could do today that would lead to job growth is look at his federal agencies.

the federal regulatory agencies have 291,000 employees. 291,000 employees. last year, they issued 4000 new regulations which are thousands of pages of instructions and the federal register. that -- he needs to for -- it makes it impossible for new regulations. he should allow a review and get some of these regulations off the books. i talk to small business manufacturers every single day who are telling me about how difficult the epa or osha or different agencies are making it difficult for them to do business. we had a terrific manufacturing showcase yester day with items that are being introduced into this country from our district with those manufacturers. lee terry out of nebraska is

chairman of the subcommittee and we had a great showcase. it is regulation, uncertainty in regulation, and tax policy and talk to bankers across this country. the fdic has uncertainty. all of this is making the process of business very difficult. if you want to create jobs, let's get back to what we know works. it is less taxation,plus, less litigation, plus, less regulation + more innovation and more jobs. it works every time. host: the republican from south carolina is next. caller: thank you very much if the president were to call you

in to 1600 pennsylvania avenue. with your position on energy and things you are interested in, to increase jobs, if you could make a change or suggest a change to the president and the congress, how would you make a change so that energy would increase into more jobs it? even into the millions of more jobs? what would be your suggestion that we could do that would cause us to be able to turn more natural energy such as using this area of the country that you are from, tenn., into energy that is going to help us to be more self-sufficient and create more jobs and actually use the money we are paying in taxes to do that so the poor people can increase their jobs? guest: the need for jobs growth

is the point. it is also the need to get the price of a gallon of gas down at the pump. it has doubled since this president went into office. my constituents consider that to be a tax on you. it is especially at a time when household income has gone from being $53,000 down to about $50,000. you have seen that diminishing household in come and health insurance cost is gone up about 20%. all that has an impact. groceries are up because of logistics, the transportation packaging, that comes from oil derivatives. it is all costing more. tying back into the previous answer that we gave to the twister participant -- you got to pay attention to what is happening on the regulatory front. if the president invited me to

1600 pennsylvania avenue, i think i would take a business card and put my mouth formula for job creation which is less litigation + less regulation = more innovation and job creation because we know it works. you can take that formula to the bank. if you talk to our small business manufacturers, whether they are making autoparts or aftermarket autoparts or whether they are working in the interactive technology space or working on the backbone of the internet with broadband -- whether it is the fcc or the fda or the epa, any of the alphabet soup, what they do is to limit your ability and a cause uncertainty and overreach in the regulatory community. there is uncertainty and

overreached in the tax base. want to see this reduced so they can get back to doing what they do. and host: is there a way to find a compromise with the white house? guest: my hope is that the white house will compromise with tax policy and regulations? host: show blackburn represents the seventh district of tennessee. coming up next, we will turn to the senate and have a visit from senator chris murphy, a democrat from connecticut, a freshman and one of the items on his agenda is pushing for tighter gun controls two months after the school shooting in newtown, conn..

>> he thought she was the smartest person he ever knew. he knew how much she loved him and he knew that she would tell him the truth. she was not going to -- she was not going to sugar coat. one of the things that i love that came out was the store where she is analyzing his speech. he asked her to do it and she was really tough on him. it started out nice. she always started out nice but she said i think you should do -- he would tell me all the time that your mother has the best judgment of anybody. you should always listen to your mother. he was just devoted to her. >> remembering ladybird johnson on the 100th anniversary of her

boat, part of a three-day president's day weekend sunday night at 7:30 on cspan 3. >> we have a habit in this country of glossing over presidents. we decided that some are bald eagles and they have to be treae symbols of the country. what that means is you have a smoothing over of their rough edges. there is a feeling among modern presidents that they have a right to that the veneration and that will be located in their presidential library. even if they are gone, their children, in some cases, and their former allies, their lieutenants to live longer than presidents because they are younger, they continue this. in many ways, they are even more

ferociously committed to the legacy because it involves bev -- van but the old man is gone. the problem is, what does the government do because it is responsible for these libraries when you have a flawed president? >> in part 12, he details challenges as the first federal director of the nixon presidential library sunday night at 8:00 on cspan's "q &a." >> [video clip] " continues. host: send a terror chris murphy is a -- senator chris murphy from connecticut is a freshman senator. yesterday the senate took a vote on the president's pick 4 secretary of defense and here is the headline from "the washington times." hal is the senate different from the house when this happens? confirm nominees in the house of representatives

of this is my first time through a nomination process like this. it is too bad it had to be like this. there has been a long history of the senate of giving presidents up or down votes on their nominees. only two times in history has there been a filibuster of the president's. it should not have been like this. chuck hagel is qualified for the job. the idea that the republicans are on the floor and said they need more time to understand him is hard to believe being that they serve with him and they know him and frankly he has been out there and the public view for a long time now is my hope will get an up and down vote after the break. it seemed that when we left yesterday, republicans would be ready to vote for him or let him proceed to a final vote when we get back from recess. this is an unfortunate hiccup in the confirmation process and we hope that there is no great

international crisis that happens over the next 10 days when we are effectively without a secretary of defense. my hope is that we will get to a confirmation vote and a successful one once we return from this president's day weekend break. host: your in the house, one area you represented was newtown, conn. and you have been working on gun control issue. from " the new york times." what is happening back in your home state as far as passage of legislation? what is the momentum like now and are you concerned that the national sentiment is slipping away? guest: yesterday, their 5500 activists seeking state law changes on gun measures. that, frankly, is the most i have ever seen in my short 15 years in public life, showing up at the state capital.

connecticut already had strict gun laws. we had an assault weapons ban on the book but not one that was up air tight. we had a pretty strong background check law. the connecticut laws don't need to travel as far as the laws of united states but i think there will be a strong update to connecticut laws. it is much harder to get a bill passed in washington because of the resistance for such a long time to new gun measures. a couple of days ago, the nra called what happened in connecticut and the aftermath, the connecticut in effect. that is unfortunate way to put it but to the extent that the nra and the gun lobby thinks that the public's desire for gun-control will fade, i think they are wrong. i hope we get a measure in congress and the coming months. i think there will be an appetite for strengthening the national gun laws to protect

kids and families for a long time. host: what are some of your top goals? there have been some recommendations issued to the vice-president. what is the difference between what you would like to see with the white house and the senate and the house? guest: i think we should pass the strongest bill possible. there is no reason why these military-style assault weapons to be on the street today and i certainly don't think that any law-abiding citizen needs a magazine filled with 30 rounds or 100 rounds in order to go out and enjoy their sport. i think we need to say that weapons were designed to kill people should stay in the hands of the military and weapons that were designed to hunt deer or should for sport should be in private hands. that is harder to do than the background check side of the equation. i think that is just as important for it i'm hopeful we will have a consensus on background checks.

anybody who buys a gun in this country needs a background check. that certainly seems to be the basis of the bill. we do a lot of good if we took some of these very dangerous assault weapons and high- capacity magazines off the streets. host: air are the specifics -- -- here are the specifics -- wayne lapierre slammed the president's state of the union speech.

guest: his behavior has been just bizarre since this episode in newtown. the week after, we were hopeful that the gun lobby would come to the table and try to help us put in place some common-sense gun measures as they have in the past. what the nra has become which is a representative of a very extreme wing of gun owners in this country and they lobby for gun manufacturers. they did not use to be. these to come to capitol hill and lobby for restrictions on gun ownership that made sense. la pierre become divorced from the majority of gun owners in this country who support things like universal background checks. he lives in a fantasy world where he thinks the agenda behind those of us who want to keep our kids say is to take the guns away from his members and legitimate gun owners. that is just a lie.

i hope he and his colleagues stop saying it because i support the second amendment but i support the real second amendment. i'm a supporter of the second amendment that says everyone in this country does enjoy constitutional right to own a gun to either shoot for sport or protecting themselves and there is a line that can and always has been drawn in terms of what guns a reserve for the military and what guns are for the private citizens. he has some bizarre secret agenda that he thinks exists. host: here are the numbers to call -- let's go to the phones and hear from patrick, from maryland, republican caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of questions.

you mentioned just a moment ago that the second amendment is a constitutional right. from my interpretation of the constitution, our bill of rights are protected by the constitution. it seems that no matter what side of the aisle the politician is coming from, whether it is democrats or republicans, they use a tragedy to push forth an agenda that has nothing to do with the tragedy itself such as 9/11 and of the patriot act. i am sure senator murphy does not want our fourth amendment to be assailed. at the same time, when a tragedy happens, they expect an agenda to be pushed fourth on taking away gun rights. from law-abiding citizens. it is not just right.

that's not what politicians are there for. i just want to comment on that because i feel that i hear the level -- some of the liberal democrats' standing up for a civil-rights and for the bill of rights and how the first amendment should not be compromised but i don't know why the second amendment is not the same way. guest: this is an important thing to talk about because there is a perception on behalf of some supporters of the second amendment and, frankly, maybe supporters of the first amendment, that those are absolute rights. they have never been absolute rights. those are rights that come with conditions. the first amendment certainly protect your right to free speech but it does not protect your right to stand up and yell "fire"in a crowded theater or defame or another individual in your community. it gives the right to speak -- to free speech but it gives that

with limitations. that is the same thing with the second amendment. it absolutely protect your right to own a firearm but it has always, limitations. in the heller decision from the supreme court a few years ago, they said just that -- that the sediment guarantees a right to have a firearm but absolutely, limitations. for instance, we know there are certain military-style weapons that are not allowed to be in the hands of private citizens. private citizens cannot own a tank or a fighter plane. that is the conversation we are having, just where the line is drawn. the second point is a common phrase in this debate -- that these laws would not have prevented new town. i think that is wrong. this madman who walked into this school in this -- in sandy coat conn, got off north of one other

rounds in about 10 minutes -- as another tragedy is, what possibly caused the interruption of shooting was the exchange of magazines. that is what stopped the shooting and that was the same in tucson theaurora. if you had to change clips 10 times to get off 100 rounds of rather than twice, there is a lot more opportunities for that shooting to stop. some of these guys get a sense of false courage from walking into a school or a movie theater or a church with an assault weapon in the first place. they did not have access to that high-capacity powerful weapon, they might not have started of the shooting at all. i think and the families and newtown believe that had assault weapons ban illegal under the terms that we are proposing now likely there will be kids

alive and new town today. this law we're talking about now, i believe absolutely would have made the difference. host: senator chris murphy is serving on the health, education, and pensions committee and the joint economic committee and foreign relations where he was named chairman of the subcommittee on european affairs. that oversees matters concerning the european nations and nato and european union. robert in columbia, south carolina, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to bid you a happy presidents weekend. guest: good morning. caller: chris, congratulations for ascending to the senate. i've got a couple of comments -- i would like to encourage everybody to watch the movie "

lincoln." i would like to say that senator chuck hagel seems to be well- qualified for it as a 20-year veteran, i saw money wasted and the military during the 1970's and 1980's. senator hegel seems to be well qualified. politicians need to be for the country, not for parties. if senator hagel is approved, he would be very vigilant in setting money but would keep a sharp eye -- a sharp lookout for the welfare of the military in this country. host: let's get a response. guest: i agree and you mention that senator hagel would be the first enlisted soldier to

become secretary of defense. you don't have to have been in the military in order to be a very good or great secretary of defense, this certainly gives him the skill set that we have not seen before. he has been on the front lines and he has seen the military up close as a soldier. he was a very good soldier, in fact. i think he will bring some unique assets to the position of secretary of defense. you also mentioned that we will be in a. cost cutting in the department of defense. there is no way to do it -- there is no way around it. there is no way around the fact that an order to try to reduce our deficit, we will have to cut military spending. to have a secretary of defense who was not on the front lines -- who was on the frontlines and saw firsthand some of the places in which the military spends money that it does need to, i think that will make him an effective cost cutter and that's

what we will need. he will need to keep us safe and promote religious of the allies but also do the tough work of downsizing our military at a moment where we need to do that in a way that does not compromise our safety. chuck hagel is a republican. this is an unlikely pick 4 president obama because he is choosing someone who historically did not agree with the president on every subject. he thought it was important to have a cabinet that was a cross- section of america. that makes the opposition of the republicans in the senate harder to understand. on both issues, he agrees with the republican caucus more than the democratic caucus but republicans are standing in the way. host: athens, ga., independent caller -- caller: i have something for the senator here based on his

research on the gun control problem. there are two common threads amongst all the shooters and also includes our latest mass shooter, mr. dorner in california. all the last -- all the mass shooters were males that had no strong father figure in their home and also, at columbine, the two suitors were two -- too young to vote but their parents were registered democrats and at virginia tech, the shooter was a registered democrat. in the color of the theater, he was a registered democrat. in connecticut, the shooter was a registered democrat. to prevent mass shootings, it looks like we should prevent democrats from having guns. guest: i think your first point is worth talking about.

there is a common identity behind many of the shooters. they tend to be man and they tend to be young men and they obviously tended to be young man with deep emotional and psychological trauma and illness. that speaks to the second part of this debate which is that, ultimately, we want to stop people from having these type of thoughts that lead to mass destruction and many of them suicide. that means a better mental health system. i get nervous when replace all the emphasis on mental health as sometimes the nra does because we certainly don't want to equate mental-health with the violence. there is nothing inherent in mental illness that makes somebody want to go out and shoot a gun. the opposite is usually true. they are more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. the truth is, the mental health system is far too inaccessible

for a lot of families who have trouble the kids who want to get help. we have to do a better job of making sure resources are available in the mental health system. we cannot balance the budgets on the backs of an underfunded and broken mental health system and we have to do a better job of identifying this very small handful of young men who seem to be the profile of these mass murders. that is not very easy. i am not sure that you could have picked out these unbelievably psychotic and violent tendencies in these shooters. ahead of time. i think that is an important piece of his gun violence debate is making sure the mental health system is there to help individuals and families. host: president obama is talking about early education and he is doing this on the road this week and during the state of the union speech. this is from "the new york times ".

how do we pay for these ideas the president has and how do you think they come together as part of a larger education plan? guest: every dollar you invest in early education gets a six-$7 return in the economy. might be the best investment you can make because when you confront the fact that today, only one out of three kids in this country are in high-quality preschool, that means they are not ready to learn when they are not ready to learn and they show up to kindergarten, we spend more money once they get into public education to try to get them up to speed. you frankly save money in the short run in elementary school by getting kids ready before they show up to school. in the long run, we know that kids who have access to early childhood education are more likely to get advanced degrees and earn more money later in life and provide that money back into the treasury. if you want to create a new

generation of wealth generators that will feed the u.s. treasury -- that is the biggest problem with our deficit -- our deficit is driven by increased spending and awards we did not pay for but to is really a consequence of less money coming into the economy because of a slow economic growth rate. preschool is the best means to start moving kids to the point where they can earn a lot of money that gets paid back to the federal treasury. it is a smart investment and it will not be easy to find the money but when we look at all the places we could spend money, early childhood education gets you the best bang for the buck. host: we see a picture of president obama had a georgian school, go to georgia caller, republican blind. caller: god gave me a right to stand my ground with 30 rounds 3 gave me the right to drink water. he did not give me the right to

support children in the dominican republic. you should do background checks on yourself before you start giving one on me. host: are you talking about? caller: the little jaunt it to the dominican republic? host: a german mendez? caller: they should do background checks on their own party before they start messing with me. guest: i appreciate that. i would go back to the response from an earlier caller. i don't believe that the unconditional right to own a gun is a god-given right. i just don't believe that. human beings made a decision over 200 years ago to write into the constitution and ability for individuals to own guns. that right has never been absolute maybe you don't agree

but most gun owners agree that right comes with conditions. they don't believe that the majority of gun owners don't believe they should have access to every single weapon that the military has. we have always drawn the line. 78% of gunpowder is, according to a recent survey, support background checks to make sure we're not giving guns to criminals or people will literally by the gun and shoot somebody or we are giving guns to people who have been adjudicated as seriously mentally ill that they pose a danger to society. if you're not a criminal, and you pass a background check, it will take a matter of minutes. that is what the system is today. the vast majority of americans and the vast majority of nra members, supports the idea that we should use a background check system to make sure the criminals are not getting their hands on guns and that is one of the limitations that is built into the second amendment.

it is an amendment that is granted by a decision of our forefathers. it is one that has always come with common sense limitations. host: from "the miami herald "-- let's go to dan, in exeter, new hampshire, democrats a line -- caller: good morning to both of you. i always get a kick out of the politicians who get up there and 30-that you don't need a round clip to kill a deer they don't know that it is illegal by the game laws to have more than five shots in your gun.

back when the assault weapons came out, there were one of the few weapons with a detachable clip. as the clips brew, they became more dangerous. if you did nothing other than just the clips, and had six rounds -- ever gonna go to buy whether it is a shotgun or a hunting rifle -- they sell test load into the top and only get five shells in. if they have a clip, they only have a 5-shell clip. the background check is a no- brainer but if you could get rid of these high capacity clips because then you have a scary weapon -- a scary-looking weapon that will only fire five shots before you have to put in another club. concentrate on the clubs and i think you'll do the best of host: are you a hunter? caller: i have been a hunter for

over 35 years and hunted four of the new england states. guest: i think you are amongst the majority of gun owners in this country who support background checks and are willing to take a look at this issue of banning these high- capacity magazines. you are right to that most hunting laws already restrict, depending on what you are hunting, the number of rounds you can have begun. this is probably the most important thing we can do and probably the most likely. and assault weapons ban is unlikely to pass. i will push hard for it but if you talk to many families in newtown, conn. i have spent the last few months an awful lot of time that those families, many of them agree with you that the most important thing we can do is to get these high-capacity magazines off the street. 30 rows is one thing but the

shooter in aurora walked into that movie did with a drum of 100 rounds. there is no way to explain why a sportsman needs that kind of capacity. to the extent that there will be minor inconvenience to spoke -- to a sports shoe that has to reload slightly more frequently -- the benefit that you get for it is when the next mass murder walks into a school or movie theater and i wish that was if but i believe it is when, there will be less destruction if we pass this bill. frankly, i think the benefit you get from that greatly outweighs a minor inconvenience to sportsmen and hunters who may be using those high-capacity magazines. host: chapel hill, tenn., independent line. caller: good morning, cspan. one little comment --

my -- marsha blackburn represents a strange area in tennessee. she represents the southern part of national and also there is gerrymandering involved. everyone is concerned about high-capacity magazines. the only reason i would like to have high-capacity magazines [inaudible] the democrats and republicans look exactly alike. we have to take our government back. americans need to protect themselves from our government. i'm not a word about terrorists or any of the other bs that they

bring to us all the time. people wake up. our government is going sideways. host: what does that look like to you? what do you mean when you say protect against the government? caller: in their infinite wisdom, they passed the patriot act. if anyone read the patriot act, i get goose bumps thinking about what i read it -- they can come to anyone's house right now today and accuse you of being a terrorist and we have secret documentation that you are a terrorist. they are going to hide you away. many people think that sounds ridiculous but look what happened in germany. first they register the guns and then they took the guns. this country is coming to the same thing guest: i think that is ridiculous.

comparisons to the nazis are over the top. i did not support the picture it act. i thought it overstepped its bounds but i also did not think it was a vehicle for the federal government to swoop down on people's houses and spirit them away. i don't think that is the agenda. realistically, i hear people talking about needing high- capacity magazines to ward off the government. let's be realistic, if the government had an agenda to come in and declare martial law and takeover neighborhoods and imprisoned people without cause -- which i don't think is the case and i think is ridiculous -- an assault weapon will not stop that from happening. the u.s. government has weapons that are more powerful than a bushmaster with a 30 round

magazine. the federal government has tanks and f-16's and black hawk helicopters. i think we decided long ago that we are not going to necessarily read the second amendment as an ability to harm citizens at the same level as the federal government so as to protect the citizens against the federal government coming in and taking over neighborhoods. that is just not happening and that is not the agenda behind a republican or democratic party despite what some people may think. by think that is a misplaced notion but i'd do think that is what the nra is talking about. this caller is plugged into what wayne lapierre is talking about. he thinks the president has a secret agenda that will end up with the confiscation of guns and the takeover of towns and neighborhoods and our country. that is ridiculous.

of steps opinion is out with gun owners in this country. host: from twitter -- as one of the sponsors of the assault weapons ban of 2013, tells about the exemptions. guest: i encourage anybody who has this question to go and read the assault weapons ban that we introduced some weeks ago. that bill actually lists several thousand weapons that would not be illegal under the law. that is not an includes a list. it is just a set of examples of weapons, over 10,000 weapons, that would still be available to individuals. the assault weapons ban says that a gun that has a detachable clip and another military feature like a pistol grip, that

would be reserved for military usage. the thousands of weapons today that are used largely for hunting and sports shooting would still be available that is a really good resource. i cannot recite chapter and verse every gun on that list but that will persuade people's fears about what this bill is really about there will be a plethora of weaponry that anybody in this country will a vote -- will be able to get their hands on in this country host: republican from tennessee, go ahead caller: thank you for being on here. i have a comment about the assault weapons and the capacity magazines. if you take it away from law- abiding citizens, what are you going to do about the gangs and the drug people and the people that use them to rob banks and stuff? guest: that is another good point because we clearly

acknowledge that the sun did amendment protect your right to have a gun for self defense. i agree with that. what kind of firepower do you need in order to protect yourself? the reality is, most people that have a gun in their home for self protection, that gun is much more likely to be used to kill them that it is -- then it will be used to kill a retreat -- an intruder. that was the case for nancy lanza. she had bad bushmaster in the house and several other pistols, reportedly, in order to protect yourself. she got divorced and living by herself with her son in that house and she thought she needed some guns to protect herself and her son had an interest in firearms of that may have been part of the reason. the gun that she thought she had to protect her from intruders got used to kill her and got used to kill 20 little kids down

the street at sandy hook elementary school and six of their teachers. that is the reality of what happens. i will not the night the portion of this of -- i will not deny the portion of the second amendment to keep weapons for self-defense but let's acknowledge that most of the time, that weapon in the house, not used for that reason. it get used to kill the person in the house or by a suicide by family member. vice president joe biden has said there is still a lot of high-powered weaponry out there. a shotgun into a much better job or do as effective a job of taking on an intruder as an assault weapon or a weapon with a high-capacity magazine. host: what are your ideas with employment and job growth? guest: we are in a manufacturing

renaissance in this country. we have added i think about 200,000 manufacturing jobs in the last several years. the price differential between buying something in china and something in the state's is equalizing. wages are going up by 25% in china and the cost of transportation is increasing so it makes more sense for companies to sell in the united states to make it in the united states. there is one simple first step to supporting american manufacturing and that is making sure that when the federal government buys things, it buys them from american companies. the federal government cannot preach to the private sector if we are not making things in the united states and when we buy things for the military, we are increasingly buying those things and the parts of those things from out of state companies. in the house of representatives, i created the buy america caucus and i am working on similar issues in the united states senate to say that the billions

of dollars that the federal government sends overseas to buy things, 70% is for the military, if we simply tighten up laws that required to you to buy those things united states, we think you could create 600,000 new manufacturing jobs. i certainly want better trade policies. i want more support and subsidies for american manufacturers rather than for foreign manufacturers but you can make sure the federal government is being a good steward of taxpayer dollars and using them to buy for from americans rather than foreign companies. host: 1 last tweet -- guest: you will never stop everyone from buying an illegal gun. that is always the case with laws we pass. if you want laws the one that% air tight, we should not pass anything. we're trying to cut down on the number of illegal sales oe