later, a discussion on mandatory life sentences for young criminal offenders. joining us is a speaker from catholic university. journal"on shoretel -- is next. ♪ it isgood morning saturday, january 25, 2014. the republican national committee made several significant changes to how the gop will select its nominee for that contest. the party voted to convince the state-by-state process used to select the republican nominee in hopes of creating a less expensive and less losing our merry process than the one gop experienced in 2012. open want to -- we want to

our phones to just republican callers to hear your thoughts on the primary process. if you like the calendar changes , if you prefer a longer primary .rocess if you are a republican in the eastern or central united states, our phone lines are 20 2-585-3880. if you are in the pacific or 3881.ain region, 202-585- you can tweet us or go on her facebook page. you can also e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. that the rncweets tweeted yesterday playing out in the papers. here is a story from "the new york times" -- it --na central called

central" called it -- i want to read you a bit from the piece from politico this morning -- the reporter for politico joins us now.

you mentioned a six significant rule changes that were implemented. take us through what happened. fort: the most significant the purposes of electing the we are probably not going to have the first states vote until february. they have created a penalty so states like florida do not move up and try to leapfrog other states. new hampshire, iowa, south carolina, and nevada are allowed to vote before march 1. now all florida states -- now florida will go in february. the next key thing is mitt

romney was really frustrated in 2012 because he had to kind of keep going. delegates have enough . every primary in march and april had to be proportional to the you would only end up getting half the delegates. newt gingrich and rick santorum would get the rest. the romney campaign pushed to make the primaries winner take all. a lot of people were really would meant that they reschedule the primary on march 1. then you would have this tidal -- there was this super

tuesday were a lot of people with momentum and the money to afford television ads could wrap march 1.mination on the compromise that everyone reached is that any state that goes within the first two weeks has to award its delegates proportionally. after march 15 everyone can go winter take all. march 1 happens to be a tuesday. a bunch of states won't schedule private -- won't schedule primaries on that tuesday.

a lot of states are going winner take all. you probably see the nomination wrapped up by mid to late march as opposed to the end of april or early may. 14 primaries in february and probably wrapping this up with as many primaries from mid to late march. and the calendar in may for the rest of the primaries will happen? there was some contention with these meetings. there are still more republicans in california than any other state. their primary has to be on june 6 by law. it is controlled by democrats. there is no indication that could change.

they created some waivers for states like california, which aren't going to be able to move up. everyone else is going to have conventions and primaries earlier to meet that new threshold. the chairman of the committee possible is to get a commission as early as june. careful aboute scheduling around july 4. either they will do it before july 4 or two weeks after july 4. did these rule changes do anything to the number of debates that candidates will have to move in? guest: they did not but they'll will have to take their next meeting in may. the committee will fight very hard on that. there is a lot more division over this.

there were 20 primary debates in 2012. -- totablishment types the establishment types that is far too many. that damaged a lot of the candidates. rick perry killed himself in the debates. e made the candidacy of michele bachmann. it would look like the rnc sanctioning debates and threatening to punish any candidates who participates in non-sanctioned debates. the other thing at the rnc wants will be any it official debate. chuck shaw that

-- chuck todd commentating. some conservatives like it but some of the establishment republicans are worried that it will end up creating a race to the right. you also talked about the town, the importance of tone when candidates are on the campaign trail. i want to play with he had to say and then come back to you. [video clip] matters.ample i said many times before that the policies and principles of this party are sound. however, as we look to grow the ranks of our party, we all must be very conscious of tone and choice of words when we can communicate those -- when we communicate those policies. we should set the standard for and also set an

example for other republicans. man of politico is here to join us. what has been -- the context is mike huckabee made some comments the day before in that exact same and women'semocrats .ibido and contraception the rnc had scheduled a bunch of conferences and meetings. hall showcase rising republican stars, young women who are really impressive minority candidates who were winning state legislative branches in red states. they had all these things to set up -- things set up to showcase.

there is a republican national committee member that posted on his facebook page that were anti-gay and anti-muslim. yesterday afternoon, previous -- yesterday afternoon he was called to resign and step down. two negativeese stories that emerged from the meeting. this is shown the world without wildly condemning them that he hopes for the better. actions are speaking louder than words. host: we talk about the winter .eeting of the rnc

thank you so much for joining us on washington journal. our viewersng to about these changes that the rnc announced. we want to hear your thoughts on the primary process, what you think about these changes and how helpful the primary process is for you as you try to pick your candidate. we are talking to just republicans. if you are republican in eastern and central time zones -- bob is calling in from indiana. winky for joining us. -- thank you for joining us. caller: i think the electoral process should be shortened to no more than a year. it is just a waste of money and puts money in the pockets of the media.

are you guys partnering with politico echo it seems like when -- with politico? seems that whenever we talk about politico you talk with the left-wing politico group. host: they were covering the rnc meeting. you're just helpful enough to help us this morning. -- they were just helpful enough to help us this morning. aboutuld you go candidates not holding campaign events until a year before the election? does it take to decide who we want? another thing on this health-care thing, i wish you would have patty mccoy on. we know 85% of the journalists -- will left wingers

journalists are left wingers so we know what kind of slander you are getting. we are talking to republicans about some of the changes that were announced yesterday by the rnc to the primary calendar. one story this week from national journal talks about some of the concerns that have been brought up about those changes. josh kraushaar writes --

melissa is up in cincinnati ohio. caller: the way i see it, no matter what the republicans do, everythingrk because is already planned ahead of time. hillary is going to run. i'm sick and tired of people getting on tv and going, we don't know if she's going to run. of course she is going to run. they are going to give it to her on a silver platter. host: on the republican primary do you think there's a front-runner or do you think it is artie planned out on the republican side of the aisle you go -- it is already planned out

on the republican side of the aisle yo? the democrats are mean, they are mean-spirited. the irs is going to keep going after the republicans and tea parties. he should be locked up for talking like that. the democrats are going to get it on the platter. just give it to them. guest: who is your candidate on the republican side? caller: mike lee or ted cruz. they are conservative. they're not just republican they are conservative. there is a big difference. republican is just the same old same old.

conservative, that is a big difference. just look at what boehner did on the tonight show. he is such a wimp erie -- a wimp. morning we are talking about changes to the primary process. the headline of the story --

brian is up next for california, calling in. what are your thoughts on this condensed primary calendar? the primaries definitely matter. i think a short primary schedule would work as you look to 2012 erie -- 22012. to tony 12.ok -- to 2012. i think c-span is left as well. they are complicated. we try to show both sides

on washington journal. we are talking to just republicans now to the changes to the primary calendar. months open up our phone to everyone as we follow different stories going on around the country. go to fill in indiana this morning. we are talking about the shakeup of the republican primary calendar. what do you think? i think c-span is pretty fair, actually. part of the problem with the republican party is the kind of rejected the libertarian people. watching the primary process, it was like that. they need to find a better process to incorporate new than just be gop

insiders running the whole show. there are a lot of frustrated young republicans wanting to vote toward their nominee as part of the process. we are getting completely shut out. host: how do you go about finding those folks that are the insiders that are already running? people are already established in the party. there are some variances in the ideas erie if their candidates wins that is fine. if you have to bend the rules to get your nominee, the candidates are not allowed to go -- things of that nature. if they actually do want to

nominate a candidate that can win, they need to encompass the younger crowd that respects the constitution, stanza for civil liberties, and bring those republicans into the party. they are really going nowhere. we are talking about the changes to the republican primary calendar, efforts to shrink that calendar in the 2016 election -- 2016 presidential election. and the politico unit has a story about this as well, talking about the advantages and disadvantages to the change of the calendar. in 20 12 mitt romney, despite raising a tremendous amount of campaign money, was unable to tap into his general election cash until after the late august convention.

a convention in june or july would give the eventual republican nominee faster access to that cash. on to note the possible cons of doing this on their list of possible drawbacks to shortening the calendar. there are unintentional consequences -- one other issue it brings up is the possible move by democrats in response to this.

we want to get republican thoughts this morning on the nominating process. what do you think these changes will mean for 2016? david is up in new york. i am in favor of moving the convention to an -- caller: i am in favor of moving the convention to an earlier month. as far as what was said at the , i am kind ofting like a disgruntled republican because i know what they are going to do and they are going to bring in karl rove and one of the guys like jeb bush. that will totally send me over the edge.

returning my contributions with notes saying you guys aren't putting up conservative candidates than i will start sending you my conservative ideals. host: why isn't in earlier convention better in your mind? a beta we have convention than other states. iowa and new hampshire go early. thinking about getting the action better before all is said .nd done being from new york, it is a blue state and we have chuck schumer locked in there.

we have our emperor telling us how we should live in new york state. make room for us in texas because we might me moving out. think about the number of debates in the republican primary? would you like to see more or less? caller: i say the more the merrier. i would like to see more head-to-head competition and i do think these numbers -- these -- the number of debates in the actual presidential race is about right. mitt romney got the ball rolling by taking but in that first debate. -- by kicking bots in that first debate. in that firsttt debate. these republicans that they put we have to get people with

backbones and not these wimpy noodles. talk about changes to the republican 2016 primary calendar. we will take also from republicans for just the next when he minutes or so. i want to point out some other news around the country. here's the front page of the wall street journal talking about the republican agenda.

the jump page on that story talks about president obama's expected mention of immigration and --in his state of state of the union address on tuesday. he will call on lawmakers to pass an overall of democrats and -- overhaul of laws

here you can see speech viewership and president obama's viewership of his state of the union following each year. story on the state of the union. coming out from roll call on capitol hill, the white house's briefing the democratic chief of staff on what the president is going to say. that briefing happened yesterday. reporters talked to democratic leadership aides about what was said in that meeting and what the president is expected to say. plenty of state of the union happening on c-span

this coming week. we are talking to republicans about these changes to the republican presidential primary calendar. let's go to floyd in virgin you. -- in virginia. i think they should shorten the amount of debates they have. they have way too many. would bringh c-span the mayor in new york, what he said about getting christians and conservatives out and the womanty for governor in texas lied about -- said -- whatabee mike huckabee said, he was bragging for women.

he was bringing woman up. he was doing a good job talking about women. you never see the stories on washington journal. you have several people. said, whaty clinton does it matter if three people or five people got killed over there in benghazi? that should be brought up on c-span and washington journal should be able to comment on that. we are talking about the presidential primary changes that were announced and voted on yesterday at the rnc winter meeting. those changes have caused some criticism among republicans. the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of those changes. chairman of the rnc writes

about some of the criticism the party has taken, including from friends in the party. i want to play what he had to say from his comments yesterday. [video clip] >> what we are doing is a big deal. it is frustrating sometimes people try to attack our work or try to create the appearance of dissent. every once in a while you hear attack inown friends the rnc. it reminds me we need to tell people more about what the rnc does. for thebuilds and pays infrastructure our candidates need to be successful. we ares previous --host: talking about some of the primary rule changes that were voted on yesterday. we are talking with just republicans this morning. gina is calling in from

mississippi. good morning. caller: i don't see how republicans stand a chance until we get as many conservative venues, like tv stations and radio stations, as we have liberals. it is so unfair because it doesn't matter how great our candidate is, the liberal branches going to crucify him. i want to congratulate you because i think you are one of the most fair commentators that c-span has. commentators are fair except greta. she is so obviously biased. she cuts off all conservative people as soon as they start talking. thank you for being pair. -- being fair. comments from folks all over the country, we want to

hear from everybody every day. thank you for calling. let's go to john in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. these changeson that were voted on yesterday to the republican primary season. i think they are a good step forward but they are not enough. there are some built-in features that hurt the republicans in this process. especially this early caucus in iowa, those folks are really issue based on either a religious right sort of thing or energy from grain and so on. it skews the early process. how would you fix the process you go -- fix the process? i don't know how you

would fix it, i just don't like this caucus. it gives a benefits to the religious right part of the party. people seem to cave on the ethanol issue. it is quite a mess. we have a bunch of really great governors, republican governors that will be fine for this office. none of those people would make it past the iowa caucus. they are not that far to the religious right. host: do you think it would be helpful for those folks to have a longer process rather than a condensed process here? does this condensed process make that caucus even more important? caller: i think the condensed

process is better having watched all those debates. they were all flailing at each other way too long. ,hey need six or seven debates that is much better than 17. it was definitely destructive. >> john from pittsburgh pennsylvania. a few comments from twitter. goings off some of the comments the rnc chairman said. let's go to jack waiting in florida.

your thoughts on these primary calendar changes. story, inquick back 2008 i was an organizer for senator obama. i was a paid field organizer. i got a trip to the inaugural youth ball. i came back and started researching more and getting more into politics. there was this person named wrong paul -- named ron paul. this is the earliest since 1946? i believe i read that. i remember during the 2012 , the ronn convention

paul people were silent. in florida, what happened was the delegates in 2008 were strict because they were too early. hillary clinton would have been the nominee. i don't understand what is going .n with the republicans grassroot preservice -- grassroot conservatives do not have enough time and money. me andind-boggling to what i believe is this is so they can unify around one person as quickly as they can. 10 to write soon on

twitter -- kent writes in on twitter -- we will take your comments and questions on this subject. we have five to 10 more minutes talking about the shortened republican presidential primary season. some news coming out of the obama white house. yesterday president obama decided to bring politics back into the white house. three years ago obama closed the long-standing office of political affairs at the white house and send --

if you want to read more on the office of political affairs command packet the white house, that is in the new york times today. also relating to this white house, senate republicans are pressing obama to make a decision quickly on that controversy oh keystone xl pipeline. a letter sent to president obama on friday lays out the history of the project, stating that obama had more than enough time to review the pipeline. you should not further delay the decision on issuing a presidential permit, says the

letter that was spearheaded by john homan. news about the obama administration, 3 million and rolled in health policy. this is the headline from the washington post today. the obama administration says that is behind initial projections. brad is waiting in michigan. good morning. your thoughts on these primary changes. of caller: people need to read section 1401 and 1409.

both party put up illegal candidates. republicans cuts two or three there. it is just ridiculous. the two chinese -- a chinese citizen is a citizen by national right, not man-made law. that is all there is to it. let's go to gym in garfield, new jersey. arfield, new g jersey. caller: i thought the republican debates were some of the republic -- was some of the best television. they booed the gay soldier and "theyhe one guy said

healthdie" in regards to insurance and everyone cheered. flabbergasted. they should have no debates if they want to have a chance. once they spread their views to the american people, how ridiculous and backward they are, you lose every chance of the general election. who would you support in -- republican primary echo and the republican primary? caller: i like the governor from utah. the teabag is don't give us a chance anymore. front page of the review section of the wall street journal. is a piece on the war on

-- rty 50 years after there are up to do pieces by senator cory booker of new jersey and paul ryan on two different approaches on how to help the poor in america. david is waiting in tampa, florida. are talking about these changes to the republican primary calendar. caller: good morning. i am just a little worried that we are rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic here. debates to go on as long. of a distinct the message needs to change at this point. for their votes that are not our traditional days.

we don't ask the other people for their vote. everybody runs for the right. nobody asks hispanic people for their vote or the african-americans for their vote. we don't reach out to the asian and other communities. i don't think the party would ever feel too comfortable enough to go too far to the gay and lesbian side. nce is still why rei the chair. like i said, we're just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. host: our last caller on this topic as we talk about those changes voted on yesterday at the rnc winter meeting. recent stories about corruption

in virginia. gordon witkin.th later we will talk about federal regulations of topics us to -- of toxic substances. the president of the family research council joined us. during the interview he talks about his personal and public lives. here is a little bit about what tony perkins had to say. >> i don't find this idea that you have a personal and public life. you are who you are. comes more ofure who you are is going to come forth. at the point of exposure they have said, i have messed up.

i take responsibility for what i did. people have a right to either reject in them -- reject them at that point in time. what is really a nonstarter is saying, that is none of your business it is my personal life. at that point i say you are wrong. >> the past issues david faces, does that affect your views of him as a governor? >> when the things he was -- heed in came forward said, i sinned. he was taking ownership over what he did. i know his wife. i served with david for almost eight years.

i believe he has dealt with those issues and i believe he is on the right track. he will always have that cloud over him. they have a right to do that. that,ou do something like you open yourself up to greater scrutiny and criticism. this is something you are going to have to live with. david, i feel comfortable that those issues in his life have been dealt with and he is now on the right track. with yesterday being the wasthe first governor arraigned on criminal charges. where did virginia fall on your

integrity index as we show our viewers the front page of today 's "richmond times dispatch," with governor bob macdonald appearing in court in this corruption case? guest: virginia did not do well. it was one of the eight states that got an f on our ranking. it was one of nine states without any sort of ethics commission. governor andthe family members were not disclosed. disclosure was poor. the freedom of information laws weak.ginia were fairly was a headline like this

particularly surprising to you? guest: not really. we got some pushback from those states. some of that has to do with the virginia way, a tradition of bipartisanship and smooth relations. you maye kinds of cases have seen in illinois. in states where fewer systems , then you are unlikely to find a lot of cases. for viewers that want to look and follow along for the

state integrity project -- project. did this that website, folks can see the grades the different states received from your ranking. no days given out -- no as given out. bs. 19 cs. there were eight fs. what were the standards you used to judge the states against each other? the first part was interviewing some the five experts in state government and developed criteria we want to look at. it ended up totaling 330 specific questions in 14 categories.

we hired an experienced statehouse reporter in each of the 50 states to do that research for us. we look at things like disclosure requirements. the strength of ethics commissions, we looked at the budgeting process. we looked at freedom of information laws. we looked at disclosure rules for legislators. we look at state insurance commissions and how transparent they were. separate questions in 14 categories and then we crunched those numbers and did the rankings. we'll we found was in some states that did well -- what we found was in some states that did well, they did well because they had serious corruption problems in the past that essentially shamed their governments into making changes. still a lot to learn in

this george washington bridge traffic jam incident. guest: i think this case is a little bit different. i would make a distinction between the corruption and corruption list -- and corruption risk we are looking at. actual bribery and explicit actions in return for money with jersey, whichnew i would term as hardball politics rather than corruption. much remains to be seen. throwinguthorities are this around.

what we know to date would come under the heading of political muscling rather than outright corruption. we were shocked that new jersey never came in high. the scandals that new jersey had suffered under the administration essentially served as a spur for some major reforms there. it was a substantive thing up of the state commission. in particular, really stringent disclosure requirements. host: we are talking about the

state integrity project. democrats can call at -- while folks are calling in, tell us about the center for public activity. guest: we are a nonprofit group that focuses on investigative journalism. we are found by hundreds of individuals and all the donors website,d on our main which is debbie ww. public integrity.org -- which is www.pu

blicintegrity.org. we do a lot of money in politics , housing, health care policy, education, energy and environment and state government and juvenile justice as well. is there a perception that state government, state capitals have less corruption than washington dc than the federal government? i think that perception is out there and i think people feel a little bit warmer about the government's they are closer to. there is a warmer and fuzzier feeling about state government and state legislators than the federal government. certainly ratings are at rock bottom these days. based on our reporting i warned

that there are a lot of built-in problems in state government. in our country that many of our state legislatures are citizen legislatures that serve only a few months a year. the fact the other -- the fact they have other full-time jobs builds other conflicts of interest. we found a lot of ethical and disclosure issues. it may be a little bit misplaced to think that it is always better done in the states. you are on with wharton witkin.- with gordon clear the purpose of the media is to help the public. it is demonstrated by the -- the third tower to fall on 9/11,

which wasn't hit by a plane, had to have been -- host: we are going to move along. we are talking about the state integrity investigation process. let's go to richard waiting in fairmount city pennsylvania. good morning. good morning. i am thankful i got through. i have a couple of questions if you permit me to get them in. i take a dollar bill from you, is that stealing? i go to a have to be store and take a hundred dollars out of your cash register? echo one is stealing money that stealing money echo -- which one is stealing money? of ownership they kept a barrel of apples and they

constantly throughout the rotten once so did not spoil the whole barrel. when our collect did officials take it upon themselves that they are above us that they can take what they want, how much of that to we permit before we get rid of them? mr. witkin? upon: i think you touched a number of important issues. the existence of systems that require disclosure, require ,ransparency and accountability and that arm of the ethics commission provide some checks and balances on these. there are also more complicated issues in state government.

the legislators only serve a few months per year. they have other full-time jobs. is commitments they make ,xtensive in terms of hours their overall time, and the amount of constituent service they provide. -- payst aid legislators for state legislators is generally pretty poor. some of our legislatures serve once every two years. an awful lot of business is jammed into not much time. there are those that feel that those sorts of conditions make host: you said there are several different cat grizz. what is an example of one of the more robust state ethics commissions in the country? guest: we found that states

like washington and connecticut lad strong state ethics commissions. host: what is strong? guest: what that usually boils down to is they have full-time staff and enough full-time staff to deal with the problems that are brought to them. they are transparent in that you know what they're doing. they have investigators who may have an auditting or law enforcement background. and they will have subpoena power. and they're able to operate independently without having exclusive oversight coming from the legislators themselves who are, after all, the subject of the work that they're doing. ost: on twitter. guest: what we looked at were various disclosure rules for legislators, governors, and members of their offices and

family. generally, because legislators are part-time you want to know what the job is, the full-time job of your legislator, what their other assets are, where they're getting their income from, and what the jobs may be of their spouses and what their investments are. the se transparency goes cliche can be the best disinfect nt. and obviously anyone with a miryat of income sources and investment opportunities that creates the potential for conflict of interest if those companies or those sectors are seeking action from the legislature. >> we're talking with gordon witkin, the managor at the center for government integrity. caller: good morning.

first of all, i would like to state on behalf of the democratic party that i think the republicans -- because they have extorted this country and put us in debt, leaders -- host: we're talking about the state integrity project. do you want to stay on that subject? caller: talk about ethics. you show me the ethics of our politicians and now they're investigated in question and drilled on a state level. we have a mose ethics commission here in -- missouri ethics committee here in this state. they get fined. they rarely get removed from office. of course they can be united if you have a strong federal government that has a strong checks and balances. and i strongly believe it's time we did this with some of our elected officials who have

served with the enemies. people begging for food stamps, children going hungry, this is not the america i grew up. i grew up with a very good government. my uncle worked for a government program which gave jobs, opportunity and education to the people. i don't see that happening right now. host: she brings up some of the ways that lawmakers can be punished for specific violations. which state has the most stringent penalties for lawmakers who actually violate some of these rules? guest: again, that usually sort of went in lockstep with states that have a tough ethics commission. i mean, states like connecticut, state of washington we found had a good system. even new jersey as a result of the scandals they've had have had a fairly stringent system and real power in the state

ethics commissions to exact real penalties. ost: on twitter. guest: i think the answer is all of the above. i think there is also a real issue in pay for state legislators, which can be very low and which can create temptations for other sorts of malfeasance and also may create some resentment in terms of the amount of work required. but there are other kinds of rules that didn't exist and don't exist in virginia, for instance, that have to do with disclosure, a gift, disclosure of gifts to the governor, to the governor's family. one of the issues that's come up from one of the questions raised as in the case of

virginia, if both governor mcdonnell and his wife had had to disclose right at the moment it happened the range of gifts from mr. williams, would that have changed their behavior? i mean, i think there's a reasonable argument that it might have if this all had to be out there step by step, gift by gift. host: and what is the virginia disclosure rule? guest: really, there isn't much of any. there are some fairly bland rules for the governor. there are no requirements for any member of the governor's family. campaign limits in virginia are virtually nonexistent, easy to get around. the freedom of information regime in virginia is weak. and it's one of just a handful of states with no ethics commission, no watchdog whatsoever. >> is there any move to change any of that in the wake of the headlines that have been coming

out? guest: sure. again, in the pattern we've talked about where sometimes in the past it has taken scandal to move state legislatures, particularly in a state like new jersey which we talked about earlier. i think it's clear that that effect will take place in virginia. the new governor understanding the political environment he's entering has proposed a package of ethics reforms. folks who are in sort of advocacy good government community don't think those proposals are nearly tough enough. but i think it's clear something will happen on the ethics front as a result of the mcdonnell scandal. riting in. roger in virginia. good morning.

caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i had a question. in terms of comparing the disclosure rules and the gifts that the mcdonnells received, how can we go back in history and learn of previous gifts if there was no reporting rule in order to compare current behavior to past behavior? and even on a presidential level, how do we know who gave jelly beens to reagan or who gave the cell phones that president obama gave away? guest: that's a good question. in the state of virginia and in many states, unfortunately, there's probably no way to go back and make comparisons because very few rules or requirements existed. on the federal level, the rules are generally much tougher. i'm not an expert on that, but i think that any gift given, for instance, by a foreign government or a foreign

dignitary to the the president have got to be recorded. and most of those are given away. host: virginia ranked 47th out of 50 states in the state integrity project ranking back in 2012 when they did the rankings below them only wyoming, south dakota, and georgia. again, the website state integrity.org if you want to check out the project. let's go to florida. good morning. caller: i really have never een any evidence of the ethics program here in florida. before rick scott became governor, he owned a home health care service that ripped off the government for the largest medicare in history. he took the 5th 77 times. but since he's been in office, he tried to make welfare recipients take a drug test but it came out that he owned the

digenostic lab where the drug test would occur. so he signed over his interest in that company to his wife. a year ago his lieutenant nant governor resigned because of her involvement with an online gambling parlor scam over where the proceeds were supposed to go to veans and they were being skimmed off. i really don't think we have an ethics committee because there's never any focus on this. do you know anything about this? guest: well, florida actually did not rank too badly. it ranked 18th in our survey. i don't recall the details of florida's ranking and its components. they have some ethics rules there and an ethics regime, an ethics commission. but your point is certainly relevant. governor scott has been a controversial figure in florida. his previous firm hca was in a lot of trouble. none of that directly touched

governor scott. host: if you want to read up on each state's rankings and how they did in specific categories, you can also do that through the state integrity.org website. question from ohio. guest: i think this has been the whole privatization movement has been controversial for a number of reasons. there's a component of that that has to do with political philosophy. republicans, conservatives generally believe that privatizing government services make them more efficient. democrats have generally resists that in part because of the support of labor unions. i think the results there are mixed. it's not a panacea and there needs to be some scrutiny of

whether the privatization in toteo is a benefit. in ohio, for instance, i'm aware that state economic development functions have essentially been privatized and that has become very controversial and there have been accusations rightly or wrongly that essentially the state's economic development functions were being handed to private corporations who may have an interest in what that government agency does. host: we're talking to the managing editor at the center for public integrity. how did you get into this line of work? guest: i've been a journalist since i got out of school, started at the morning paper at indianapolis, was there for 3-1/2 years. then spent 26 years at u.s. news and world report first as a bureau reporter in detroit, then a bureau chief in denver. then was the criminal justice writer in headquarters here in d.c. for about 11 years.

and followed up by being chief of correspondents. and then spent my last five years as the national affairs editor. spent about a year as is the social policy editor at congressional quarterly and been at the center for public integrityty for a little over five years now. host: when is the next update to the rankings? guest: we are not sure. we are actually seeking funding to try to replicate the whole project because it was very involved. we had to hire freelance reporters in each of the 50 states. we had to put together a methodology. we had to crunch the numbers. we're hoping to do it again. in the meantime, what we've been able to do is keep on one full-time reporter who has taken the initial results and tried to look at ethical issues and dilemmas that have cut lines, problems we

saw in a number of states. we looked at open records laws and the weaknesses in open records laws, for instance. we looked at the problems and the lack of teeth in state ethics commissions. we looked at the so-called revolving door in state legislatures where legislators often move directly into lobbying jobs. things like that. and we've also looked at state economic development functions and who they're actually serving. host: let's go to james waiting in michigan on our line for democrats. caller: good morning indeed. thank you very much. i meant to -- yes. at the outset mentioned campaign finance transparency as well as insurance reform. i want to ask two quick questions. here in michigan, the republican-led legislature and governor snider signed into law an increase in campaign donations as well as a decrease in what many would consider the transparency. we have the no fault insurance here with the calttrosk claims association which has been

accused of transparency in the past. guest: wellors, i'm not an drksdrks well, i'm not an expert on either subject specifically. but what i can say is that michigan has been a bit of a laboratory for different philosophies of how you govern. obviously, michigan is a state that traditionally has had a very strong union movement, a very strong democratic core, governor snider is a republican who has looked to try to privatize some services. michigan also has been very controversial in its regime of of municipal governments that are in bankruptcy or close to bankruptcy. detroit being the prime example. it will generally depend on

your political philosophy as to whether you think it is going well in michigan or not. in one of the things we found is that in states like virginia but also a number of states in the plains and out west, there was a feeling that it will spec laws, rules, and have lots of new statutes on the books related to transparency and accountability, was perhaps less effective than the sort of informal we all know each other here systems. that you find in states with a little more of a libertarian philosophy, states with a little more of a limited government view. so some of those states ranked low in our survey but there was also a lot of disagreement in those states about whether the sorts of systems we were looking at were more effective than more informal if something was wrong we would know it regulatory sort of regimes in those states. my favorite anecdote from our

survey was wyoming ranked low for those sorts of reasons, a limited government state, a libertarian state. our reporter asked the state senator there some questions about this and the state senator said -- somewhat facetiously. do you know why you don't have to use your turn signals? wyoming? because it's nobody's damned business where you're going. so we find a lot of different philosophies around the country that ended up informing on some of the results we got here in our work. >> talk about state ethics commissions. virginia actually does not have a state ethics commission? guest: virginia is one of about ten states that has none whatsoever. host: let's go to bill in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i would like to say something. i just came back from europe d i have a had 30 years in

politics. i call them the scum bag of this earth because they destroy the whole country. finance, campaign finance, you've got to start -- [inaudible] you've got to get rid of the lobbyists number one. they've got to be destroyed, dump them in the garbage. the second part is when you take an oath to the united states of this country to become a politician, to take an oath in the office when you take that oath and you break that oath there's only one solution in my book and i'm 69 years old and i've been with politics for many, many years. next week i'm going to be with one. execution. excute them. you're never going to have no problem no more. host: bill calling in with his suggestions from pennsylvania. the "new york times" last year d a ranking of the number of

guilty o officials, state officials, who have pleaded guilty convicted of public officials. they looked at numbers from 19 98 to 2007. you can see on the chart pennsylvania ranking in the top five with 555 convicted. public officials state fficials from 1998 to 2007 that "new york times" number crunching that happened i believe last year. let's go to bob in pennsylvania on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i was just wondering, when it comes to ethics, is there a group out there, you or maybe someone else torks do ethics in journalism reporting? like, for example, look at the time spent on the bridge for christie versus the time spent on hillary with benghazi. it's not the same.

so is there such a group that does ethics for journalism so they report fairly? because do you agree with me that there's a biased towards the left? guest: no, i would not agree. although certainly this is a controversial figure, a controversial subject. it's argued about endlessly. i'm not sure i would agree there's been any gaps or lack of reporting about benghazi. i think that subject has been pretty well covered. i think there's certainly more to be done. the christie situation has certainly gotten saturation coverage, maybe a little too much. but i think the situation there was -- or the coverage of the situation there was enhanced by a couple factors. one, it occurred in the new york market, which is our nation's biggest media market.

it also as a controversy was sort of fun. it was subject to comedy, sat tire, things like the daily show. and finally, governor christie, rightly or wrongly, has been something of a darling among republicans looking for a candidate who can win in 2016. and so the fact that he is a figure with presidential aspirations i think enhanced the coverage. host: and i should note the "new york times" story that has the number of convicted officials from 98-2007, the hoil, illinois is trying but the most corrupt state is actually -- and then it goes into the different states around the country. that came in 2008 and crunched the numbers. if you want to look it up in the "new york times" archives. let's go to anthony waiting in new york on our line for democrats.

caller: good morning. thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to speak. i would just like to maybe connect some dots for you. and everything i'm saying can be verified if you go to the "new york times" newspaper articles. years 19 98, he 1999, there's been a developer who embezzled over 30-something million dollars from the housing and urban development bank. it was basically a housing scheme to basically funnel money to the republican party through those -- that possibility of home ownership. and there had been a class action lawsuit brought by eliot spitzer as well as a few others who just bayic governmental fraud. i believe he invoked the law against these gentlemen as well as at the time it was the

county executive out on the eastern end of long island. by 9/11 they had stated that the files were lost in the world trade center and so that they threw out the whole case, the $30 million suit was defeated and the judge put it aside. elyt spitzer had brought the case and he was brought down by the same gentleman through tax malfeasance. and then ultimately the gentleman involved was granted a pardon by the president. and then the president quickly revoked the pardon because it brought it back to his administration. host: talking about a federal investigation, we're talking about the state integrity project that's run by the center for public integrity. did you have a question on that? caller: this was a pardon that was granted through the attorney fred fielding who sat on the 9/11 commission. he had been replaced haretyt meyers as the president's

personal secretary. host: do you know about this? guest: i'm not familiar with the case. but i think the caller also touches on a larger point, which is new york is one of the states that has had all sorts of problems with corruption particularly in the state legislature. the state -- there have been any number of state legislators who have gotten in serious trouble in the last few years and this has become a big controversy in albany. right now, governor cuomo is proposing a stiffer ethics regime in new york. but whether the reforms that come about in albany are as tough as some of the reform groups would like remains to be seen. in new york, there's been a particular problem with state legislatures who then have nonprofit groups that they found or they are heavily

involved in, and then because of their position as legislatures they are able to steer public money to those nonprofit groups that then employ a lot of their friends and relatives. that's been a particular problem in the empire state. host: let's stay in new york. diane on our line for republicans. caller: good morning, gentlemen. you touched on my question a couple of times while i was on hold. i was wondering, in your research the states that were graded the highest did the leadership of those states tend to be republican, democrat? what was the political breakdown for the states that really had the highest ethical standards? and i know john just read something about illinois because my other question was going to be where does illinois come in on your chart stwhr? guest: i have to say that the leaders -- the political leadership in the states that ranked high was as you might

expect a mix of republicans and democrats. it may have weighed a little more heavily democratic in part because as i alluded to before, the democratic philosophy is a little more activist in terms of rules, statutes, et cetera. and in a number of states there was a feeling that informal processes worked better. illinois ranked higher than you might think. illinois ranked 11th. and of course to many folks that was a surprise because they've had so many corruption problems in illinois and so many of their recent governors ended up going to prison. but again, this is one reason why we didn't simply do our work by ranking cases. because we found that in some cases states that had problems, had been shamed by those problems and moved very forcefully to increase their

transparency. and the other factor there is that in states that had a lot of corruption cases, we felt that could be evidence that there were systems that were working to ferret out that mall feesance as opposed to some other states who might have said we have not had any corruption cases it may have been because they don't have a strong ethics regime or real investigative capability. host: did it make a difference in your rankings on whether states had one party control versus a split control of the state legislatures? guest: no. not really. we found sort of a hodgepodge there. and then i would add just to throw one other astrisk in there. a high-ranking state was nebraska with a one house une cameral legislature. host: let's go to ted in tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning.

inaudible] how are you all doing? great. i'm down here in tennessee. this corruption thing in our state and federal government is something that we the people have to address. eventually. the states allow and the federal level to dictate to us what's going to go on, then we as the people are lost. it comes back. it's resipcal. it comes back to us as the people of this country. and we the people have to stand up and say, no mass.

we have to say, you know, it doesn't matter if you go to church, it doesn't matter if you go to schools or whatever. when you go back to your house every day and you sit there and go who am i? and what have i done for this society? that is the bottom line. and what are we doing to address that? that's my question. guest: well, i would say in relationship to the question there are a couple of specific cross-currents going on that relate to state government specifically. one of the encouraging trends we found is that there's a ways to go but more and more states are putting more and more of their proceedings and documents on line. which is making it a lot easier for citizens to provide some level of their own oversight in some states the entire budget,

the entire budget proposal is now on line. in some states all or many legislative hearings are now being broadcast around the state by public television. it has become a lot easier should a citizen want to, to become involved and to provide some informal oversight of what's going on in state government. conversely, one of the troubling trends because of the problems that my business, journalism, is experiencing economically, one of the really troubling sort of bedrocks for why we did this project was that state house coverage by newspapers has really been decimated in the last ten years in state after state in state capital after state capital you find that the number of reporters who are working full time to cover state government and the state legislature has been dropping dramatically. host: let's go to ben in

nebraska on our line for republicans. caller: we've got this nonpartisan legislature and we have a senator named ernie chambers from omaha here the most intelligent senator i'ver witnessed in my three quarters of a century. he keeps our legislators -- he points out constantly how worthless our governor is and -- by the way you ought to have ernie chambers on this talk show some day as a guest. he makes a big joke out of the religious how they -- start off with a prayer and he knows that bible a heck of a lot better than any preacher i've ever heard on the thing p. and they want to privatize everything.

in 1962 that cost less than $3 a day to take care of the mentally retarded people. hey have a big farm and it was self-sufficient. and kind of like boys founding in omaha. now it's costing somewhere around $800 a day where it was $300 or $3 a day in 1962. nd we went 30 years we put that karl curtis in there, a republican who voted against every social security raise and people were so stupid to put him in there. but when he retired he got a full salary and retirement benefit. and i can't understand why we -- how you can compare us with i've nia with that --

got a whole lot more questions. i thank you for this wonderful opportunity to ask. host: if you would like to pick up on any of this. guest: i am moderately familiar with what the caller is referring to. chambers is very controversial. for those preparing for the super bowl senator chambers might by the richard sherman of the state legislator in nebraska. the caller referenced something that has been a major scandal which has been the effort to privatize the social services function in nebraska, which i think whether democrat or republican most folks would acknowledge has been a failure. now they're sort of going back to square one to try to redo that. overall, though, i would make the point nebraska was number fifth in our survey, generally a very high level of disclosure

there. a strong ethics regime. une cameral legislature. and engaged citizenry that really keeps a pretty close eye on what's going on in lincoln. host: let's get in one more call from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. i couldn't agree more with one of your earlier callers in rms of people really being responsible. you can't look at corruption at any level of government without examining the integrity of the -- of we the people as the public. we've been allowed to divide ourselves among so many special interests, whether it's management, labor, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation. but there is no commitment to

devoting ourselves to a common interest, which is supporting nd standing up for basic principles. host: i'll give you the last segment. have in this guest: i think this is a good point. i think in relation to what we did, what we found and one of the reasons we undertook the project is that more and more key issues are being decided at the state level and there are some places where the state legislature and state government does get a lot of scrutiny. but there are other places in which the focus is really elsewhere. and with the drop in the number of reporters who are covering state government, it makes it harder to know what's going on there. and sometimes citizens are less inclined to be engaged. that's one of my theories about new york. in new york, most of the population lives in the new york metropolitan area.

a huge city, a world city, a city where folks are interested in a lot of different things. i'm not sure there's been the level of citizen interest in new york about what's going on in albany that there may have been, for instance, in nebraska about what goes on in lincoln. and without some of that scrutiny and citizen involvement may in effect plant seeds for the sorts of corruption we've seen in the new york legislature. host: if you want to follow the center for public integrity on twitter it's at public eye. gordon witkin is the managing editor for the center of public integrity. guest: thanks for having me. host: up next we'll talk about federal regulation of toxic substances in the wake of this month's west virginia chemical spill. and later the debate over whether young criminal aucheders should be subject to life sentences.

we'll be right back.

>> i realize that tax reform and entitlement reform will not be easy. the politics will be hard for both sides. none of us will get 100% of

what we want. but the alternative will cost us jobs. hurt our economy. visit hardship on millions of hard-working americans. so let's set party interests aside and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future. and let's do it without the brinksmanship that stresses consumers and scares off investors. the greatest nation on earth -- the greatest nation on earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next. e can't do it.

>> our preview program starts live at 8:00 with the president at 9:00 followed with the republican response and your reactions. the state of the union tuesday ight live on c-span. host: two weeks after a chemical spill left 300,000 residents of charleston, west virginia without access to water, the debate continues about how states regulate toxins. guests.me are our we'll start with you. the question simply is more regulation needed for toxic

substances? guest: in this particular circumstance, definitely. we need to do more to understand toxic substances. but most importantly, we need to enforce the law that's already there. host: and what is the law that is already there specifically talking about the west virginia case? what wasn't enforced? guest: i think that if the people knew that there was a tank that was in bad shape above a drinking water supply, and had that been on their radar if they had known about that they could have required emergency planning, which basically would have meant building a basin around the tank so that if it leaked the water would not run down the slope into the river. host: angela, this question of more regulation or enforcing the laws on the books, where do you stand? guest: i think we need to

enforce the laws on the books. i agree about making sure that these things are planned and that we have emergency measures in place. under the emergency planning community right to know act they're supposed to be doing that and they didn't do it. so we're not actually enforcing the laws that we have or not implementing them properly. i understand not only the tank but there was a containment system and that failed and so they had no spill plan. that's a big problem. we need to be looking at how we're implementing the laws. host: are we talking about state or federal laws? guest: we're talking about boats. there's a federal law that requires emergency planning and then there are state laws and state programs to implement that. there are also state laws. every state has its own laws as well. so we need to look at. i know they're doing investigation. where they slipped up and why these things weren't checked and maintained properly. host: the control act is a very

big federal law that is in the news not just because of what's happened in west virginia but efforts to update that law for the first time since 1976. i believe. can you tell us a little about that law and what the updates could be or should be in your opinion? guest: that law covers products, not things we've thrown away but things we're still using. and it is designed to make sure that we know enough about toxic chemicals to be able to respond to them accurately. unfortunately, it doesn't require testing. and there is no schedule for no deadlines for e.p.a. and private industry to respond to. so that's what should be updated. we should make sure we know more about chemicals like the one that spilled in west virginia where the governor said not very hopeful to the people there it's your personal

choice whether to drink the water. essentially, abdi kating government's role to protect us. and that's the problem with the toxic substances control act is it doesn't deliver for us and it needs to be strengthened a tremendous amount. host: we're talking about federal regulation and toxic substances. we want to get your comments and questions for our panel experts. the numbers are on the bottom f your screen. as we talk about this spill in west virginia, we actually have a special line for west virginia residents in this segment. we're talking about the toxic substance control act. what would be your recommendations for an update? does it need an update? guest: i think this is very separate from the debate and

that's what barbara boxer pointed out very early on. this is a failure of our planning laws in the sense the governor didn't have good information to communicate. this is a failure of not planning. they knew it was there. it was reported to the state and local governments but they didn't communicate that information properly. so that is a failure. the toxic substances control act addresses new chemicals which they do have to go through a review process in order to get on to the market. it also gives e.p.a. authorities to call for more information on chemicals that are a high risk that e.p.a. prioritizes as thing's that we really need to address and manage better. so it's much broader than what a lot of people think it is. it has a very good risk standard demanding that the regulations are actually protective and that the regulations themselves don't do damage or harm. so it's got a good balance. so i don't think we need to reform that but we do need to look at our emergency planning

better. host: bring up regulations on that debate that's played out in several papers and capitol hill. is more regulations needed or enforcing the regulations on the books? we want to hear your thoughts. but here is john boehner from last week when he was asked this question as well. >> the issue is this, we have enough regulations on the books. what the administration ought to be doing is actually doing their jobs. why wasn't this plant inspected since 1991? i am entirely confident that there are ample regulations already on the books to protect the health and safety of the american people. somebody ought to be held accountable here. what we try to do is look at those regulations that we think are cumbersome, over the top, and are costing our economy jobs. that's where our focus continues to be. host: you heard john boehner's comments. was this a matter of federal officials not doing their job?

guest: let me be clear about this. i really, with all respect, disagree with what our other guest just said. the problem here is that we don't know anything about the toxic effects of this chemical. so it would have been much better if it hadn't landed in the water, if there had been a containment structure so it wouldn't have spilled. but once it was there, people were scurrying around without adequate testing to inform the decisions. and so that's why the governor said i don't know what to do. it's up to your personal choice. if we keep degrading the regulatory system and attacking regulations and attacking the people that enforce them, we're going to be living in a kind of wild west atmosphere where everything is going to be left to our own selves. we'll have to decide if food is safe, decide if drugs are safe,

decide if there are chemicals in our water, does anybody want that? does anybody want to take the cops off the beat and stop having the government protect us from pollution caused by neighbors who are reckless? host: we're coming out of sequestration and cuts made out of that. how did that impact some of these regulatory bodies that may have had a hand or should have had a hand in monitoring this or testing it or knowing more about these chemicals? guest: i am so glad you asked that. the e.p.a.'s budget -- and republicans have been bragging about this -- has been cut by 20%. that puts the agency in constant real dollars at the same rate of funding as it had in the late 70's. it is literally witsering on the vine. and -- withering on the vine. and the big sport inside the beltway is to kick the bureaucrats around the block every time something like this

happens. and i'm waiting for a time when they turn to the camera and say, i don't have enough resources to take care of this for people. because that's the truth. guest: at the end of the day those resources have to come from somewhere. and the reality is the whole federal government is stretched. we've been spending a lot of money we don't have unlimited amount of resource soss we have to prioritize. and that's what it does. e.p.a. can collect information on chemicals that are high priority. this chemical they did have enough information. it's also regulated under the occupational health and safety act under osha. and there are guidelines for managing it and using it. it's an industrial chemical. so it's not used widespread in the environment. when there is a spill we do need to be ready to respond. and i think that the governor should have been able to get enough information together to make a good statement. because he didn't, i think that's more of a failure of

their communication strategy and also being prepared and knowing what was there. they should have known, they should have understood what to do if there was a spill. and that again goes back to the emergency planning side of the equation. host: we're talking about regulation of toxic substances and your thoughts on that subject as we come now about three weeks away from that spill in west virginia. we have a line in this segment of the "washington journal" for folks who are west virginia residents want to go to that line. milton waiting in parkersburg. thanks for joining us on the "washington journal." caller: i would like to know why it is they only have one source to pull water from the place. there's nine counties. northeast charleston was involved in this and only one source. so you're just asking for a decimated with

only one source of water. which is really important to life. thank you. host: is it something you looked at or something that could be mandated that cities of this size need to go for more than one source to pull their water from? guest: i'm not sure. i haven't seen that. it's a good question for the press. but i would say that we have with climate change dwindling water supplies. and unless there was ground water available there, the river really is the only option. the important thing is to make sure that we are very vigilant about safeguarding the -- making sure that those areas of pristine water supplies do not get contaminated. and there are a variety of ways to do that and the most important is to police sources

of pollution that are standing right there. i mean, there were government officials who did visit this place but they were only looking for air pollution. they didn't look at water. and we may need to multitask a little better. host: did you want to respond that as well? guest: i think it's true we need to be concerned about where we're getting our water from but maybe that's all they have is that one place. however, it is important to note on the positive side that they did get the bottled water out quickly. our local officials, maybe -- obviously there were emergency planning problems. but they did many things right. so they did get that other storage, which is bottled water in this case, out to the people which controlled the impact and made it very minimal in terms of public health, fortunately. so there were some positive parts of this that we should also remember. host: separate from the ongoing debate about the control act.

senator joe mavenen, barbara boxer and rock if he willer released the chemical safety and drinking water protection act of 2014 since that spill. what that bill does is require regular state inspections of above ground chemical storage facilities, require industry to develop state-approved emergency response plans meeting minimum guidelines, allow states to recoup costs from emergency response actions, and to the caller's question it would provide more emergency response tools to the drinking water system for folks that manage that. let's go to bob waiting in jacksonville, florida on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i hope you're doing fine. y statement is as far as i know, any nation that slipped

into this country and did that to one of our water supplies, the republicans they call it [inaudible] but at the least, at least attack them and kill them all as many as we could. people like bill kris ol american enterprise and hertyadget foundation would ve that because we would active more and the industrial military complex could start building again and spending money on all those things that they like. host: is there any concern about the protection of u.s. water supplies and other resources? and is there any legislation moving through congress right now dealing with that subject? guest: there are laws on the books that address that very issue of national security. the clean air act has a provision. again, it goes back to requires

mrbling planning. this is somebody that -- mrnl planning. this is something that should have been part of the local plan to know what's there. we do have to be careful on how we communicate where things are so we don't create targets. we do need to be doing the planning. we have laws in place. and we need to be cognizant to international threats. host: we've got a line for west irginia residents. karl, good morning. caller: we just had a similar situation up here in dollier county. there's a drilling and a tank blew up on one of the pads alongside a creek. nobody informed the city of new martinsville -- the city of

middle bri in collier county that there was all of this waste laying inside the bottom along the tributary that they get their water from. and it was days before it was cleaned up. there's no communication here. our state legislature needs to get in gear with all of this chemical and mining and natural gas fracking in the state of west virginia, we need to have some more protection. just common sense protection to keep it safe. host: i'll let you jump in on that. guest: i couldn't agree with you more that you need stronger laws. i would say that i don't think that states need to be left on their own. it's the federal government that can more efficiently figure out how to approach these problems. and again, i would stress that

one of the biggest issues is that nobody knew and still nobody knows what harmful effects this chemical might cause in what amounts. so yes, we should have prevented it from every ever getting out but we need to understand what's out there in our environment and an issue you raised with fracking in the marcela shales, a classic example of how we have pulled back and are afraid to deal with this very widespread practice. e.p.a. has said it's not going to try and set standards. and that's a very unfortunate development. guest: certainly the call for common sense reform makes a lot of sense. we definitely need to be looking at these cases. we need to learn from them. the federal government has the chemical safety board which investigates these things and are supposed to communicate to

the localities what information it learned and to give them guidance and to help them make better decisions and manage their emergency planning better. in regard to this case, i would argue that there was information about this chemical available. in addition to data that was provided to e.p.a. and in addition to the osha directions and their guidance that they provide to workers, there was information. in addition e.p.a. looked at it under other programs, high volume chemical programs, a program called tox 21. this one included. so there is data. and although the information was communicated to the locality by the companies that make the chemical right away because they have that at hand. so the information is there and we know that if you manage exposure where the risk comes in, it is about exposure to this chemical. exposure is very low unless you

have a spill like this. and then you have an emergency management situation and you've got to -- >> host: managing exposure. explain that. guest: it is the dose that makes the poison. if consumers aren't exposed and if workers are using protection, the risk is very low. so the data indicated on this one that it is the low tox isty situation. people have this msds a sheet that outlines all the health impacts. a lot, no data available. that's because the main components of this were the things studied. there were other things including water, and things less than 1% of the mix that didn't collect data on because the risk was so low. you've got to look at the dose and exposure. and the thing that makes up 90% of that was studied. host: we're looking at four methle 1 psych lo hex yain methanol.

what are we seeing here? guest: you're seeing a sheet that's called the material safety data sheet that is available to workers about what will happen, what the potential effects are if they handle this chemical, and what you basically see if this is prepared by a company that makes the product is they have actually no idea if it's carcinogenic, if it has other hazards, even if it's flammable they're not exact clear. host: acute health effects, this is the chemical spilled into the river near charleston. acute health effects no specific information is available in our data base regarding the toxic effects of this material for humans. guest: so if the company is telling you that it doesn't know, then i think we can take them at their word. this is the company that makes the product. the company that owned the tank actually went bankrupt very, very quickly and one of the

founders of the company was the twice convicted felon. so we have some very fly by night people dealing with chemicals that we don'tnight peh chemicals that we do not know anything about. to me, this is a criminal situation, potentially criminal situation, and the u.s. attorney in west virginia, mr. goodwin, is looking into it, which is a very good thing, but if we want to prevent this kind of accident, we need to know more about the , require required better testing and better controls. host: twitter feed -- the availability and protection of clean and safe water and food is being sacrificed by the government on the altar of corporate profits. let's go back to the phone. bob is waiting in lake worth, republican line. good morning. caller: i just want to comment,

my take on the show so far is -- it is election time, so we will have 30 some senators and 400 representatives reelected, let's put it this way, we have a campaign coming up this year. and the whole idea is -- from what i have noticed from the people that you have commented on, boxer and rockefeller and all these people, this is some out inme to put people front, especially democrats, to say that we need more federal control. and i completely disagree. workforce in the federal government has gone from 2 million to 8 billion people, and that is way too much. so if we are looking at some reform, progressive reform

in these times, we need to get our federal government under control and allow the states to do what they do best. we don't need more federal oversight. when you look at your epa, you nation,h of the entire the federal workforce that is epa.yed by the federal you have the army corps of engineers, another environment or agencies. -- have 100 u military uniformed military and the army corps of engineers, and you have 500,000 civilians that are just trying to pick a fight on does exactly these issues, whether it air. lean water or clean- the time right now is to get rid of a lot of the federal regulation and allow the states to use their own health department to do their own checking, and with this kind of a workforce, i don't see that

any of these civilian federal vested epa or the environmental folks could not go out and take a sample of the soil. host: bob, you have one of your guests knotting and one shaking your head. we'll start with angela logomasini. guest: i agree the federal government is too big, we are spending too much money, and this impacts us in a lot of ways. many of our people who are in government but also in our personal budgets. states are stretch really tight. it is hard for people to make intimate, taxes are very high. these have really impacts on people's lives. they water supply -- we have to keep it in perspective. fortunately in this case, the state lanes that we do not know enough. we do know that the exposure is low, and when the exposure is low, the risk is really not

hazardous. if it is hazardous, if you during too much water, it can kill you. you want to look at exposure, but you have to look at the big picture on what we can afford and where we want to put resources. in this case, there were very few illnesses, no fatalities. do we want this to happen? absolutely not, we want to get this under control and we want to manage these things, but we do not need to control the government. host: rena steinzor? isst: i think the caller misinformed. the united states avoided workforce is at the lowest place that has been since the 1970's. 8 million people do not work for the federal government, it is more like 2.7 million. and that is every function, not just epa. epa has shrunk by 20%. theto add what i think federal government needs to do, there is absolutely no reason states toghts -- 50

reinvent the wheel and find out what is going on with this chemical. we keep talking about exposure. we do not know how dangerous exposure is if we don't know whether the chemical is toxic and in what way. we just discussed evidence that we have very little information about this chemical. so the federal government insures that all the citizens of this country are safe and protected at the same level and it does it in a cost-efficient way, and that is why we need it. host: it is time to tell folks about your to ever as asians -- organizations, center for progressive reform. tell us about your group. of 60 we are a group professors from around the country who specialize and help consumer and worker safety and environmental protection. and we have a small staff.

we volunteer our time because we are interested in bringing our academic research into the mainstream. .org is theei, cei website. guest: yes, and we are a free market public-privacy group, free enterprise. i work on chemical issues because i believe that technology is like any other thing that helps us progress and live a better, safer life. get soern is that we caught up and worrying about the negative side whenever look at the positives, and we end up getting rid of valuable things. this chemical is used to make cleaner and more energy-efficient. it has benefits. so policy should be weighing the benefits and the risks. i think it does that. i disagree -- there were tests done on it. onot of our studies focus

that, not only by the companies but by epa. host: caller bob brought up members of congress talking this that share the story from environment energy news. the senate will hold two hearings next month on the west virginia chemical spill, and coming out of the house, nick rahall has asked the house reservation and infrastructure committee to hold a meeting. they're working on scheduling a hearing in the coming weeks, so if you want to hear more on that, and you can watch shows on c-span as well when they happen. and arnold'sean bill, west virginia on our line for independents. you are on with angela logomasini and rena steinzor. caller: good morning, how are y'all today? host: good.

caller: i was watching earlier, and icy word john boehner was -- i see where john boehner was speaking out about regulations. he and david vetter and others made their nations around $600,000 by the owner of a friedman industries, so i thought you might you know, maybe that had something to do with that. i wonder how that plays into the oversight of the chemical plants. forests, i guess the big of see as a bailout. and my main question is how are the masses supposed to be effecting change without hundreds of thousands of dollars? thank you. guest: i agree with the caller that it is becoming increasingly clear that large corporate much ans are very controlling factor in our

politics. and i think that will change as people become more aware that benefitsstructure, the they they get from government are slipping away. vote to reverse that trend. the freedom industries, what is so disconcerting is that it was obviously a fly-by-night operation i was able to rush straight to bankruptcy courts, that was run by people that are unscrupulous, and again i think the only solution to the, as the u.s. attorney in west virginia also believes, is a criminal prosecution because people have to get the message that when they play games with the public health, they get the most serious sanction possible. the u.s.ort what attorney there is doing. , did you. logomasini

want to jump in? guest: i think calling somebody a fly-by-night is a little extreme. i think woody to do an investigation and find out a little more what happened before conclusions.those i understand the concern. the nature of government is not always pretty. sometimes it does -- incentives are not right. they need to be more local, they can talk with their local representatives and their emergency planning officials. i think less government is the answer to fix the problem. " whati want to run you from senator mansion, chemical spill muddies picture in a state where he of regulations, from the "new york times," senator manchin said

host: i want you to comment on senator manchin's statements. guest: these have value, not only for us as consumers, but they also have value for people who work in these industries and who, you know, why do have jobs and be productive. importantrm an service for us that we should appreciate that and not be ready to demonize everybody. we should be looking at what the reality is, life, and the need for these products. host: ms. steinzor? guest: i certainly agree that west virginia produces a lot of value for the nation, but one of the reasons that i think the federal government needs to be very active is because the people that live in west virginia are suffering a disproportionate share of the

burden. just a few years ago, the upper they branch mine run by nasty energy exploded and killed 29 miners. that was the first mine accident in 40 years. that is an example along with coal inact of mining west virginia. that is the backbone of the economy but also can exact a very high unacceptably high cost. for the people that live there. i think it is very important that people get the protection the beachhe cops on so that companies are not able point and almost literally put workers in fatal circumstances when they are cting all these valuable

problems -- product. inst: let's go to pam tennessee. caller: good morning. my question is erected to angela, in this case, if al qaeda was poisoning the water, i am sure congress would be calling for investigation after investigation with the republicans trying to impeach obama for not protecting the citizens, but because this is a private american company, you are just saying oh, we just need to follow the rules that are on the books. i think the laws on the books would require us to investigate, which is what we are doing, and i think there is a big difference between a terrorist attack in an accident. unfortunately, we live in a world where accidents are a reality. they are something that we cannot completely eliminate but we should always try to minimize. hopefully we will learn from this one and we will reduce the probability of this happening in the future. only then can we learn from where we are and try to move

forward, but i do not think a terrorist attack is really the same type of thing. host: in terms of learning from past events, west texas fertilizer plant explosion from 2012, i believe, what did we learn from that in terms of safety and controlling dangerous chemical substances? guest: i think, again, there are emergency planning applications to that too. that is what the chemical safety board is supposed to be doing is looking at these cases and providing advisories to the local officials. apparently we have not fully thered that lesson, but may be more accidents in the future. hopefully we will minimize them, but adding regulations is not going to change that. is really the point. wish we looking at our emergency planning and fixing that. host: ms. steinzor? guest: again, west texas was an incident of a storage facility

that slipped through the cracks. more and more businesses that handle hazardous substances are going to slip through the cracks we are investing in protection and safety less and less at both the state and the federal level. i'll bring up tosca because we do not know anything about this chemical, and that if the statute that would require testing. we not know about this chemical, we do not know enough, we know very little about a lot of other high production volume chemicals . our tasting -- our testing rober them is an embarrassment. we can only hope that in europe we will get some benefits from that testing. i agree about emergency planning, but again, to plan effectively, to make sure that firefighters are not heard, which is what happened in west,

texas. we have to be willing to pay. you get what you pay for when you put police on the streets, you deploying firefighters to a situation like that. host: rena steinzor is with the center for progressive reform, the website is progressivereform.org. withngela logomasini cei.org. we appreciate you coming on the "washington journal." guest: thank you very much. host: up next, we want to look at whether young offender should be sentenced to life sentence. but first, we want to go to alan lowe, director of the george w. bush presidential library. we, thank you for being with us. we want to talk about the presidential library. you honest job have been involved in 12 different presidential libraries. what makes the george w. bush

presidential library and museum different from some of the other ones you have worked at? guest: it is a very special place. eight consequences -- consequential years and our nation for the history. you're right, i have been involved with 23 years. great for many reason, especially its interactivity. just about every gallery, there are interactive consoles. that is one of the biggest, and we get from folks about this interactive exhibit. and of course the stories themselves, the stories about september 11, about the wars in iraq and afghanistan, so many things that we cover in this museum. our archives are very different in that we have a lot of paper records of course but also a massive electronic collection. some 80 terabytes of electronic information. so what you see at the us library the first time of the impact of the computer in the white house. host: we are showing the timelines sequence -- the

timelines sequence of the present celebrity being built. where was opened and how much is a cost? last: we dedicated a april, april 2013, and opened it to the public on may 1. over then, we have had three hundred 40,000 visitors go through the museum galleries. it is a beautiful facility on the smu campus in dallas. easily accessible by the public but also by students and faculty here. it is a great partnership with smu. the building itself has great archives, and for our partners at the george bush foundation and the bush institute. host: lowe is the director of the logomasini it -- is the director of the george w. bush presidential library and easier. we are talking about the museum itself. we want to talk about your job as director. what is the role of the director? are you supposed to be an advocate on behalf of the president himself? are you supposed to be more of a curator of the history? how do you see your job? guest: i am an employee of the

national archives, so my job is to make sure that the museum, archives of all the educational it probabl -- educational and public programs are run correctly. we have museum exhibits, research room, archives, a lot of educational and public programs as well. runse sure this efficiently, effectively, and the congress is our mission. host: kitties out what the history of the presidential libraries, what president started the first one? --st: president resident president roosevelt started it some years ago, i was portion be acting director. he built the first presidential library in hyde park, new york. the system now runs the national archives from herbert hoover

through george w. bush. so it is a very unique resource. the history is indeed a preserved and made available in so many different and interesting ways. host: you talk about a unique history. what are some of the unique pieces that you have on exhibit there at the george w. bush presidential library and museum? guest: we have so much. the archives and artifacts form the foundation of everything we do. in artifacts along come we have 43,000 items. the most iconic item is the bullhorn that president bush used when he first visited the world trade center site after the attack of september 11. we have a full replica of the oval office, by the way, that people can go in, sit behind the desk, sit on the furniture, those kinds of things as well. so really a range of artifacts and other things that really gauge all of our business. host: can you talk what the academic role of the library? how do academics use it? guest: that is a very important

part of what we do, of course. of the staff, about 15 or archivists, and they work everyday to process the records in our collection. just this past week, we became accessible to the freedom of information act, so now we are starting to receive requests to see some of the many records we have, so we work closely with scholars, students, members of the public who want to sue directors of the bush presidency. in partnership with the state of texas, we also house the bush gubernatorial records as well. host: alan lowe of the george w. bush presidential library and museum, thank you for joining us from dallas, texas this morning. guest: good to talk to you. thank you very much. host: we turn now to the topic of juveniles in the criminal justice system and whether young people who commit serious crimes should be subject to license at this. to help do that, we are joined associatesnin, and

law professor at catholic university. maybe the best way to get into the subject is to talk about the case of terrance graham. who is terrance graham, and how did he influence the public debate on the subject? guest: first, thank you for having me, john. i've come to know terrance personally in my research, but let me start with the facts of his legal ace. he was convicted of 16 of participating in an armed robbery, and a florida company face up to life without parole for that sentence. he said that the judge and the case gave him three years probation. he allegedly participated in .nother armed robbery the state never pursued that crime but instead pursued the fact that he had violated the terms of his probation. a different sentencing judge imposed that suspended life without parole sentence, so at the age of 17, terrance graham

was sentenced to die in florida prison. his case alternately percolated up through the florida court and the united states supreme court, and in 2010, the court said under the eighth amendment, life without parole sentences are impermissible for juveniles who commit non-homicide offenses like terrance. host: this was not the only case of the supreme court took up involving life sentences for juveniles. there is a 2012 case as well. decision apply to a relatively small group in the country. terrence is one of what the court at the time estimated to inmates nationwide. ironically, 77 of those inmates were in florida, so clearly what is going on in florida -- but two years later, the court answered the lingering question, which was ok, well, that applied to a small subset, but there is a big group of inmates serving juvenile life without parole

for homicide cases, and that is the 2012 case he refer to. and miller versus alabama, even even the court decided homicide, they cannot be -- juvenile cannot be subject to mandatory life without parole. states cannot mandatorily sentence juveniles to that. host: cara drinin is an associate law professor at catholic university. thehave written about how states have responded to these 2010 and 2012 rolling. what are we seeing? guest: not surprisingly, we are seeing a split. particularly in the wake of the miller decision. that impacted a far larger portion of the persons serving juvenile life without paro le. those inmates are concentrated in five particular states. states, a goodse counterpoints are california, a

state that has said we will treat that decision as asractable he applicable -- retroactively applicable and give all juveniles a second look, if you will, to compare that with a state like pennsylvania, where the supreme court says the militants and will not be retroactively applicable -- says the miller decision will not be retroactively applicable. are seeing very different responses from the state. host: the stats for our viewers stashed way 500 young inmates in the u.s. sentenced to life without parole in prison. most of them are in five states, pennsylvania, louisiana, michigan, california, and florida. the stats coming from some of the work you have been on this subject. if our viewers want to talk about juvenile life without parole, this issue that stems from supreme court cases and playing out in states around the

country, phones are open. democrats can call (202) 585- 3880, republicans (202) 585-3881 , independents, (202) 585-3882. and if you're outside the u.s., it is (202) 585-3883. while folks are diving in, ms. drinin, i want to ask you, about how much leeway states had in terms of how they go about making decisions regarding life without parole. we hear a lot of the term of juveniles being treated as adults in certain cases. out of the rules apply? do the rules apply? guest: juveniles convicted or charged with certain offenses to be treasure to the adult court system. way the state of the with the issue.

in the graham case, for example, there were 39 pieces of legislation affected by that legislation, 39 states permitted juveniles be immediately transferred to adult court and if convicted, sentenced to life without parole. in the wake of the graham and miller decisions, that legislation, at least with respect to nonhomicide offenses, is now on constitutional -- un constitutional. in the wake of the miller case, there's a lot more controversy about what he states can get away with, if you will, because that was i care go -- that was not a categorical rule. host: the other issue a way to explain a little more with sort of the resurrected application of-- retroactive application some of these laws, the 2010 rolling in the 2012. guest: the retroactivity question is a very complex legal one. think about the question being

one of who gets the benefit from these decisions. the 2010 decision, it was very clear. the court make clear that it was a substantive rule, meaning that it was taking off the table an entire sentence for an entire category of offenders. the miller decision has generated a lot of the vader on debatet of -- a lot of around the question of retroactivity. states will have to address the issue squarely. thehe miller case question is -- if in fact, should those 2500 inmates, as i mentioned, do they get a second look of the assessment or a parole hearing, or should only be juveniles who commit homicide offenses after the court's 2012 decision? should they be the only defendant to get to avail themselves of that miller ruling? host: juvenile life without

parole sentences. ray is awaiting a new work, california on our line for democrats. ray, good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering if that's what we know about child development, if any of those actual facts are taken into consideration when these laws are made, and should they be? we know that the male human brain, for example, is not fully developed until sometime in the early 20's, and so i do not really -- you know, trying a will have somelt real implications as far as whether they are able to make decisions, are they able to weigh choices and then the other thing is i want to know -- how

many of that 2500 are latino and black? i will listen off the air. great, so i think two important points that the caller made, the first is the laws that have been overturned by the graham and miller decisions, i don't think took adequate account of the difference between juvenile and adult brain. in the 1980's, criminologists had advanced a super predator theory, and the thought was there were be a wave of criminalized every among juveniles, but that theory has since been debunked, and now there continues to be a developing body of brain science that tells us juvenile brains are in fact quite different from adult brains, the caller is correct to note that science indicates that mid 20's by the time the portion of the brain that controls risk

assessment, impulse control, long-term planning, before that is fully developed. so while i think the laws at to be the laws that need reassessed, while those laws and not take the brain science into account, the supreme court certainly has taken that into as 2005 and as early when it held that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death in this country, and then in 2010 and 2012, the court has taken very seriously and has adopted that brain science and has said children are different in the eyes of the law and are sentencing -- and our sentencing practices they do reflect that. the second point the caller raised was one of racial this wordy. i do not have good numbers -- racial disparity. i do not have good numbers on the latino and black population, subpopulations within that 2500, but across the board, within our incarcerated population, it is black and latino

communities are overrepresented in that population. host: which brings of this question -- is there it is 30 to the sentences pertaining to persons of color? guest: absolutely there is. part of that is a function of access to counsel, part of a many scholarsass, say it is an issue of peer to remission, but that is a concern. host: let's go to david waiting in new york on our line for republicans. david, good morning, we are talking about juveniles and life without parole sentences. caller: good morning, how are you today? host: good. caller: good. i am 55, and when i was growing basically if you get time, it was minimal, you did your time, and the part was, a letter times, if -- a lot of

times come if you did a more serious crime like car theft or anything else, the judge would say do you want jail or do you want to go in the service, which is unheard of today, which they should do. but you look at the justin bieber case the other day. there should be a deterrent for everything. justin bieber gets arrested for racing inng pot, drag a 30 mile an hour zone because he has money in a lamborghini, how can you tell, he smiles in front of us with his mug shot, how does this guy get a $2500 bail, when he is worth millions of dollars, and if you and i did it, the bill would be $50,000? for every action, there is going to be a reaction. you have to educate people that there has to be a deterrent, and i will take my answer off the air. thank you. raises again aer couple of important issues.

one, the justin bieber example i think point out the fact that there is great disparity in our criminal justice system in terms of fairness and outcomes. clearly justin bieber has access to both financial resources and legal counsel that someone like terrance graham or evan miller did not have, and that is clearly the case. over 80% of the people in this country who are prosecuted for a crime are poor and they are not the justin biebers of the world, so those are two very different scenarios. the caller also mentioned the question of the terms, and that brings us back to the brain science which tells us that are not ableain, to process and plan ahead and think through the consequences of their actions in the same way that an adult is able to do. host: we are talking with cara drinin who teaches criminal law, criminal procedure, and a seminar on gender law and policy at the catholic university.

she has been there since 2006. twitter question -- how does u.s. law compare with other countries on this topic? andt: pretty abysmally, that is a source of controversy among the sitting justices on the court, but in terms of our youth of life without patrol, we are an international outlier in that fact. there are 11 countries, 11 nations within the united itions that proclaim to use or have it on the books only to infect actually utilize juvenile life without the pearl, that is the united states -- on the books. act actuallyf utilize juvenile life without parole, and that is the united states and israel. host: let's go to san diego, california come on our line for independents, russ, good morning. caller: this is a great topic.

i was just reading a few days ago, that are not know if these numbers are correct, it is what i write, we have over 20 million people incarcerated in this country right now. it is an all-time high not only for numbers, but for percentage, of our population, so we ask yourself, what has changed, especially here in california, we have privatized our prisons so there is incentive, there's money to be made by putting people in prison. my question to you is -- how much do you think that has an impact on why we see these long sentences to people, throw them in jail and throw away the key is because -- in my opinion, and i did not know if that is yours -- is that people are making money on it. i think we need to go back to where we used to be where prisons were run by our states, by our counties, i know federal prisons are still federal, but they have outsourced this and people are making a ton of money on it. i would like to see what your take is on that. guest: yes, so a lot of

important issues in that call, so thank you for that. the numbers are not as dire as he said, there are about 2 million adults and children incarcerated in this country at this point. it is none the less at an all- time high, and it does mean that on a per capita basis we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, so we still have a massacre thracian problem, -- a mass incarceration problem. i think what has changed are two things. first, dating back to a period when there was a tough on crime --itical rhetoric the year, enacted laws that added more crimes to the books, number one, and extended the length, the sentences that those crimes carry. so you couple those things together, and what you have is a ballooning prison population. was in california,

and california is a great example. now under supreme court order to reduce its prison population because it is facing extreme overcrowding. i can't speak -- i am really an extra on the issue of the privatization question, but i know that there is growing concern about that because obviously there is an incentive to keep those beds occupied if you are a private company tha is t has built a question. host: you can follow us on twitter @cspanwj. -- i'm blowns in away by the inhumanity of the juvenile justice system. ofes -- if there's a pattern violence, i say send them away for a long time, but if it is a one-off thing, do not throw the book at them. and this one by linda -- does a crime committed by a juvenile hurt the victim less, how about victims rights? guest: there is a lot of that, how about victims rights?

i will start with that and the comeback to the repeat offender issue. the victims rights issue, i feel that is something we need to be very sensitive to and this entire dialogue. anytime someone in our community suffers at the hands of a violent crime, that is a tragedy, and obviously an extreme tragedy for the family of victim, the witty to be sensitive of that. two things on account, one in working with nonprofit organizations that are dealing with and is seeking age- appropriate sentences for am learning that there is a great deal of difference of opinion within the that allcommunity, so victims of advocates are seeking retribution, and said some are received being -- some are seeking restorative justice and closure.

in my research to look behind these cases than the legality of the cases, what i am seeing is that most of these juvenile offenders were themselves victimized in one way or another long before they committed a crime and victimized another person. i think that is important to keep in mind. in terms of the repeat offender issue, that is clearly a big concern post up statistically speaking, though, almost half of those who are serving a juvenile life without parole sentence are serving up for a first-time offense, and i find that particularly troubling that we are not necessarily reserving this extreme, the second-most extreme sadness we have in our forinal justice system those who have repeatedly proven themselves to be a threat to society. host: what do you know about the ability for rehabilitation when it comes to young inmates versus old inmates?

guest: as i said, part of that brain science at the court has really embraced in its recent decisions says that because the different,ains are if you will, that kids are different, there are two things -- one is they are less morally culpable because they are still developing, and the second is they are more amenable to rehabilitation, so we do know from a neurological standpoint children are more amenable to rehabilitation. i think the bigger question, the elephant in the living room is will the states put up the money that it will take to afford the kinds of services that will really facilitate rehabilitation? host: let's go to marry waiting in san mateo, california on our line for democrats. good morning, you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i get concerned when there are sweeping changes made. for example, you said the supreme court is embracing brain science in terms of juvenile

offenders. if young people are not morally culpable, then perhaps what we should look at to is raising the voting age. if they are not able to make good decisions, then a -- you know, it seems to me that they should not be able to vote. i would like to hear your comments on that. guest: yeah, i mean, i think that is a fair point. the discussion has tended to flow in the opposite direction where juvenile advocate that said would a minute, in all other facet of our society, whether it is the ability to buy alcohol or tobacco or to vote or to enlist and serve in the armed forces, we draw a hard line at ages such as 18, whereas in some states, prior to these decisions, it was literally permissible for the state to transfer theoretically a six-

year-old to the adults or system and then have that child face a mandatory life without parole sentence. so i think the caller makes an interesting point. traditionally in the discussion it is cut the other way. host: question on twitter -- what specific differences would you propose force and as a between adults and adolescents? guest: a couple of things. first, i think that territory minimums are inappropriate in the juvenile context. most jurisdictions now have mandatory minimums in place, and in fact even those jurisdictions that have amended their legislation in the wake of the miller decision have replaced mandatory life without parole new and in my opinion steep mandatory minimums. i would prefer to not have mandatory minimums attached to juvenile proceedings. so that the juvenile can be treated as an individual and have their youth, their environment, any other relevant

mitigating factors taken into account. and then i think also we need to the mode of of incarceration. if there is going to be incarceration for a juvenile offender, what is that modality? studies indicate that juveniles who are housed in adult prisons are at serious risk for sexual assault and other forms of violence. i think we need to take a multipronged approach to that. host: let's go to marry waiting in cincinnati, ohio on our republican line. good morning. you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: yes. i just need to talk to cara more in depth, and i would like to write to her, and that i have the address for catholic university, please? host: in terms of the web address? i believe it is law.edu.

caller: no, i cannot do computers right now. i have to write to her, and i just need the zip code and address of catholic university where she is that. guest: oh, ok, sure, it is a publicly available address -- 3600 johnnd we are at mccormick road northeast, washington, d.c. 20064. host: did you have a question? caller: what was the zip code? guest: 20064. my question is too long, really. it is very important. stay onl right, mary, the line that we can help you get that address. we go to a call in baltimore,

maryland on our line for independents. bruce, good morning. caller: hello? host: yes, you are on the "washington journal." caller: i get tired of the rhetoric sometimes. i understand that as an adolescents, sometimes you do not have the maturity to recent things through, but sometimes that is used as a copout, particularly what always happens is they always turn it into a racial issue, into a discrimination issue. it is always blacks and hispanics are always given leniency, and is always turned into civil rights and discrimination issue. that is ridiculous will abide not care what your skin color is. when i grew up, my parents were not perfect.

and i will say this -- i made immature decisions to come about by the time i was nine years old, 10 or 11, i understood how awful its of is to do a violent act again weebody, but what happens is sell it this way, i get tired of it. host: let's let cara dump it and respond as we talk about juvenile life without parole sentenc. inst: i would say that even the miller court, where it had that juveniles cannot face a mandatory life without parole sentence, even the court would agree with you that there will be some individuals who made a terribly wrong decision and who are never going to be rehabilitated to the point where they can reenter society. i think the point, though, is that that is not a decision that can be made by the sentencing body, whether it is a jury or a

judge, when a person is 16. and that it needs to be reviewed it isongoing basis, that not example for us to write off a juvenile at 16 and throw away the key. host: we talk about the miller case and the graham case. here is a picture of terrance graham from an article about his case from the "atlantic." some critics say that the supreme court overreached or overstepped these decisions in terms of stepping on the sort of legislative prerogatives of the states. can you talk about that issue? guest: sure. the argument of overreaching is really one of separation of powers and one of federalism. thinkre are those that that this is number one a state issue, the states traditionally have had the rights to define their crimes and to define the appropriate sentencing for their crimes. and the separation of powers question is one that this is a

legislative progress. courts are not a prospectively defining crimes, that that is a legislative function. so that is the argument of overreaching. i think at the end of the day, it comes down to a fundamental disagreement over the method of constitutional interpretation. there are conservatives who say the courts should not be treating the eighth amendment as a tool for modernizing criminal law. in factty of the court is a no, we need to look to evolving standards of decency, and given what we now know about juveniles, we are going to treat them differently from a constitutional perspective. few more comments from twitter -- peg writes in that mandatory sentencing has brought about one strike and you're out. we need more judgment, less one- size-fits-all. in -- are there any

theme of german outsourcer to -- are there any female juveniles who are serving life sentences? guest: there are. there are women in at 2 million i mentioned, but particularly in the homicide arena. host: let's go to jesse waiting in michigan on our line for democrats. good morning. you're on with cara drinin of catholic university's school of law. caller: good morning. give me time to explain myself. the criminal system is a joke. i am 82 years old, and i have a good mind. all my life, i've been pulled over i police for no reason at all. hear me out. i get pulled over because i had

one of those hanging things on my rearview mirror. people be over and i said what is the problem? and he said you have this blocking your rearview mirror. time, a white lady drives by, i says officer, there is a white lady, [inaudible] but anyway, alter my young adult life, i had been pulled over by police for no reason at all. law's,en one of my son-in- he has a license, he says the licenseull his specific -- host: jesse, i'm going to let cara drinin jump in. again, sort of the differences of dealing with different folks, different ethnicities in the justice system.

guest: the caller is referring to the very front of the system, traffic stops the low level you can get in this arena, but certainly there is racial profiling in that area. it is a little bit outside of the juvenile sentencing area, but i will say the supreme court whether or not an officer suggestively pulled someone over because they are a person of color, as long as a officer has probable cause to pull the person over, the core will not second-guess the suggested motivations of that officer. so that does leave a lot of room for the scenarios that the caller was referring to. host: we have been talking about how old is hee, now? born, that he was means today he is 28, almost 28.

host: and how is he dealing with prison these days and what is the status of his case? guest: the status of his case -- he had excellent representation at the supreme court. his lawyer, brian gaudi, has been a really tireless advocate of his, and mr. gaudi represented him at his recent missing hearing in florida where soreceived 25 years, compared to a life without parole sentence, 25 years of a lot better. it is still a pretty steep sentence. as he says, if he can make it out, he will be 38 when he is released. he has got i believe 12 years to serve the balance of that sentence. possibility that terrance could try to challenge the 25 years he received on resentencing. i do not know that he will ask a go forward with that, particularly because of florida other inmates have sought

to recent missing hearings and have received upwards of 70, 90 years on resentencing hearings. so 25 looks pretty good when you consider the alternative. host: mike is waiting in michigan on our line for independents. good morning. you're on with cara drinin. caller: yes, good morning. i believe that a lot of the problem with juveniles is due to the lack of discipline from parents because they are afraid because of our laws to even so the lawthe kids, makes it so you can't do that, so they are going to discipline your kids for you. when i went to school, the principal had a paddle hanging in his office, and my parents said if i ever got the paddle, when i got home, i would get it even worse. i believe that is a lot of the problem with kids being out of hand nowadays. host: ms. drinin. guest: here is what i would say

to that -- i beg to differ will stop in looking at these cases, more often than not, what we are dysfunctional family environments. not necessarily family environments where the parents are failing to appropriately discipline their child and instill the morals that we might like to see in a developing child. terrance is a good example. he grew up in a home with two crack addicted parents. toss on thearly streets so that his home could .e a place where crack was most -- was smoked. lack of discipline as much as lack of running water, access to school. i think the problems that the caller mentions run deeper than the failure to appropriately

discipline. host: let's go to brian and yuri, pennsylvania on our line for independents. erie, pennsylvania. caller: i would like to say that we need to decide what our prisons are for, are they punishing or rebuild station -- or rehabilitation yo? norway has maximum sentences of 21 years 40 crime committed by person of any age. -- for any crime committed by a person of any age. we would do better as a society if we rehabilitate and create productive members of society instead of locking them up. and setting a maximum sentence like that, and about possibly getting rid of all maximum mandatory sentences. thank you. guest: thank you for that question. i agree with the sentiments behind your question. i think that we over

incarcerate. i think the statistics bear that out. closer or not we are even to the states moving to a position of eliminating excessive or for that matter mandatory minimums of any kind, i am not optimistic on that front. i do think that there are states that are slowly coming to recognize that if we want inmates, offenders to have the tools to reenter society successfully that we have to change the mode of incarceration. we cannot afford to warehouse inmates whether they are juveniles or adults. we cannot afford it from an economic standpoint, we cannot afford in terms of human cost. so that is particularly crucial when it comes to juveniles, and again, john asked earlier what i am learning in terms of being in contact with terrance and other inmates who have reached out to me, because of my relationship with him, and a say like florida, an inmate is not

eligible to participate in any kind of rehabilitative services until they are within three years of their release date. so what that means is that someone serving -- certainly serving a life without parole sentence, but even someone serving a two-decade sentence is spending a decade and a half simply sitting in their cell waiting out that time. so i completely agree with the sentiments of the caller, and i think states are slowly starting to recognize that we need to spend more money on the front and rehabilitating so that we do not see recidivism in the backend. host: cara drinin, associate law professor at catholic university, appreciate you joining us on "washington journal" today. guest: thank you for having me. host: that will do it for today's "washington journal." make sure to join us tomorrow at pacific., 4:00 we will be seeking tomorrow with jennifer duffy and nathan gonzales.

will join us to talk about the income inequality and upward mobility. sky will talk about the recent bombings ahead of the russian winter living. have a great day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ >> today on c-span, the annual march for life rally that took place wednesday on the national mall. after that, supreme court oral argument on a case that looks at the free speech rights of antiabortion activists outside of abortion clinics.

later, an event looking at the economic status of women in the u.s. the focus of the latest shriver raise, ongoing to awareness on issues facing women. >> c-span launched its first schoolbus in 1990 three, visiting hundreds of schools and communities nationwide unreasoning -- and raising awareness. 20 years later, the c-span bus continues on the road, on the campaign trail, and visiting book festivals, education conferences and schools. look for us on the road in online at our website www.c- span.org. you can also follow us on twitter. you can join us mornings live on washington journal as we get the road for the big 12 conference tour.