we believe the costs are now coming into the range where there are lots of marketplace opportunities under appropriate regulatory standards. we are pushing solar very hard. i personally am extremely bullish on solar. i believe we will see it grow faster than almost any of the predictions we have had. but it will be part of a system. it is obviously variable in its output. at a minimum, the son is only out on average 12 hours per day. that leads to integration, either through grids, combination with perhaps gas-fired, storage. these are all mechanisms that

will allow solar to play a role at a large scale. >> from solar, we go nuclear. the nrc is reviewing the waste policy. utilities still say they want to keep nuclear on the table as an option. will the doe consider loan guarantee and do this as a kickstart for small modular reactors? >> as i said earlier, we still have a very significant amount of loan authority for advanced vehicles and another program for all of the above. as we go forward, we are developing plans for all of the above. this can include nuclear and small modular reactors in which we currently have two

commitments to advance rather different designs of small modular reactors to first mover status in roughly a decade. >> this is a summary question. given the fact that the market has been making choices, why do we need a federal energy policy? >> good question. let me first give a post script to that last question. in addition to the nuclear power plants, the nuclear waste issue was also mentioned. let me repeat where we are on that. first of all, we continue to think the yucca mountain project is unworkable, and that we need to pursue the recommendations made in the blue-ribbon commission that the president

and secretary put together a few years ago that i happen to serve on. the first important point there is we believe only a consent-based approach will be ultimately successful and we ultimately believe that we need to pursue repositories in parallel with storage facilities, long-term storage facilities, sometimes called interim storage facilities. there, the administration has proposed, and a bipartisan group

in the senate has adanvced the concept, that's what we should be doing is promptly go to a pilot storage facility that and would at least take the spent fuel from the reactors that have been shut down. free up the site and consolidate the fuel. now, back to the current question on national energy policy. what i would say is, take the subject of the quadrennial energy review i mentioned already for the first year. infrastructure ultimately is in the private sector's hands. but we have tremendous public interest and need for this.

so for example, we will be carrying out at the department, as part of this review, all whole set of fuel resiliency studies that are regional in nature. the fuel challenges we have seen are very different in different parts of the country. what that will lead to in terms of policy -- will it require government-sponsored installations? will it require suggestions of legislation? will it require working with states in terms of their regulatory structures to encourage that we're moving coherently towards the kind of energy infrastructure that will move electricity and fuels to people when they need them under normal conditions and when they need them under abnormal conditions? >> thank you. we have two minutes left. i will talk faster. i would like to remind everyone that the next speaker event will be monday, february 24. we will have the republican from california who was chair of the house armed services committee. second, i would like to present the guest speaker today.

i must say, didn't he do well with answering such a wide range of questions? we thank you very much. [applause] i would like to present you with the traditional national press club mug. i do not know what types of energy drinks to use, but i am

sure they can fit in there. i want to go over by 30 seconds to ask a final question. the economist wrote this week about the united states becoming the new -- the world's new petro state and it had a smiling barack obama in an arab head dress, which i do not think we would have dreamed of seeing years ago, but do you agree with the statement that the united states is headed towards being the world new petro state? >> first of all, it depends how we define petro state. i don't want to imply a resource curse, but on the other hand the international energy agency in paris has predicted that the united states will become the world's largest gas producer and oil producer in this decade. we are certainly already the largest combined btu producer in terms of oil and gas. that is very real. we will see some economic implications going forward. >> thank you, so much. thank you all for coming.

this has been a very memorable first luncheon for me. i hope you will come back from anymore starting next monday. we are adjourned. [applause] andwashington journal" terry branstad. then mary kate henry discusses labor union issues. your phone calls and look for your comments by e-mail, twitter, and facebook. that starts at 7:00 a.m. live on c-span. on newsmakers, lorraine miller is our guest. she is the interim president of the naacp. she talks about unemployment and health care, which were topics of discussion with president obama and other civil rights leaders at the white house. that is one of the reasons i

to doe that he was able the order for minimum wage, because the efforts that have , in washington and nine other cities where they are talking about raising the minimum wage, that gave him support. naacp and other organizations are not in lockstep with the president. one of the complaints we have americant the african community is that they don't think president obama put in a focus on the african-american community in his time in office. now that he is in the second see thatyou still th being true. do you see him focusing on america to widely, instead of african-american specifically? i think they are looking much

more strategically. i think the president realizes that the african american community has been a bedrock of support for his administration, and absolute bedrock. at my own church, every sunday we say lord blessed the president. he's looking at a more strategic way of how he can make an impact on the african-american communities, both with inclement, health care, and all of the issues that we are facing everyday. to say that them the white house has not been doing that before? to say thatg that the white house has not been doing that before? >> they have been from a wider lens. now they are narrowing their length and focusing it on strategic aims. i think they can really make a

seeingnce on this grid the message of it, you can see unemployment go down in certain areas. newsmakers inch its entirety tomorrow at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the ringing of the spell announces the opening of thanksgiving day. this may well become the international magna carta of everyone everywhere. it will not be an instant solution to women's problems. i'm trying to find my weight through it and figure out how to teach her to myself and fulfill my responsibilities to my

husband and my daughter and the country. >> they may not imagine looking at the white house from the outside that it is a normal life upstairs. bit try to bring a little of michelle obama into this while at the same time respecting and endowing the tradition that is america. >> watch first lady's influence .nd image you see it today on c-span. host: emily miller, a senior editor for the "washington times" joins us for a discussion on gun ownership and second amendment rights in the u.s.

let's start with what is happening right up the street at the supreme court. we are waiting to see whether the court will take up three sort of high-profile gun rights cases here. what are the cases, what are the about? guest: these are sponsored by the nra, and a look at gun ownership in the 18 to 21 span. mcdonald established once and for all that you have the right to keep and bear arms. every case coming after that now, the lower court has been going different ways on the right to bear arms, what are the limits to bear arms, and so these two cases -- this is specifically about whether 18-year-olds to 21-year-olds can buy handguns from a dealer. there is as odd blip in the law where if you are over 18 but under 21, you can own any gun, you can buy a rifle or shotgun from the dealer, from your friend, from anyone, you can buy

a handgun from your friend, from a private person, but not from a dealer, so it is a strange thing that really needs to be resolved. the other cases 18-year-olds to 21-year-olds in texas, they can get carry permits. there is no other amendment in the constitution that has an age limit or age split for adults, so why do we have it for this? from a broader standpoint, what they are looking at is the carry laws in the u.s. because there are issue states, maryland, new york, california, and they say you can get a carry permit but only if you can prove you have a very important right, if you are about to get killed, you have a large amount of cash. even it is difficult. in other areas, you take this test, paid a fee, these kinds of things. there is an enormous split over the right to bear arms. that is when the court jumps in. and there was a surprising decision out of san francisco,

rule of this case that san diego, which has a system that would have an issue where basically nobody could get a carry permit. you have to have a life threatening to the police involved. the ninth circuit's looked at heller, explain the decision, and says it violates the second amendment, so just last night, the san diego sheriff says he is not going to appeal this decision, he is going to slow walk it as long as possible, but eventually supposedly he will start giving carry permits. that i think will pressure the courts into taking one of these cases because these limits are split on the circuit level. host: several different cases we're talking about here, the supreme court cases you were talking about here, nra v. atf and nra v. mccraw. the supreme court, do they know what the next battle line was going to be in terms of gun rights and gun ownership?

guest: justice scalia was pretty clear in heller saying this is not say, i mean, the biggest decision and there is that you have the individual, the right to bear arms. then he said we have not looked at -- they left it open, these two big issues that have to be decided. what are the limits to what you can carry and bear? all of the assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans that have spread across the country in the last year, that is all going to have to be dealt with by the supreme court at some point. that is a little further down the road. the more reporting one of the

carry right, the very issue, because you are taking the gun outside of the home. and some laws make it virtually impossible to carry guns. in fact, where i live, they just ignore the bear rights completely. the reason they get to the supreme court level is when the circuit courts and appeals courts are split, and we see there is a big case out of maryland last year, woolard v. sheridan, and the fourth circuit overturned a comment that maryland's laws, similar to san diego, nobody can get a carry permit virtually, is illegal. and in illinois in 2012, the circuit court said that illinois' complete ban on carrying concealed guns was unconstitutional. at this point, it does seem at least from different groups and people looking at it, it is getting closer to the time the supreme will have to wait yet on it. host: if you want to talk about these issues with emily miller of the "washington times," the phone lines are open. republicans can call (202) 585-3881, democrats (202)

585-3880, independents (202) 585-3882, and if you are outside the u.s., it is (202) 585-3883. and emily miller, while folks are dialing in, your book, "emily gets her gun, but obama wants to take yours." can you talk about your experience and how you got involved in these issues? guest: it really came from a personal place. most of the things i write in the "washington times," budgets, taxes, although it affects my life, it is not something that is really personal to me. i decided to get a gun after i was a victim of a home invasion. i walked into a house and there was a man robbing it and he had a bunch of buddies at the end of the driveway waiting for him, and it was the first time in my life i was that terrified, and as i was going to bed that night i worried that these guys would come by, it was the first time in my life that if i had just had a gun on the night table, i

would have a chance to defend myself. i am a single woman, i live in washington, and d.c. is unfortunately one of the few places in the country that has increasing crime rates every year. homicides were up last year. even though the heller decision in 2008 said d.c.'s 30-year ban on handguns was unconstitutional, the city put in all these restrictions to make it so difficult to get a legal gun, that for people like me, it is virtually impossible. i got the paperwork from the police station, and it was 17 steps. it took me four months just to get a legal gun. and obviously all the guys doing crime on the streets, they do not go through the process to get a gun, they just go get it in five minutes. it really illuminates to me how gun control laws, while crime in this city is going up, it is not affecting the criminals, it only affects the law-abiding. and then i saw it spread around a country last year, obviously, president obama made this one of his top priorities of his second

term, and former new york city mayor mike bloomberg, the billionaire, has been funding campaigns across the country to get its candidates elected, and that is the reason i wrote this book is because i have seen firsthand that these gun-control laws are not want to do anything to reduce violence. host: emily miller is here to answer your questions, gun rights around the country. let's start with david calling in from iowa on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. hi, emily. guest: hi, david. caller: i have a question about the media coverage. one thing we have seen in the media is they are more than happy to take all of these mass shootings and paraded people in front of the public, the victims of these crimes of mass shootings, but they are also unwilling to show the life that have been saved from people who have been law-abiding citizens who have stopped these from happening.

it bothers me when politicians stand on the tombstones of the fallen in order to press their gun-control cases. guest: i agree with you completely. obviously i am a member of the mainstream media, but i do see how the media uses these very rare mass shootings and exploits them because, you know, it is good for ratings and it sells, and that is what they do. but i think there is an agenda behind it, and president obama repeatedly said incorrectly that mass shootings keep happening and we are more in danger. i think a responsible president would come out if they actually, we are safer now than ever. the facts are that gun murders according to the fbi from 1993 until last year are down 50%. so we are dramatically safer than we ever have been, yet the president and the media, as you mentioned, don't talk about

those things. on mass shootings, 30 years of mass shootings, which the government assigns as for more people killed in a public setting by a stranger, said in fact mass murders had not gone up, they have not gone down, but they have not gone down. unfortunately, it is hard to get them to go down because there are these dangerously mentally ill people. there is not a lot of knowledge ahead of time of them, but they are estimated over the course of these years, it is about 18 people a year. but if you watch tv, you would think there is a mass shooting all the time. it is unnecessary to scare people like that. to be scared to go to the movies, to be scared to go to your children's school. what happened at newtown, what happened in aurora was horrific, people going about their lives at the navy yard, but one day, i

will find out that all of them happened in so-called gun free zones where nobody can shoot back, so all of these places -- recently, other shootings have been stopped by armed guards. host: you mentioned the mayors against illegal guns group already abroad at newtown. host: a recent report that they did look at school shootings dating from december of 2012 to february of this year. they noted that there's been 44 school shootings around the country, resulting in 28 deaths, 37 non-fatal gunshot injuries. they include a map of the different places around the country where those have happened. you mentioned armed guards. what else can be done to stop this? >> these bloomberg studies are very jimmyed and i suggest people read jim lott and he's a statistician and so many of these things are suicide or other kind of violence, as far as outside of the school. they -- when you dig through bloomberg studies to get to the numbers, it they don't take -- host: when you say bloomberg

studies? guest: he's the sole funder for it and it's called mothers against -- moms demand action. it's part of his group as well. he's the sole funder for these things. and he also funds hopkins, a large school on this gun control violence. so when the boss has an agenda, it's hard to look at the study objectively, but the ones in colorado were stopped pretty quickly by an armed guard and you're seeing around the country as time has gone on and people have looked at it and half the

school in this country have already have armed guard outside of them or knew of them, this is a really good -- inside of them, this is a really good deterrent to stop shooting. they're saying to these mentally ill or violence criminals, here's a great place to go. you can this in washington, d.c. they know that the good guys don't have guns on the street. host: is there any evidence to support the notion that good guys with guns is the best way to solve the gun problem? guest: i point to the police chief in detroit this year said that -- i mean, he's been a long-term anti-james craig. he was a chief and he worked in los angeles and maine and he has been a long term anti-carry permits, anti-gun. he came out and said having higher gun ownership leads to less crimes and having more good people having carry permits leads to less crimes. it was a really landmark thing to say considering his background and he said i've done

a 180 shift on this and here's a fact. gun ownership is at the highest rate it's ever been, about half of the families in this country say they own guns, which obviously, those are people who admit to up -- on a gun and i think it's higher than that, actually. there's over 325 million guns in this country and as i mentioned earlier, gun crime is way down and keeps going down. violent crime is the most recent report as shown that violent crime is down. we don't know the exact correlation for why that happens but i believe it's a deterrent. the bad guys are like i don't know. it's not as easy as i thought. host: donna writes in with her experience. i've had a registered gun in illinois since the oinths. 1980's. it's not that hard to

get one. you just can't walk around shooting people. caller: i believe it's not obviously the mass shootings but the accidental shootings and the drive-by shootings and there are single daily incident of shootings that is the larger issue. i also believe that there should be a restriction on the assault type of guns that are prolific and that people need to realize that it's a societal issue that for some reason, you know, it gives people a sense of security if they have a gun. i don't know how many people who have guns actually have training to use the gun but the people who have guns, if there are people coming in and can steal those guns so there will be more in the illegal, you know, areas, where you're indicating that there's a reduction in crime. i think that it's a much larger

issue and it's not just mass shootings that is the issue here. guest: i don't think you should be afraid of accidental shootings or drive-by shootings. gun murders are going down every year. in fact, we're getting safer all the time. as far as the so-called vault western, i don't know if you're familiar with those, those are just rifles that have ergonomic features on them and all the rifles account for 300 in the murders last year.

host: explain what you mean by hearing nomic features in assault weapons. guest: it's a rifle and what it has is and it's defined differently by each state what features qualify as assault. it has one or two features and how it's combined. it's lower caliber than a hunting rifle. most people own it and use it for target shooting and a high percentage of former military and former police, because it's the style of gun that they've become customed to. -- accustomed to.

rifles account for murders. we have about 300 murders a year. it's an unnecessary year issue that we should be debating on the national stage and i go into this in my book, the term was invented in the 1980's by an anti-gun group. and they say this will confuse the public because technically, an assault weapon in the military, an assault weapon is a fully automatic gun and because these new guns are black and made out of polymer, they look like the military guns so they've come to get that sort of fear about them, the people just

who are not experienced with firearms. host: let's go to steven for independents. good morning, steven. caller: hi, there. thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. host: i would like to say, i am not against owning guns. i own a couple myself. however, i do believe that owning a firearm should not be a quick and simple process. it's not because i don't believe in guns, it's just that i just don't believe in people. people themselves as a whole are just too primitive to be owning efficient carrying machines. killing machines. and the fact that, you know, the argument that you're just only a citizen, it is nothing but armed criminals, that -- the reason criminals can obtain guns so easily is because of how easily it is for legal citizens to

obtain guns. guest: when you got your gun, did you buy from it a dealer? caller: i bought it from a private seller. guest: what did you buy? host: it was a handgun. guest: so did you shoot anybody with it? did you -- were you violent with it? were you responsible with it? how did you store it? caller: i stored it in the case in my room. guest: that's the standard. that's why we look around the country and we have the highest gun ownership in the history and yet crime is going down. so, you know, it's this misconception with people that just because a law-abiding person gets a gun, they're going to suddenly turn into a criminal. i mean, i have a gun. i keep it locked when i'm not at home so the criminals can't get it. but i'm not going to suddenly become a violent person. the reason i have a gun and the reason i would think ebb who has a gun owner in this country is to defend themselves against gun violence.

we all try to make the country safer and make ourselves and our families safer. i would say it's not those get a gun and you go to a dealer and you have to pass a federal background check which is n.i.x. if you're a seller and you can't get a gun and the other category are drug users and illegal aliens and domestic abusers and so all the people go to a dealer and they would be stopped from getting a gun. it's not easy but as you mention, the bad guys, the criminals, they're not -- they're going to get a gun however they want to get a gun. most of them get it on the streets or steal them from drug dealers. they all have violent tendencies. host: maverick on twitter asks you what about mail order guns? there was once a ban on buying via the mail but now you can buy guns on all components. guest: online i think he's

talking about. the law is if you buy a handgun -- shotguns you can buy sent directly to you. handguns, although you still have to go through a check, i had a guy who e-mailed me on facebook. he had to transfer. we have one gun dealer. and the dealer had to turn it to charlie sikes and he did my f.b.i. background check with me in the room. there's no evidence whatsoever that buying online has any kind of criminal -- has any kind of criminal activity on it because it's going through a dealer and even though the ones that will private in state, you have to assume the person who is selling it is a responsible person and not someone who use in crimes, the not how they're gotten.

and they do it because the justice department goes into the department afterwards and pulls criminals and says what whether did you get the gun? and then they say it's on the streets, most of them, stolen. they're not bight through legal means. i mean, it wouldn't make sense if you have the intent to commit a crime that you would leave that kind of paper trail. host: we talked about what's happening a the supreme court. i want to talk about congress now. recent stories from the "washington times" anti gun forces shift to small ball effort saying when they have legislations were dashed, they are focused on modest moves and calling for smart guns. the only authorized -- that only authorize users can operate. what are small ball efforts and what do you see happening on capitol hill on this issue? guest: right after new town, president obama within 48 hours was saying we need to have

assault weapons banned, and all these different laws. and he really put most of his first year behind gun control. and it couldn't get through a democratic senate because the majority of the cub does not support more gun control effort. they think what we have is fine or too much in a lot of cases. it's not supported by the country. but they have some successes in the state so now what you're seeing is the pendulum has swung back. we've seen that in the polls that people after newtown because it was such a shocking event that will was more support for gun control and it shifted less than it was before newtown because of the expansion. so now, the anti-gun forces are moving into little bills that can appease their followers. the smart gun -- host: what is a smart gun? guest: it doesn't exist yet. the congressman has this idea that -- and there are companies working on it that there would

be different ways that you would control a gun that would be identified by a user but there's no real -- they have not perfected this at all yet. and i think, you know, there are no demand in the market for it because it remains to be seen if there is and if there is, then people can buy them. people -- the manufacturers, when you sell a gun, it comes with a lock. so people and the manufacturers with their child safe organization or the n.r.a., they teach -- this is for people with children in the house, they teach how to store lock your gun, how to store it safely if you have children in the house. it's hard to believe that any gun owner would feel safe with those kinds of new technology that has not been perfected as a safety mechanism. >>

host: what bullet capacity do you feel a gun should have? guest: most of the cops and law enforcement use .45, .40. i have a .99 mill teeter. host: in terms of how many brets should be in a magazine, should there be a capacity limit? guest: no, it depends on what you need. these high capacity magazines which is spread, you know, new york passed this number seven maximum last year.

and colorado with 5 and d.c. has 10. and the numbers are -- 15 and d.c. has 10. the numbers are made up. they have nothing to do with how much you need defend ourselves. we've seen a large increase in multiple saint attacks and in that case, you moved -- assailant attacks and in that case, you need more. in a hostage situation, if you've never used a gun in a

high stressed situation, i know me, if i have to shoot them because if they're going to kill or rape me, i'm sure my aim is not going to be very good. so i want the max amount that i need. i obviously would stop at a certain point. but there's no reason for the government. and there's no evidence. the center for disease control which is very anti-gun organization, is a government agency did a two-year study and looked at every gun control law in the book in this country. whether the high capacity or the laws, and concluded that it is -- none of these laws reduce crime. and harvard university did the same so even places that are anti-gun control trying to prove that these gun control laws will reduce crime, they don't. they just don't. host: let's go to joe waiting in annapolis, maryland, on the line for republicans. good morning, joe. caller: thank you for raising awareness on the second amendment rights. i live in maryland and work in d.c. work in a nice safe neighborhood but have to drive through some not so nice safe neighborhood to get to work. and a few years ago, i tried to get a permit to carry pepper spray or mace. i went through the miniature version ofs many miller's experience where i got the -- ms. miller's experience where i

got the form. it allowed for non-residence to carry mace or pepper spray in d.c. that's a blatant violation of the constitutional provision about privileging and immunities for citizens. so, suffice it to say, i carry the mace but i guess i'm breaking some regulation but i would like to ask ms. miller if she's familiar with proposed legislation that would require all states to recognize other states carry permit. if the republicans were to permit or to take the right piece of legislation that can be tied to it and a lot of these problems would go away. i'm very interested in that. guest: i feel for you at the mace. i wrote some of this at the "washington times" about where it takes to get mace in the city. it's so ridiculous. you have to get registered and i got my registry forms and unfortunately, forgotten and lost my mace that way. it's very complicated and it's so ridiculous because it only affects the law-abiding. it's a really smart legislation. it just says that if you have a concealed carry permit in one state and you go to another state that recognizes concealed carry permits, you can use it

just like a driver's license. and it helps people because when you're traveling and you are a carry permit, it's really complicated the system. some states recognize these four states and other states like utah has a permit that you can use in other states. it's very complicated. it shouldn't be that complicated but it makes it more likely that good people gets arrested the senator has reintroduced that in the senate. there is a push for it. it has already passed the house. it just has to pass the senate. last year in the big gun control laws, it got one of the highest number of votes in the senate i would like to see that come up again because it would have smooth out that process for people. host: anna in desoto, texas, for democrats.

anna, good morning. caller: good morning, and good morning to you ms. miller. i'm 65. i grew up in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, 1980's and now. my children are in their 40's. where they went to school and back in the day, people were like oh, you allow your kids to go to a school that has a metal detector? i said yes. never had a school. never had a school shooting there because of the metal detector. did i grow up around guns? oh, yeah. and they were for sport, not for sports, for shooting people. the only time that guns were ever used in our family is because of my age doing the ku klux klan area and the guns were kept then for black people just to defend themselves.

now we have in neighborhoods where kids get an 18-year-old, has no business with a gun. an 18-year-old has no business with a permit to carry a gun on a campus of any kind. a lot of the schools now said here in texas, argyle, just passed where there will be teachers who are carrying guns. ok. you have a gun. you're not at the front of the building. the criminal can still get in the building and kill whoever. i don't think president obama is trying to -- and he's president obama. we have to learn to give people respect. president bush and all the others, they were presidents. and we need to have respect for people in the world and in this country. my nephew died in iraq host: i'm going to jump in to get her thoughts on your comments.

guest: i'm not sure what your question is, anna. could you clarify that? host: i think anna hung up. caller: she just wanted to talk. that's fine. host: fred is one of our viewers in massachusetts on our line for independents. fred, good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, congratulations, ms. miller in deciding to be a self-reliant and independently responsible person. caller: thank you. >> guest: thank you. caller: i have three comments. first of all, i come from a state where they don't have a must issue policy where it's a universal test. you take the test and you pass it and they have to issue you. -- your permit. in this state, it -- if you're not, well, you don't. but the worst thing about it is i think it's discriminatory and racist. all of these places that have at the discretion of the police department, the poor people who really need them can't get them.

criminals will get them any way. and so what it does is it leaves the poor people defenseless and even when they do issue permits in some of these places, they make the cost of it so astronomical that no poor person can afford to get it. host: fred, on that same subject, joseph hill writes in on twitter automatic assault weapons are the ones i worry about. folks with money will get these no matter what. emily miller, let you jump in. guest: the automatic guns have been highly regulated by the a.t.f. people are legally allowed to have them. they're so expensive because they haven't been manufactured or imported since 1986 for civilian use. the military has them since 1986 so they're extremely expensive. they are like $20,000 to $30,000.

it's not something to be concerned about. host: and fred, did you have another quick comment before we let you go? caller: yes. when that lady called in and then the gentleman right after about well, they're going to -- people own guns are a drarninge -- danger because that's where the criminals get them from i hate to hear those two people's solution was for rape as a male. guest: i feel much safer having a loaded gun at my home. i don't have any safe on the streets of d.c. because i'm not allowed to have a carry permit. and on your comment about costs it's prohibitive for a lot of people for d.c. i have $435 in d.c. just to own a gun. it was expensive for me.

and these carry permits do come with a high cost. and i think the courts are going to have to resolve what is a reasonable cost to process these applications so it's not discriminatory to the underprivileged. host: let's go to randy on our line for democrats. good morning, randy. caller: good morning. i am all for having a gun to protect yourself and all, but the assault weapons, ain't nobody need an assault weapon to protect themselves. they didn't want to do all these background checks and stuff. let me ask you one question. have you or any of your family members ever been shot or been a victim of gun violence? guest: no. 9,000 people shot a year out of 350 million, it's a very small percentage of people who are actually shot but as i've said from the beginning of a show, i am the victim of a crime.

it could be a lot worse when off bunch of people in the house and the foungeed as far as made sure that that right was never to be infringed and that's why it's the second amendment of the bill of rights. host: on that same topic, your book, a former justice in the u.s. supreme court john paul stevens is out with his book. how and why we should change the constitution. i want to get you to respond one of his amendments that he proposed. stevens believed the authors of the second amendment were concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states as opposed to homeowners' anxiety about violent felons. he thinks the best way is to amend the second amendment.

he would do that by adding five words. a well regulated militia being -- guest: he is way on the fringe. you poll the american people, they don't want to change the constitution. they actually -- over 80% of people support the constitution in its current form. and in the decision which he sat in and was a minority, they made it very clear. they went back to the founding as far as document and established once and for all that there are two separate clauses. that was a concern with the tyrannical government and the other part was an individual right to keep and bear arms and god gave us this individual

right and it shall not be infringed. yeah. well, he can say whatever he wants. host: we started with those cases before the supreme court. when are we going to find outside if they -- find out if they pick up those cases? guest: hopefully, monday we'll find out if they're going to take up those cases. and if not these n.r.a. case, we will see in the next couple of years the supreme court take up a strong second amendment case. host: and that ninth circuit court gun decision, is that one of the ones that you think will eventually make it up? guest: no, the sheriff in san diego said i'm not going to appeal it. i would like to see it even go up further and for the supreme court to weigh in for the whole country. but no. it's going to stop there. the only challenge is if the sheriff doesn't go through with what he says with allowing permits so it would start a whole new case. host: let's go to shaun calling in from pennsylvania on our line for republicans. shaun, good morning.

caller: hello. how are you guys doing today? host: good. you got a minute left with emily miller. caller: why is the government so bent on changing our amendment? and the second one is in the state of. , i would like to know why new york, jersey, maryland and delaware did not honor our concealed license to carry when it is very strict to get? guest: if the supreme court ways ways in on the right to carry arms, then your permit would have to be applicable. i've got a pen. and he is flouting a lot of the separation of powers and other of the amendments and it is a concern. you're seeing in this country a push-back on how the constitution has been sort of diluted in recent years.

host: emily miller is an editor with the "washington times." she is also the author of "emily got her gun but obama wants to take yours." thanks for joining us. >> on the next washington talksl, the iowa governor about his free reason 2014. -- priorities in 2014. we will also discuss labor union issues. and they look at the u.n.'s recent report on north korea. instituteof the u.s. joins us. we will take your phone calls him or your comment by e-mail and twitter. starting live at 7:00 a.m. on sees and. -- c-span.

>> this weekend, american history tv debuts its new series, "real america." it features archival films. we will take you on a vivid journey into america's past. this week, films on washington, d.c. during world war ii and women workers during the military buildup during the 1940's. >> american industry rolled out the materials of war. , the goal clamor became clear. idle ships awaited cargo. the call persisted. it was a call for help. women began to respond. they could do factory work. anything within their strengths that man could do. listen, the wings overhead.

and itsters are singing is the song of women. american women. america," starts this sunday at 4:00 p.m. on c-span three. >> in his weekly radio address, president obama urged congress to raise the minimum wage. congressman tom cotton gives the republican address. he called for changes to the health care law. >> hi everybody. restoring the idea of opportunity for all requires action from all of us. wherever i can act on my own, i will. when i can ask americans for help, i will. in my state of the union address, i asked business leaders to take action to raise their employees' raise it -- wages.

our economy is growing and we have created new jobs, but average wages have barely budge. it is good news earlier this week one of america's largest retailers, the gap, decided to me -- raise wages for employees starting this year. this decision will benefit 65,000 workers. more families will be able to raise their kids and finished theirs bodies, or keep up with their bills. the cap ceo explained their decision simply. he said that it is right for grants and good for our people and beneficial for customers. he is right. wages is notcan just a good deed, it is good business and good for our economy. it helps reduce turnover. it is productivity -- boosts productivity. as a chief executive myself, i took action last week to lift more wages by requiring federal

contractors to pay their employees a fair wage of $10.10 per hour. since i first asked congress to raise the minimum wage, the states have passed laws to raise their minimum wage. more states are working on it as these the. only congress can finish the job. right now there is a bill before congress that would boost america's minimum wage to $10.10 or our. it is easy to remember. that bill would lift wages for more than 16 million americans without requiring a single dollar in new taxes or editing. -- spending. even though a majority of congress people support it, republicans in congress do not want to give it a vote. hard-working americans deserve better. let's tell congress to say yes. past that bill. give america a raise. here in america, no one who works hard should have to live in poverty.

everyone who works hard should have a chance to get a had. thank you and have a great weekend. >> i'm tom cotton. i'm proud to represent the people of arkansas in congress. i am a fixed generation arkansan myself. arkansans are hard-working people. people sometimes they that we have true grit. arkansans, like most americans, have had their grit test it. that there has been a financial crash and a stagnant economy. our current policies are causing this problem. they are irresponsibly adding trillions of dollars to our national debt. it places an immoral burden on our kids and grandkids. the president has policies concentrate too much power in washington. they give control to bureaucrats who want to run your lives.

they had no special favors to the elite. there is no better example of these policies and president obama's namesake legislation. obamacare. it promised to make things better and intruded quality of care. it cuts health care spending. we now know the sad reality of obamacare. lose your insurance, loser dr., lose your job. you can keep your plan if you like it, but that is not true. 5 million americans faced cancellations. tensresident predicts that of millions more will lose their plans. many are losing access to their family doctors and specialists. the nonpartisan congressional budget office predicts that obamacare could cost the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time jobs. obamacare will add trillions in new spending at a time of record debt.

it will mean less money for workers. less growth means less opportunity and more stress for families. the congressional budget office says that we still have 31 million uninsured in 10 years. it is the same number that president obama used to sell the law in the first place. i have met people with stories about how is guided obamacare is. elizabeth from arkansas knows this well. she gets insurance through your employer. but her monthly premiums have risen 85% because of obamacare's new coverage mandate. she is forced to pay for think she does not want or cannot work because washington politicians think that they know what is best for her and her family. not justorse, they're raising her premium cost. she is getting paid less now

that she was in 2011. this is after two races and a promotion. shopping at local businesses because you cannot afford their prices. for countless other people just like her, obamacare is not an amazing success or he. her story shows is that this law is fundamentally on. it is wrong for arkansas. it is wrong for america. too many people across the country are out of work five years later. republicans in congress are committed to stopping the wars caused the president -- worse -- rrors caused by the president choices. we trust you to make the right decisions for you and your family. thank you for listening and have a great weekend. c-span, created by america

plus cable company 35 years ago. >> two big news items this week in the telecom world. comcast bid for time warner cable. the second is the opening -- open internet rule for net neutrality rules that tom wheeler commented on. craig aaron is on "the communicators close vote this week to discuss this. fcc put the kebabs 0-- kibosh on the merger? >> it may try to do so. in the past, when mergers have been proposed,