history of the white house looks back at the 1965 selma to montgomery march. as always we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. congress returning again this week. a live view of the capital. meanwhile, in paris, the city preparing for a unity march. the headline in the l.a. times and the chicago tribune focusing on the tax and perhaps.

we want to start off today with a debate closer to home __ gas prices. congress is considering raising the federal gas tax. the money could be used on bridges and infrastructure. we want to get your thoughts and comments on this issue. you can also join in on the conversation, many already have, on our facebook page. or send us a tweet. good sunday morning to you. front page of the "washington post" focusing on two big stories. first of all, in france, the prime minister saying that the country is at war. next to that, jeb bush and

mitt romney beginning to maneuver on a potential bush romney primary in 2015. i want to share the story with you from cnbc on gas prices. according to the aaa, gas prices have dropped __ putting over $14 billion in the pockets of consumers.

the question of whether or not the congress should increase the tax rate __ it is argued that consumers can take it. speaker the house john boehner sharing his thoughts. >> how we will funded, we will have to work our way through this. host: figure the house painted on increasing the federal gas tax. again, is not been raised in 20 years. let's speak with kathy. caller: the last thing we need is more taxes. host: how do you pay for america's roads and bridges? caller: you look at how the government is spending its money, and you make them accountable to it.

host: thank you for your call. i want to share with you __ this is a picture from the "new york times." paris is getting ready for the demonstration that will be taking place today, shortly after 1:00 pm french time now. according to french authorities, more than 1 million people are expected to gather for those who were killed and injured. in the u. s., debate on whether or not the federal gas tax should be increased. net tupelo __ nancy pelosi weighing in. >> it is the time to raise

taxes when the gas prices so low. our friends from oil states would say, how could you do this to us, and when the prices so high, they say, how can you do this to us, the price of gas is so high. i am glad to see that they may be on one half of that equation __ the decrease in the gas tax is __ decrease in the price of gasoline is a tax break. people are so excited about the travel they could do over the holiday. >> is a trade_off of the marginal increase in the gas tax a decrease in income tax?

>> we are targeting something serious. how do you relate the gas tax to the highway trust fund. that is the relationship. we will have until may for the highway trust fund to be flowing. that is where we need to have __ if there is to be an increase in the gas tax. those are those resources. host: former house speaker nancy pelosi on the question of whether the federal government should raise the gas tax. there has not been an increase since 1983. since 1993, the gas tax would be about $.24 per gallon, and the diesel tax about $.39 per

gallon. the revenue generated by the gas tax is about $34 billion. the hill newspaper also quoting some senate republican leaders. to senators saying they are open to the possibility of the tax, saying now is the time. some major obstacles stand in the way, namely the house of representatives. momentum building for congress to raise the federal gas tax. and when has this to say on our twitter page __ here in texas, the bridges and highways are well maintained by the federal gas tax,, i say no to raising it.

good morning. caller: good morning. i have a better idea than raising the gas tax. congress should go to the federal lottery for everyone. that would cover more than the roads. there are all kinds of states with lotteries. let's have a federal lottery. host: thanks for the call. let's go to arthur from corpus christi, texas. caller: my concern is __ if gas prices go back up, we will be stuck with a super high price. host: thanks for the call. let me go back to the quotes from senator hatch __ it shows the division between senate

house and republicans. there has been a lot of speculation leading up to the 2016 presidential campaign. what will happen to the iowa straw poll __ the iowa gop meeting this weekend and say that the iowa voters vote to continue the ames straw poll. the exact details will be ironed out by a committee. the vote was 16 to nothing. the "new york times" is reporting that even if the ames

straw poll is continued, will the candidates show up to participate. those candidates could be jeb bush and mitt romney. first, let's get back to your calls. should the federal gas tax be raised? steve. caller: i would like to see an accountability of what we have collected previously, and how it has been spent. i'm not opposed to raising taxes for something that you absolutely need to have, but let's make sure we are spending it properly as far as infrastructure. host: susan on the republican line. caller: the segment starts off with a picture of the capital building. it's like __ if congress does not want it to fall on their head, they make sure it is paid

for. if they do not want bridges to be falling, they need to make sure it is paid for. just because we have a little short_term break on the price of gasoline, they want to take that away from us. it is a chance for some of us way down at the bottom of the ladder to get ahead a little bit. nobody is considering inflation on other items __ have you been to the grocery store lately? no one talks about inflation. the prices for everything else has gone up. this price will not last __ the price of gasoline will be going up before you know it. we will be stuck with a permanent tax hike on gasoline.

host: susan, there is no bill currently, it is part of the debate, thank you for your comments. of course, the construction project going on behind us, it will be finished by late 2016, in time for our next present. one caller saying, how much money is generated by the gas tax __ currently it is $50 billion per year. will go next alan. caller: good morning. the lady that taught to time to go, i enjoyed her comment. this is the first real tax cut that we have had. who gave it to us was the greedy oil companies. exxon makes 5 1/2 cents per

gallon. in florida, it is $.54. in california it is $.70. you can go up and look on a chart, it tells you how much tax we pay per state and federal for gas tax. host: in about a dozen states, it gas tax went up on january 1. caller: and when the cost of oil and gasoline goes out, that gas tax will not go down. like your other callers who has called and said, where is that money going? the government has plenty of money, they just do not do a good job of managing our money. they always want more, more, more. thank you.

host: if you want to weigh in on her facebook page, we are asking the question __ should the federal gas tax be raised? here are some of your comments. normand says that you should raise taxes on oil company profits instead. choices no. brenda says, hell no. we will go next to mike. independent line. caller: good day. i'm wondering what happened to all the lottery money that was supposed to be injected into the roads and bridges here in ohio. here, the roads are crumbling all apart. to switch the topic here __

the inspector general for afghan reconstruction says there is no record for the amount of money that was spent in afghanistan, here we are wanting to hike taxes on gasoline. and it is expected to go right back up in 12 to 18 months. maybe we need some oversight and accountability.

caller: i'm thinking this money for infrastructure __ it goes to the big corporations. they do not pay as much taxes as the average citizen. the money goes to the corporations. host: the front page of the "washington post" and the "new york times" on jeb bush and mitt romney. mitt romney making news after weeks and months of speculation saying that he does want to be present, and resuming the possibility of a third run for the white house. this is a picture of mitt romney and jeb bush from 2012.

for jeb bush and mitt romney, a history of ambition.

that story, also from the "new york times", a story about the evolving views of jeb bush and how that could play out in 2016. mike is joining us from california, republican line. caller: good morning. i think what we should do is use the stimulus fund for shovel ready jobs. berti promised us a highway building. nancy pelosi is slobbering over the fact that maybe she could raise the taxes again, that is ridiculous. also what they need to do is stop funding the solar mirrors, because they're not working. it is a multibillion_dollar project, it will not even pump out half of its design power. we spent $35 billion using the

turtles air __ we talk to helicopter pilot here in town, the turtles were dying as soon as they got them on the helicopter. host: jim has this on her twitter page __ the highway fund was just fine until obamacare came along six years ago. the dems have no budget, spending all on the affordable care act. back to the story that jeb bush and mitt romney. on the front page of the "new york times," also the headline of the "washington post."

next is steve, from richmond, virginia. caller: good morning. what i want to say is __ no. why not pass the job bill that president obama went around preaching. that would help the infrastructure. that's all you have to do, just pass that job bill. that would solve everything. host: the cover of cq weekly __ fight club is the cover story. i want to share with you inside cq weekly this chart __ showing

where president obama is compared to his predecessors. on the issue of number of bills signed into law, president obama so far 160, bush, 227, clinton, 222. as far as the toes, present them obama has only had two vetoes. on the issue of executive order, president obama has had 33. bush, 36. ronald reagan, 48. that is from inside cq weekly, it is also available online. next, from florida, republican line.

caller: i do not think congress should raise the gas tax. i think the current low rates will stimulate the economy. once the government gets attacks, they will not give it back. we have no guarantee the gas will not be up by four dollars per gallon by summer. also, people have said before,. it is the management of the money. present them obama has extended the debt $7 trillion. divide that by 50 states, that is a lot of money. like i said, i think it would hurt the economy. host: thanks for the call. earlier on the "washington journal", we had a conversation with him mercy.

there is an article based on the conversation we had with him on the sandy hook anniversary. the story points out that congressman murphy keeps photos of the kids that were affected by day. he is not a gun_control advocate. what he wants to do is fight for health health reform. caller: good morning. i think we have to look at this from a rational point of view. everybody on the facebook page is saying no. i think we need to look at where the restless money is going. now that gas prices are down __

i do not know another gas tax will help us out. host: thinks. let's go next to nancy. caller: hi. i like your show. instead of a gas tax, i think the better way to go would be take away the oil subsidies for the oil companies. they do not need it, they are making billions of dollars every quarter. i think it will only hurt the middle class and the lower income people were struggling with high prices of everything these days. i think the oil companies do not need subsidies. they should have been taken away many many years ago. host: nancy, thanks for the call. the other story that we are talking about __ bush and romney.

once you are saying that bush and romney are oligarchs trying to rule the peasants, neither are for the people. the boston globe talking about the bid for the 2024 olympics. last time the summer games are here in the u. s. was back in 1996 in atlanta. both new york and los angeles have lost previous bids to host the summer games. the front page of the houston chronicle __ rick perry is stepping down. he is calling himself no accidental governor, as he prepares himself for likely 2016 presidential bid. mcdonald beginning to serve his two_year federal sentence __

what will life be like for the federal governor behind bars. he is already appealing that to try and stay out of prison during the appeal process. we are being joined by a caller from tampa, florida. caller: i feel like the infrastructure __ i do not think the gas tax should be raised. i agree with all the previous callers. the infrastructure of the men in this country __ host: thanks for your comment. i want to share with you what the governor of utah said __ we

asked him about raising the federal gas tax. here's a portion from the "washington journal" this past wednesday. [video clip] >> when it comes to funding transportation __ >> i had a transportation summit to look at the long_term aspects of transportation in utah. we found that by 2040, we are the fastest_growing state in america, people are attracted to utah. we have to anticipate for the future. for me, i'm saying, we cannot just look at the next few years or the next election, it is a generational thing. we came up $11 billion short for transportation needs in utah. we have to adjust for the gasoline tax and 17 years.

just to capture inflation, we should raise $.10 per gallon. we are in discussion as to whether it should be a permanent tax __ raise it up to $.34 __ should we have a sales tax __ should we index is for inflation? sshould we have more? hhigher sales tax on other things? how do we address electrical cars and nontraditional fuels? wwe do not tax, but they beat up the roads just as much of anything else. i think there will be an adjustment in fuel tax in the upcoming legislative session. >> how is your legislature responding to your idea? >> they understand, they are practical people. the last thing you want to do is raise the tax.

host: republican governor from utah. just show you some of the debate. we also heard from speaker john weiner saying no, no to the increase in tax. we are asking you to weigh in on this debate which is now front and center in washington, d.c. on her facebook page, a lot of comments. melanie says __ only if it is used for infrastructure repairs. brian agreeing, yes, if they spend it all on infrastructure. jack from iowa, good morning. caller: good morning. my suggestion is that we should not concentrate on whether we should raise taxes on gas. the question should be __ which interstate should we shut down.

if people do not want to pay for interstates, i am against taking money from the general revenues. let's figure out which interstates to shut down. host: things for your call. this headline available on foxnews.com. the gas tax, infrastructure funding put some daylight between gop house, senate leaders. we'll go next to jimmy from texas. caller: good morning. the gas prices look bad __ the gas taxes per gallon. people are buying more gas __ it will go up automatically. the u. s. government and the state government __ the more gallons you buy, the more taxes they get. host: the other issue is cars

are now more fuel_efficient __ another reason the taxes went up in virginia. that tax went up on january 1. "washington post" has a story that perhaps we should ask a question sometime soon on the "washington journal" __ does every present need his own library? president obama plans to announce whether hawaii, new york, or chicago will have his library.

speaking of lyndon b. johnson, at the end of our segment we will talk about the new movie, selma. that is coming up at about 9:15 am eastern time here on the "washington journal." going next to ron on the independent line. caller: good morning. i've heard you reading some articles, and some of the comments by politicians and policymakers that the gas tax is not kept up with inflation. my point is __ i have no problem with the gas tax as long as they make wages match inflation also. we have been stagnant on wage growth for since the 70's. that is my comment.

host: one mom is saying how about tax breaks for people with electric cars, they pay zero gas tax but they use the roads. paris prepares for a demonstration, a unity march. charlie have dough is __ charlie hebdo is back in business. it is working out of a different building. media outlets are donating funds to help them publish. the editor_in_chief recommended that the next addition be normal, no obituaries, and no

tributes. it is expected to print about 1 million copies. randy is joining us from wisconsin. caller: good morning. thanks for my call. in wisconsin, since november, we vowed to keep our gas tax in wisconsin. how many other states have that? plus, the federal government gas tax should not go into the general fund, it should stay in the infrastructure. they are not spending that. i'm sure that congress __ what they spend their money on __

they could cut some places __ maybe cut a bit on what they are doing to other countries. maybe they could cut some programs a bit rather than cutting our infrastructure. right away, when the consumers get a little break, they trying to get. host: again, the current federal gas taxes $.18 per gallon, and for diesel fuels, about $.24 per gallon. the last time it was raised was 1993. the next caller joining us from florida. caller: tax affects everyone of us in america. the cost is double of everything we buy.

we pay taxes on the fuel, taxes on it being delivered, stuff that we buy every day. it's an over and over thing. it is not just the fuel tax that we are having to pay. it is the fuel tax. this country runs on fuel. the road taxes. it causes us to pay double. people had to quit jobs because they cannot make money when fuel was so high. host: one of the things that we've been getting from our callers is whether there is a guarantee that the money raised from gas taxes will be used on roads and infrastructure. with that in any way change

your thinking? caller: i think that they used it for what it was for __ that we would not have to raise the taxes. host: our phone lines are open. if you're just joining us, or listing on c_span radio, the question we our asking is whether the federal government should raise the gas tax. another story that is fueling a lot of conversation over the weekend is a mitt romney_jeb bush run. jeb bush faces another challenge in getting the nomination __ serious opposition from the left.

meanwhile, the editor_in_chief appeared on the weekend with a story that jeb bush will be the gop nominee in 2016. back to your phone calls. what do you think? caller: i think they should look at the oil companies first before they look at a gas tax.

i think the oil companies will suffer a lot less than people when you start raising gas taxes. host: we will go next to calvin from birmingham, alabama. caller: good morning. no, i do not think you should raise the gas tax. when obama got in office, we went to china with all this money __ first of all, the money was supposed to use for the state and local governments for the police, and teachers. then, money would go to infrastructure. obviously the money that he got back then, they do not want to use it for the infrastructure. they're coming at us for more money to replace money they are to god. i really do not understand it.

one viewers saying it will get very ugly with republicans running the congress and senate. coleman is joining us from texas. caller:gas is carbon. the administration is doing a backdoor tax on the carbon side. with the unilateral actions on carbon credits __ war on gasoline, war on diesel. the public does not realize that the cost of fuel will be going up because of actions on gasoline and diesel, and call.

so, we have a carbon tax going on via the administration. they should not raise an upfront gas tax because that just adds to the burden. we are very fortunate that private enterprise has increased production through fracking. it's been able to cut crude oil prices in half. host: thank you. john has this point __ if we can just eliminate oil subsidies, the problem is solved. the hill newspaper commenting on david petraeus. the story first appearing in the "new york times."

the senate armed services committee saying that it is outrageous __ the charges were leaked to the "new york times" __ no american deserves such callous treatment. as way of background, petraeus is said to face charges. he says that the claim is false, the decision now ways with eric holder. joe is joining us. on the gas tax __ should congress raise it? caller: no, i do not think so. all these people are enjoying their money. there being able to go and do things. i think they should realize how

good this is been for the economy. people are spending their money in different places. they have more money to go back to work. i hope they do not raise that tax. i hope things get better. in our economy host: front page of the l.a. times __ again, the situation in france dominating many front pages. from the chicago tribune, france injuring a new phase in the terror fight. valerie is joining us from hawaii. you having gone to bed, right?

what time is it there? caller: i wish you would not be up at this time __ i start watching you and then do not want to go to bed. host: it would be tough for us to do it at 2:00 am. thanks for joining us. by the way, it is on a website and you can stream it anytime. you can watch on your mobile device, tablet. caller: i know. you guys are great. i appreciate c_span so much. i know nancy pelosi said that we do not have __ there's no way we can cut another time or another penny. she said there is absolutely nothing that we can cut. we can not cut spending.

i think they should stop giving money away to illegal aliens. i think that the president and his wife could be a little more frugal in their royalty trips that they take. there's so many ways that spending can be cut. the people, those of us who work really hard, almost half __ so that almost half of the population cannot work. now they want to take money from us when we have a small break. stop taxing the people. host: thank you valerie for staying up. hope you get to sleep soon. bloomberg politics writing about congressman grimm who has

stepped down. the new york prosecutor who did not give an indictment in the garner case says that he wants a nominee. that is from staten island da. one other comment on the issue of the gas tax __ to vote for the gas tax now would be a good food out of office. we will be talking about this, and the gop with steve latourette. later, the legal director on human rights campaign on same_sex marriage around the the country. florida is the latest state to

offer same_sex marriage. but first, from an annapolis, maryland, looking at the future of security, and aircraft carriers. you will hear from a retired commander, and a retired captain as the two debate the future of the nuclear aircraft carriers. [video clip] >> the risk. not long ago, the president of the united states sent 140,000 americans into the desert of iraq. he believed __ and virtually every intelligence agency of every major ally believed __ was an opponent that would use chemical and biological weapons. do not tell me that we will not risk big things.

we will respect things if the payoff is big enough. this discussion of __ he is right. we have become a bit of an anti_navy. i think that is a legitimate outgrowth of the soviet union. we did not have anyone to be pro_for. it became particularly about the fence. there's a lot of talk within the navy in general that we need to get more offensive. for the carrier to get more offensive it isn't air weeding issue. the kerry does not care what it launches and recovers. we need more range out of our air wing, like the vigilantes that we had in the 60's. at the end of the day, fixing

the air wing, that __ aircraft carrier will have more projection. this is something that doctor hendrix did not fix __ see control. at one point, when there were threats to sea control __ when the threat went away, they devalued it. host: the debate that took place at the u. s. naval academy on the future of the u. s. aircraft carriers. both are navy veterans. that event is available on our website, check it out at c_span.org. we welcome former congressman steve latourette.

he is now ceo of the republican main street partnership. i want to begin with this headline from bloomberg politics __ it's as private to them is the new extremism for house republicans. when you see that, what is your reaction? guest: i do not quite understand it. when i look at the election of the speaker this past week, i did not see much time into them. 25 leaders did not vote for john boehner. host: politico is reporting that boehner may let dissenters off the hook. as the speaker put it, we will have a family discussion. guest: he is good at that.

one criticism that his friends and allies had of him was that he was not tough enough. this act that they took this past week __ whatever the reasons __ it is sticking in the eye of the leadership. there are 25 of them __ that still means 212 other republicans did vote for the speaker. and they're angry, and they of the right to be angry. there excuses, and explanations __ i someone say __ i'm just doing what my constituents want. i will tell you __ i said the district in ohio in 18 years, i never had a groundswell of people to tell me you better vote for this person to be speaker of the house.

host: what is motivating this congressman? guest: it is hard to say. there is an echo chamber saying __ you can't have boehner. you have sean hannity talking about all the time on television. the difficulty is __ then what? are we not going to have a speaker? is pelosi going to be the speaker? tthey do not seem to play out and say, we will vote against him, but then what? it was then go home and stand in front of a crowd and say, i voted against john boehner. host: this is another story

from politico __ if they would have put another candidate up against him, could have been different? guest: that could not have been another vote. the rule is you need the majority of those present voting. had more democrats been there, i believe he could have gone to a second ballot. again, you have to ask yourself __ let's say all 25 went behind webster __ 25 instead of 12. do you think on a second ballot to his 25 would grow into 218? it was always going to be 25. that is what i'm talking about.

these contests are supposed to take place in the democratic caucus, or republican conference. anyone who wants to run can run, you get the votes, then you move forward. to have this display on opening day, i thought it was a bit amateur. host: against recently said that republican should stay the names of those who were brave enough to stand up and cast their vote against the status quo of the boehner establishment? guest: that will not happen. there was no bravery about that vote. bravery is doing something to get you thrown out of office. the question needs to be __ there were some reports after saying i got 18,000 tweets, they want me to resign.

the question is not how many tweets you get. the question is __ is your votes of the believe in, and is a good for the country? i do not think they can say the voting against him was good for the country. when i look at the list of 25, i do not see anyone who will be the leader of my party. a congressman of south carolina approach this the right way. i do not think he is so crazy about boehner being speaker, but he approached it with attitude that he will get the vote, he will be the speaker, we have to move forward. i found that to be a refreshing change on his part. if the other 25 people had taken a attitude, the party would be in better shape. host: here is what the speaker had to say about his own ideology. [video clip]

>> during my years here __ it pains me to be described as __ it pains me than most when they described me as established. i am the most antiestablishment speaker that we have had. who believes in allowing more members to participate in the process from both sides of the aisle? me. i'm very comfortable in my own skin. i will do my best to show all of our members __ and the members that voted against me __ then i'm up to the job that i'm given. host: your response? guest: i think that is right. i was elected in 19894.

boehner was a member of the gain that brought forward the bank scandal. he was always considered to be a very conservative member. i think it makes me smile when you have these new folks come in and say, that he is an establishment, a liberal. he is a conservative. in fact, most republicans are conservatives, it is a matter of degrees. the thing that perplexes a lot of us is some of these new members that are voting against the speaker. they think that they are able to the judge jury, and decide who is a good republican, and who is bad. host: our conversation with steve latourette joining us at the table. let me share wwith you one

headline. he is critical with not only the speaker, but also the staff __ guest: that is a common complaint. a lot of the decisions that are made have to be executed by the staff. it is a common complaint that too much is delegated to the staff. how we orders on immigration, we can hand her -- handle at the administration level. i understand what gomera saying, but i do not think it is accurate. host: a lot more headlines in a moment. let's get to your phone calls. our lines are open. a tweet.

kathleen in chicago, how cold is it this morning? caller: how are you doing? please let me say couple of things before you cut me off. if you do not stand up and defend yourself, you are spineless. john boehner could probably be a good speaker, but he listens to the crowds, go against the president, go against the president. every time i hear a republican come on and say with the american people want, you have yet to talk to me. and i am american people. every time the president do something, he's breaking the law, he is lawless. if this man said come he is going outside the constitution, why is it every time this man does something all the other white presidents have done, he is breaking the law. you all redefine what breaking the law is. tell me why, how was he breaking

the law? if he was the way you all did he would have been out of the office years ago. explain that to me please. have a good day. guest: sadly, i do not know what the heck you're talking about. i did not talk about the president or him breaking the law. i admire any president of the united states, including this one. host: i think it was more general toward the republican party. guest: the republican party does not deal with the president that way. there are people within that say the president is breaking the law and exceeding his authority. that is not for me to determine. it is for someone else. that was a negative set of observations and i do not really have much to say about it. host: writing about speaker banner in the weekly standard. they wanted public, and they got it. joining us from rochester, new york, republican line, the morning.

-- good morning. caller: good morning. yes, he says it right. they want trauma. the reason is because they want to split up the republican party so these are the kind of louie gohmert talkshow guys. they work for a big media people. they have losses in the big media that pay them huge paychecks and their job is to split things up so they can make headlines. that is how simple it is. what do you think? guest: these are entertainers. you're not talking about rhodes scholars expressing views on american politics.

these are people who get paid to entertain and sell advertising and that is accurate right. confuse them with folks, i think it is a disservice to the country. there are people who will make money on both sides. i do not want to be overly critical on my party. democrats also love to stir the pot. you probably get stuff in your mailbox. if you send me 5, 10, $15, i will keep john boehner doing -- from doing this bad thing. it is almost an industry. i think that is unfortunate. we did not talk about the government shutdown, but i just want to go back to that. i think if you could shut down the government and actually achieve a goal you want to have, i am not adverse to that. i was here in 1995.

to just shut it down to shut it down, it is like holding your breath and waiting for your parents to pay attention to you. there needs to be a purpose to the action. host: is he stirring the pot or trying to contribute to the debate? guest: sometimes he says stuff that i say, ok, i get that. sadly, someone in the congress for 18 years, i do know something about what is going on. they sometimes say things that just are not true. in terms of, it does not fit within the fact pattern or the way things work, yes i can remember early on being on the floor and a member from arizona said he is on there now i'm talking about the issue.

if we do not immediately gone the floor and give a speech -- i said, when would we do such a thing? he is a radio personality. we have been elected to help run the country. to run because of some radio personality telling us to go one direction or another, i think that is a disservice. host: is rush limbaugh helpful or harmful to the debate? guest: i don't know. it is helpful to politics. i think misinformation when they feed misinformation it to the system, that is certainly harmful. there are a lot of things out there on the internet and talk radio on both sides that are just not true. i can remember the datatype in my neighbor said it is about time you retire. it must be nice. you get your full salary and pension for the rest of your life now. everybody knows you get that

serving long-term. i said, what are you, crazy? you never served a second term. why would you run for reelection if you get your pension? people would be unimpressed with what my pension is after 18 years. that kind of stuff gets out there because these talking heads talk about it and that undermines the system. >> what would you tell sean hannity or rush limbaugh or rachel maddow? >> there is a system in place and i still believe it is the best system in the world. this system is that in the republican congress, john boehner was elected to be the speaker. why can't we find areas of agreement and get those things taken care of? a lot of things can be done. the expression appeared -- why don't we get those things done and then fight about the other stuff, and disagree on those

things that we can honestly disagree on? from chicago, even though i found her comments not helpful she is right that if you start in a position where the other team is that no matter what their view is, no matter what their position is, no matter what they want to do in the morning, that is really not helpful. host: how did somebody who attended the university of michigan win in ohio? guest: every time i get interest -- introduced to the rotary the master of ceremonies always want to put that in there to get a nice, hearty boo from the crowd. host: steven latourette, you decided to step down why? guest: i have a lot of great friends and it is a great honor to serve on the house of representatives, but the -- it became so difficult and there

was desire to not do anything. the gridlock and paralysis, at the end of the day if i could not feel i was being productive and actually helping to move the country forward, then i wanted to do other things with my time. host: our next call is from flint, michigan. debbie, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the show. i love c-span. i wish people in congress would realize, this is the first break the middle-class has had. you have given money to everybody and their brother and taken all this money from us and now we get a little breathing room with gas prices being down and they want to jump on it. i think it is a travesty. guest: that is an interesting point.

i served 14 years on the transportation company. when delight eisenhower developed the system, when you have a car, you pay for gasoline and roads and bridges. the fact of the matter is, i do not necessarily disagree, with your premise, but there's not enough money generated from the gas tax to keep our roads in good repair. but that means is, maybe you are not paying as much at the pump, but your muffler is falling out or your alignment, you have to have paralyzed, or you have to be an accident. we have to put more money in infrastructure. the rule of thumb is for every billion dollars the federal government spends, he creates jobs. all of those are good things.

the debate now, i was in ohio and was telling steve off the air, in ohio last week on i hated dollar 75 per gallon. i did not think i would see that price again. that is why you are having this discussion. you are clearly right. one of the reasons the economy is doing better and people are feeling better is that it is $1.75. whatever it is. what usually happens is then people say we will not raise the gas tax and hope the problem goes away. we have to deal with the infrastructure issue there if there is a way without raising the gas tax, that is fine with me. host: middletown, new jersey, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. the best channel on television. good morning, steve, it is good

to talk to you. host: david, good to hear from you again. far too long. caller: the last call was last month. i would like to say good morning to stephen as well. i want to tell you steven, i lived through the depression. i was 91 years young at the 29th of the month. i can remember when i was 10 years old sitting by candlelight, having dinner with my family. not because it was romantic, but because did not have a job, could not pay the electric though, so they turned off the electricity. for 40 years after world war ii, i've voted in every federal state and most innocent full elections, and i've voted democrat because i lived through

the depression and franklin delano roosevelt took us out of the depression. we had a war, gainful employment, almost everybody in the country. everybody in the country came together as one. to do what was best for the country and to defeat the germans, italians, and the japanese area democrats for 40 years, the democrats, the last 10 years do not allow the republicans to even have an amendment of the house of representatives or for the senate floor. started to become an independent because i do not know what was going on in a country i've voted simply for the person.

i do not vote for the party. unfortunately, the problem is, stephen, -- steven, our representatives run for office. they promised the american people everything they wanted to hear. once they are elected they have priorities. the first, do everything possible to get reelected their the second, do everything possible for the party. the third priority, do everything possible for the special interests. the last priority, do something for the constituents if possible. host: david, thank you for the call. happy birthday later this month. how do you respond? guest: this is a long set of observations but he hits the nail on the head.

one of the problems is that we need statesmen at home to approach a problem in the vote with what will be the best in the country, not what will be the best so i do not lose my next election. members of both parties are guilty of that and i am sure i was guilty of that. that really slows us down. every order is four points. i was think most members because it could be as simple as a key to being reelected and trying to do things for their constituents. and do as many things as they can for constituents. the need to be reelected is something that does i think influence a lot of decisions area -- decisions. host: steven latourette, now the president of? >> voted in the 1990's, by the

chairman and ceo -- the traditional place where the republican party was strong in the country, the mid-atlantic states, new england, ohio pennsylvania, there was a gathering of centrist republicans who were plowed -- proud to be republicans. but did not necessarily move towards some of the more conservative issues. the nice thing in this last election, there are now 66 sitting house members who belong to the partnership, the biggest number ever. again, along the lines of the discussion about electing the speaker, 66 is not enough to elect a majority, but it is enough to say, as we approach the issue and immigration, maybe

because of this. host: next from ohio, democrats line. caller: good morning. the former congressman from ohio's take on the efforts to reach across the aisle and take action on deficit reduction that was not a fraud and a sham. when will congress start showing up in togo's? -- togas? guest: [laughter] there was a place called mosquito creek where i used to camp out a lot. i think he is sincere. a great thing, he is a classmate of mine and we were elected in 1994. he got a reputation of being dr. no because he said no to everything. the senator is an example of,

you can be a very conservative person and say you want to cut spending all over the place, but you also need a dance partner and reach across the aisle and find another person across the aisle who have similar views and then say, ok well, you want this, i want this, and the senator was pretty good at doing that. i think his retirement is a loss to the institution. having seen some of the men and women who serve in the congress and the house, i do not think you want to see them show up in togo's anytime soon. host: i will not go there. republican line. caller: i am talking about boehner's reelection. republicans do not want boehner so we tell our representatives this.

we expect you to not vote for him. so john boehner penalizes them, but we send them there to do it we want, not what the republican party wants. guest: that is 66%. i never study the numbers behind the numbers of that, but most people in the united states, they do not even know what the heck this eager of the house is. i think it is a phony number that 60 percent do not want speaker banner. also, you can ask the american public today almost any question, should we get rid of joe as the dogcatcher and say yes, joe has got to go. i can remember my second reelection, i am giving a passionate speech and the diamondback of the room says, i like what you have to say and i will vote for you. i say, i really appreciate that. they say, i cannot stand the guy

in there now. if that is your view when you live in that district and your expectation that they not vote for the speaker, i do not have a problem with that. the question you have to ask yourself is, ok, so what will happen? are you happy with the protest vote, that they just say ok, i did what you wanted and i did not vote for john boehner, but then what? are we going to operate without anybody being in charge, or will we proceed and this is what it was? i didn't have a problem with a protest vote, but indicate that it means something. have a boat going on cap -- on television when there is a distribution, if you do not follow the team or the play that has been called, there is chaos. one guy got on hannity and said, is like being in russia were communist china. this is happened in russia,

these guys would be hanging upside down with jumper cables attached to sensitive parts of their bodies. it is just not ok. host: we will go to san francisco, president and ceo of the partnership, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing there? i'm curious where the republican party will take the war on drugs. he does states have legalized recreational marijuana. i keep hearing the republican party saying the american people demand this and that. what the american people demand is to end the war on marijuana. we see on the news yesterday, if people die as a direct result from alcohol poisoning. 460,000 americans are dying from tobacco. nobody's dying for marijuana. we see it healing now. we see people without subsidy being healed.

alt. -- autism, healed. we see a plant with all of these wonderful, wonderful remedies to a lot of hours on this is, jeb bush stepping off the medical board, and tom cole burn is a witch doctor. these people do not like science or the truth. they do not like the american people or the way we vote. guest: the issue of marijuana is one of those that will continue to tangle the republican party and both parties. the ballot initiative in washington dc, as you know congress has a responsibility of being the red -- legislator under the constitution and the recent funding bill, they defunded the district to use their own funds to implement what the voters had implicated. my own personal view is that this is a states rights issue

and the state of colorado and the state of washington and the district of columbia think is is a direction they want to go in then they should be able to. host: stewart from virginia independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. years ago, when my daughter got married, i said, let me tell you something. marriage is much like a match set of meals. my great-grandfather is a tobacco farmer. they pulled together. both stubborn, but they work together. now, on commerce, you can be stubborn but if you could get somebody to work with you, they can get something done. recommended reading, i am in the middle of reading john marshall on achieved justice of the united face. if anybody thinks we are in trouble now, to quote tom brady

the patriots quarterback relax. read this book. you will find out congress is working, but we need some match sets of meals. thank you. guest: that is a great analogy and i think i will steal that. you're right. there is nothing wrong with being stubborn or sticking with your guns or sticking with your guns were being principal. at the end of your day, you have to be able to channel that into something positive. we are not going to channel that into moving the country forward. the best way you can, then really, what is the point. that was good advice and i'm sure your daughter's marriage was successful. host: the republican party. john, good morning. caller: jeb bush is like nancy

pelosi. if they would be dangerous. i would not vote for him or chris christie or marco rubio, and i will stay home and john boehner, the speaker of the house, doublecrossed american republicans on the selection amnesty, and he said he was on a meeting, anyone amnesty form, and most of them were for amnesty. they're saying they're not for him the the, but they do not want out of the country. they want to leave here with free benefits of the american people. if they continue to go their way, we will stay home and the how much the illegal aliens love them in the 2006 election. host: form and most of what about mitt romney possibly weighing in for an

election in 2016? -- guest: show bachman -- john boehner has never said that and he is not for amnesty. if you go back to february, laying out not a pathway to citizenship, a senate oh he opposes, but a pathway to status somehow in the united states, that is the kind of thing going back and talk radio and people getting on the air and blabbing, that is the kind of stuff out there. john boehner is not for amnesty jeb bush has a brain. that kind of talk is counterproductive. host: mitt romney, a reporter telling "i want to be president." jeb bush trying to raise $100 million in in the first quarter of this year and mitt romney telling supporters hold on, i want -- i might run into thousand 16. what are your observations? guest: the republican field is

wide open and we have a chance to look at a couple of different people. mitt romney had shots and there was room or sit in the country after this last election. i also think jeb bush has taken positions counter to some of the positions of the republicans have their this could be healthy. it all ties in my opinion to the election for the speaker. if republicans do not figure out how to govern the country now that they have been given control in the house and senate in the next years, you know, we will not win another presidential election in the short term and near-term. we will not be hillary clinton or the other people we are talking about until we establish we are willing to make tough decisions to govern the country.

if you stick your head in the stand -- in the sand and say no, you know, this last election had to do with the president's policies, but it also had to do with, and the stress me crazy about the boehner elections people all over the country knew that if they voted for republicans, mitch mcconnell would automatically be in the senate. they knew john boehner would be the speaker of the house. to throw that away after the fact, does not make any sense to me. it is incumbent upon us to do our job now. host: he called it the new car smell when it comes to present. if you have mitt romney, jeb bush, hillary clinton, then what? guest: is it a new car smell? no. my personal view is i happen to like mrs. clinton and governor bush, but i do wonder in a country as great as ours is lee

maybe could have -- if we maybe could have a president whose last name is not bush or clinton. no disrespect to them. i do not care who the next president is, as long as the next president has the ability to take the country forward and stop the blame game, the business where we have to fight about everything all the time. a lot of problems can be solved if we would sit down and talk to each other. question this is on the phone. good morning, republican line. caller: i watch you guys every day when you work. you have all taken more time than anybody. you are trying to turn back the hand of time. there is a lot of violence in the american streets. you will not do anything about that here you are not doing

anything to help young people who wants to go to college and be something, our future. want to mess with medicare and privatize it. the last thing, you say we do not have money, but the gas tax and everything. tell me how do you send money to different countries to help send people over there when we need help here? guest: your set of observations confuse me because i do care about kids going to college and i voted that way. you do not watch me at work and do not take time off of work. i go to work every day. maybe you were expecting somebody else to be on the air. the fact of the matter is, you know the budget of the united states is a set of priorities

and you have to figure out how much money there is and how much to vent it on their disagreements about where the best laces are twos and that money. my point is, i am not kidding the gas tax against aid to israel or anything else. it is -- there is a need. legislators in congress, which i do not happen to be anymore, to a those those needs to make sure people are being taken care of. but you've lost me. i do not know what you're talking about. host: the cover story of cq weekly, it is called fight club, and the state of the union will be anything but unified. each tests the limits of their authorities. was go to texas, a republican line. good morning. caller: good morning to you all. thank you for taking my call.

i had a couple of comments and questions. i was wondering why congress have money for israel's protective dome, that has not been ok and sent to them, and why do we send over $400 million a year to the palestinians? and about the impeachment and i would like to see republicans get a little bit more back bone and bring the pressure to bear against obama for his overreach on his executive orders. i also wonder why mr. obama withheld his decision in the u.n. council about the lands that were going to be given back to palestinians after the six-day war. host: a lot there. thank you for the call. guest: i will do the best i can. the iron dome, i do not know why the money has released.

the iron dome has really proven to be an effective deterrent from some of these being launched. the issue of money to palestinians is a thorny issue. people go back and forth, back and forth. the country has come down on the side that to withhold funds and then not give humanitarian assistance to the displaced palestinians would actually lead to more violence in the region, than we currently have. that is the explanation behind it i think, but i certainly understand people who say, why are we giving money to has paul and things of that nature. on the executive order i am not quite in a while place as the chicago lady thought i was, but i think there needs to be a check and balance on any president of the united states.

there needs to be a constitutional context. i would like to see more cooperation. i am not a big fan of running around and having press conferences. it is not inappropriate to challenge the president of the united states when he think he has exceeded his authority on immigration or any other issue. a lot of people are concerned about environmental records. ohio, where i am wrong, 85% of electricity is generated by coal. some of the new restrictions on coal fire plants, are really going to have economic positions. in my view, they will be decided by elected officials rather than folks employing clinical appointees. host: final call from pennsylvania. democrats line. the morning. caller: good morning and thank

you for taking my call. i will be brief. i will try to be positive here. i wanted to tell john boehner for the longest time that people around the world have the internet and they can see what you're doing. they see every time there is a budget or a deficit decision or shutting down the government. they are looking for an alternative currency. reserve currency. we are not going to be in the position we have been in for the last 50 years very much longer if they try to shut things down every five minutes. guest: the internet has certainly changed the face of politics and american government. before the government shutdown there was the fiscal cliff business you may remember an john boehner in the basement of

the capitol meeting unveiled a plan b, his executive solution. we had not even left the room and people were tweeting on the internet and everything else. plan b was scuttled before we left the room. a big change from the old days where you wait for a new cycle -- a new cycle and walter cronkite tells us what happened the day before. it certainly has sped up the ability for people to have information. john boehner told the people in the conference that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. he was right. you do have the famous expression that the leader who does not have anybody following him is just a guy out for a walk. an observation to execute the plan done, even though he thought it was dumb. host: people following you on twitter, how do they do so? guest: no idea.

i don't tweet. i think i have a twitter account or a facebook account. it amazes me i go someplace and somebody will say, thanks for wishing me a happy birthday on facebook and i say oh eight. i really don't do that. host: let me ask you a personal question because you have been battling illness. surgery in cleveland, the clinic last august. how are you doing? guest: i am doing ok. i am being seen by physicians there at georgetown. i have another week of treatments, but hopefully everything will be ok. you never know. host: good luck to you. we will take a short break and when we turned back, we will turn to the issue of same-sex marriage. our guest will be joining us from a legal defense fund. later, we will take a look at a movie getting a lot of attention . selma from american university will talk about that demonstration and the relationship between martin luther king and president lyndon

johnson. you're listening to c-span's "washington journal." we will be back in a moment. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> monday night on "the communicators. spectrum issues and the federal agencies to provide on the growing needs for mobile phone and survivors. >> the problem with this technology, let's call it dynamic spectrum action. it includes a whole bunch of things. it includes cognitive, and

another you've heard a lot about that. it includes some new technology just starting to become laboratory available, where we could use satellites to create a model of the world so when somebody transmits they will know whether they will interfere with somebody else here you put all of these things together. i hesitate to tell you how much more efficient you will be. you would be up -- you would laugh me out of the room. but we were talking about not tens or hundreds or thousands, but millions of time improvement. that is not as crazy as it sounds. from that time until now, we are truly at times more efficient than we were in marconi's time. the thought of being one million times more efficient in the next 20 or 30 years is not as crazy

as it sounds. >> monday night at 8:00 eastern on the communicators. washington journal continues. host: our guest is the legal director for the human rights campaign, sarah warbelow. good morning and thank you for being with us. a couple of different fronts, first, what the supreme court did were more important to not do as of last friday focusing on the issue, what basically did the court say for the moment? >> at the moment, it has not said much at all. what the court decided to do was to consider at their conference five cases, four out of the six circuits, michigan ohio, tennessee, and kentucky. one out of louisiana. all of the cases deal with same-sex couples who either want to get a marriage license in their home state or were married in another state and want to be recognized by their home state. the supreme court had a

conference and debated amongst themselves these particular cases and what they might like to hear. they have not let us know which is -- which if any they would like to take. we hope that will happen as early as the morning on monday morning. >> they have weeks to decide, --? question -- guest: that is right. in order for oral arguments and a final decision by june of 2015. host: explain what has been happening in texas, louisiana and mississippi. >> there were three separate cases from those three states. louisiana is one of the few cases in which a district court judge ruled against the right of

same-sex couples to marry. texas and mississippi ruled in favor of same-sex couples. heard arguments on friday and in all three of those cases, we will need to make an assessment and a final decision. host: sharing this map courtesy of washington post. states where it is banned, north dakota, south dakota, nebraska and alabama. 36 states and the district of columbia allow same-sex marriage. florida is the most recent. guest: florida's decision went into effect monday at midnight. the decision initially came back in august of last year. the judge did something a little bit interesting and said, we will wait until 90 days after the final decision in the case is that were pending before the supreme court of virginia and oklahoma and the supreme court decided not to hear those cases and that made monday at night the time at which same-sex couples in florida were able to start marrying. >> we have a phoneline for those who are lgbt.

you can also send us a tweet or join in on the conversation on our facebook page. why have a national ruling on same-sex marriage when it is being handled in so many states at the moment? guest: each of these ruins are federal court rulings. having a final decision by the u.s. supreme court will create consistency for same-sex couples across the country. we are not in an era when able spend their entire lives in one particular state. even if you live your entire life and one stay, you will travel for work and leisure purposes. same-sex couples need to know that wherever they go, their marriages are valid and recognized. host: in the debate for 2016, marco rubio is one of a handful of republicans icky about running in 2016 him a saying he

does not support same-sex marriage. how will this unfold? we know where secretary clinton is in the democratic party, but what about the gop? guest: increasingly, this is becoming a bipartisan issue. voting in favor of marriage for same-sex couples. a dozen republicans in the house and senate have been public in their support for same-sex marriage as well. it may feel partisan at the moment, but we are moving on that point. >> where in the decision do you expect it to be the next attorney general? >> i think it is not likely at this point. maybe a question or two but i do not think it will be the primary focus. this is again becoming a bipartisan issue and it is clear it will be decided by the supreme court. if not this year, then soon after. host: we have a list we can show with openly gay members, and by

our count, they are all democrats there it there is not a republican openly gay member of congress. when you deal with these members, is it any different than heterosexual matters -- members of congress in terms of how they deal with the issue? >> not at all. each of these individuals are thoughtful, less the representatives taking the opportunity to hear from their constituents and think through all the issues. that is what we are seeing with heterosexual counterparts as well. certainly, having openly lgbt members of congress gives an opportunity for other members of congress to see what life is like for lgbt people. we know winter is greater diversity in any governing body, a greater diversity of viewpoints an opportunity to have genuine discussions on the subject matter, but certainly, none of them are key -- engaging in recent -- knee-jerk reactions. >> in terms of where we are and

how we have reached this point, even looking at the president and vice president who made comments about same-sex marriage, has its apprise you how quickly views have evolved and changed in the last two or four years, or did you expect this? guest: it is always hard to say in hindsight is 2020, but we know every time someone needs and interests of someone who is lgbt, it begins to change their opinions. the lgbt population has spread throughout society. almost everybody has a sibling a cousin, a friend, who is lgbt. as you get to know about someone's sexual orientation, it is much easier to change your viewpoint on how the person that you love should be treated within the world. host: is this in your mind the civil rights issue of this generation? guest: i think there are many important civil rights issues going on right now. but it is certainly a critical piece of the subtle -- civil

rights of our time. host: we do have a line set aside for those of you who are lgbt. we will go to chuck on that line from west virginia. good morning. >> good morning and thank you for tackling this issue here at i am in one of those states that marriage equality back in november. it was a complete shock to me, but it was thrilling for all of us in the gay community here in west virginia. a lot of people keep on saying that this should be a states rights issue versus a federal issue and the fact remains that most, as i understand it, most of the legal benefits and protections of marriage are distilled by the federal government. the problem here is that people who have a gay couple that is legally married in iowa, for example, then they decide to

relocate south missouri because of a good job opportunity does the state of missouri have the power to suddenly declare their marriage null and void, and if so, do they lose all those federal benefits, like survivor or -- survivor benefits? guest: the vast majority trail an individual or couple as they move state to state their the couple who got married in iowa and moved to missouri will retain the vast majority of their federal benefits. there are over 1100 of them. there are a couple of critical pieces that right now will not trail. social security and veterans benefits are two very important pieces. but i do not want to understate the value of state marriage recognition. the types of benefits vary from state to state, but new york state, for example, offers over 1800 benefits to legally married

couples, whereas, in congress -- in contrast, hawaii was offering about 400 benefits. arethose are still very real benefits, including right to survivors. host: john is joining us from louisiana. good morning and welcome to the concert -- to the conversation. caller: just an observation, it appears, there is an old adage of follow the money. the idea of the motivation for same-sex marriage is to gain benefits of marriage. let's take the income tax, that is, an individual income taxed. yet single people are being discriminated against because if you are married, you get a better deal. why not change the irs tax code to where it is truly individual, each individual, whether they

are married in a heterosexual marriage or a same-sex marriage, why should get -- why should they get a deal just because they are married. i would like to that particular thing address here thank you. >> same-sex couples are engaging in marriage for the same reasons as opposite tax couples. to make a commitment to make a statement to the public and hold themselves accountable for their relationship. it is the same type of thing opposite sex couples are engaging in. on the other hand, many lgbt people are individuals, not part of couples and may never marry. this past issues and how we treat individuals versus married couples is really separate from a debate on marriage for same-sex couples. host: this is a story from the huffington post on its website to repeal doma, the defense of marriage act.

especially on the republican side, which would need get -- to get this passed. guest: there is growing support for the bill. it is unclear if there's enough in the senate to get it done. it is a continuation of a conversation. certainly, if the supreme court takes up the issue very soon, the need to pass it swiftly will be ameliorated quickly. host: what is the defense of marriage act? guest: it was a piece of legislation passed into law in 1996 and it did two thanks their first, it refused to grant federal benefits to same-sex couples who were legally married . the second piece of it is that it allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. the piece of that with regards to federal benefits has been struck down by the u.s. supreme

court and, effectively, what the supreme court is being asked to weigh in on with the marriage cases from the state it refused is whether or not states have to recognize marriages granted by one of the sisters say. just sister states. host: joining us from georgia independent line, good morning. caller: i just want to ask your guests if it is her opinion that consenting adults should be able to choose their life partner and have it legalized under marriage? if so, doesn't that mean that fathers could marry their 18-year-old and 19-year-old daughters? doesn't that mean that brothers and sisters could marry? if that were passed in federal law, would that not open the door for any adults regardless of their kinship to legalize marriage? thank you. guest: not in the least bit. same-sex marriage is in no way a

slippery slope for other types of recognition. it is a red herring to bring up these issues. there are policy reasons why we have islamist. policy region -- reasons why we have control of the age of the relationship, how closely related to someone you could be in order to marry them, and one clearly does not lead toward the other. host: 70% of americans now live in states that allow same-sex marriage. in six states and the district of columbia. our guest is sarah warbelow, a graduate of michigan university. director of the human rights campaign. a professor at george washington university and george mason law school in the area. rob joins us from california on the line for lgbt ewers. good morning, robin. >> good morning and thank you for appearing on the program. you're doing very well.

i was the original plaintiff that sued for marriage equality in california back in 2004 in the case that was successful rider to proposition eight. guest: caller: congratulations. -- guest: congratulations. caller: problem is, it is just marriage. marriage is a civil right. all we're asking for is not a special right, but just this civil right. of course, it should not be state recognition. it should now be the federal government here and we now have enough dates that recognize marriage for same-sex couples that the government should definitely be taking this case, just like they did in virginia.

it is time now for marriage equality for all couples same-sex couples, across the country. host: are you still with us? i am just curious, tell us your own personal story. caller: i am 73 years old and i have been working on the marriage equality issue since 1974, when two men were married in indiana us -- indianapolis. it is not a new issue. i also perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples in washington. my own story is i was with my wife for 15 years and our union would not give us health insurance when i retired. they said you had to be married. i said, we cannot be married. they said, that is just the way it is very i picked up the phone

and i called an attorney named gloria and she was a friend of mine and she took the case and we were the first case in california. prior to winning the case, after the union changed their policy of when you retired, you can get health benefits and at that point, we could have received benefits up until age 35 and then they were going to cut it off because we were only domestic harness. i am so glad i married. i want a commitment. it has been a 21 year relationship get however, had we not been able to get health insurance, we would have been huge financial hardships. we have been in a loving and committed relationship for

years. host: thank you for your call. we will get a response. guest: i think robin represents so many same-sex couples around the country. in addition to stories like hers, we have couples raising children. raising children is not only about recognition of the couple but the entire family unit. having the children protected by marriage rights of the parents is so critically important. host: this tweet -- any estimate? guest: it is a tricky number two male down. recent studies by the williams institute found that 3.5% of americans currently identify in lesbian, gay and transgender. many people remain closeted and people found that 10% of the american populace had a same-sex

elation at some point. host: joining us from elizabeth city, carolina, democrat line, good morning. www.c-span.org -- caller: good morning. i am a christian. here's my question. i was talking about health care shows and a couple of days friends the other night and we all scratch our head about this. why all players, actors, feel the need to come out publicly when what you do or i do anybody else does, the philosophy in the home should be within their business? guest: i think at some point, we

will come to a juncture in society where people will not feel they need to talk about their sexual orientation. right now, it is so critically important for young people struggling with acceptance around their sexual orientation and gender identity, to hear powerful influential figures who are well-known, share that they also are gay lesbians, bisexual or transgender. it's part of the learning process for americans to see that people -- lgbt people. host: don is joining us from spring, texas, the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have this question. what is the policy objection for

my being able to marry two women that i dearly love and am devoted to and have been for a long time, and i would like to marry both of them for those reasons? i will take my answer off-line. thank you? host: what does the law currently state in texas on your point? . . .

you >> they are going to succeed in court. there is a balancing test that the supreme court and other federal courts use on that issue. the human rights campaign does not advocate at all on whether or not multiple individuals should be able to marry. we see it as a separate issue from same-sex couples having access to marriage host: let's go back to the issue of the supreme court. can you foresee a circumstance in which the court would not get involved in this issue, maybe not necessarily this term but in the years ahead? guest: it's hard to see they would allow such a dramatic separation between the states on an issue, as i mentioned that follows people from state to state. it's a little bit different than, perhaps, the regulation over carbon emissions where if

someone is unhappy, a business is unhappy, they can up and move to another state. they can change their practices. if they have trouble adopting a child. it is possible the supreme court will decide to hold the cases over for a year. it has made that decision in other high-profile cases in the past. they would announce it in the next few weeks and say that they would schedule oral arguments for the following year instead of this year. i really can't see them waiting much beyond june of 2016 to give the decision host: this is moving to so many different circuit courts? guest: that's right. virtually every circuit court has had a decision or oral arguments on this particular issue. there is a case pending before the 11th circuit, and then there

is one circuit beyond that the 8th circuit, that really needs to take up a case on this particular issue. but over and over again, the federal court has proportionately found in favor of same-sex couples to marry. only one has found in opposition. host: tony on democrats line. caller: i am nervous. i am going to say it like this. in my state, they had an election to decide that same-sex marriage are legal. and the people didn't have a word to say about it for a couple of years, and now it passed. i think it's a big mistake. i don't think gay marriage is right. i think can't look at a man kissing a man and a woman

kissing a moment is gross. host: calling it a mistake. guest: i respectfully disagree with the caller. this is about core basic american values, that we extend to people, equal protection of the law. and christian face don't have to recognize same-sex couples in their churches. they don't need to welcome them as parishioners. they do not need to perform marriages for same-sex couples. >> separation of church and state will continue to exist, and preachers will be is able to voice their view pointts moving forward. none of that will change. but that doesn't take away the obligation of the state to treat all couples fairly. host: our topic same-sex couples in the united states. william is joining us from culpepper, virginia. good morning. will better are you with us? i will try one more time i don't

want your vote. so, i am not -- as long as you are gay, i don't want your vote. now, it might be some alones out there like michele bachmann who say you can pray away the gay. i am not gay. i have been married to the same woman for 32 years. it sounds like everybody wants to get into everybody's business, and the things that they are trying to do doesn't even concern them. guest: certainly, i think most politicians are happy to get whatever votes thing. you are right. we know that there are, you know, a handful of individuals in congress and in the state legislatures who really do not want to affiliate with lgbt people in any way, shape or form. but i do think that this are in the minority, the vast minority. host: from saint augustine

florida, vict is on the phone caller: they just recently let people in florida get married, and the courts around here have already said that they are going to stop all court costs because they don't agree with it because it onsdz their christian sensibilities. high question is: if it obdz their christian sensibilities, why do divorced people get to get married in the public offerings anyway? if you took a vow in front of god and witnesses to honor and obey and everything else until death do you part, these people have committed blasphemy, taken the lord's name any vain committed adultery. coveted your neighbor's wife and yet that's okay. guest: many den om nations have opinions about whether it is admissible. i think it's incredibly

disappointing that the courts within florida have made the determination that they would rather perform no marriages than perform marriages for same-sex couples. >> does not alleviate or eliminate their obligation to be providing marriage licenses. it is a different issue from clergy, who are free to pick and choose whom they wish to marry. host: let me ask you about the issue of adoption. what obstacles to same-sex couples face and are they any more than a heterosexual country and are they more than a foreign-born child. guest: many of our adoption laws are tied to marriage. if you would like to jointly adopt, in order to do so many states require that you be married to the person that you are adopting with. this provides challenges for same-sex couples in states where their marriages aren't recognized or they are unable to marry. they cannot then adopt a child

together. or if one of the couple has a child biologically the other parent may face challenges in being able to engage in a second-parent adoption. opposite-sex couples have the freedom to marry. they want to advocate for changes in adoption law if they don't want to marry, but at least have that option and have a clear pathway to adopt a child host: what about a child born in china or guatemala, although we don't have sdomingsz in that country but vietnam or other nations? guest: that's a more complicated issue. marriage equality here in the united states may not solve access to adoption for same-sex couples in foreign countries. adoptions adoptions. those countries consider. china was notable in the news for rejecting couples over a particular age, which is much lower than what we typically

consider here in the united states and people who are overweight. >> what would you say to critics who say a child should be raised by twol a mother and father not two mothers or two fathers? >> the evidence doesn't back that up. there has been a huge body of research following the children of same-sex couples. that the has demonstrated over and over again that the children of same-sex couples do just as well as the children of opposite-sex couples. more importantly, why should any child languish in foster care when there are loving committed families out there just waiting for them? host: our guest, sarah warbelow. alvin on the phone thank you for waiting. good morning. caller: good morning, my fellow peoples. i would like to talk about the issue down here in louisiana. i had a case in 2007, i told the disher of justice, and i went to

jail for seven years, and i got incarcerated on them laws. how can you have a man military minded, in a military area and conquering things about homosexuality and how to rule the country with a military mind and ammunition around here? it would not work. i have been here for 32 years. i am older than my brother, jesus now. this is official. host: okay, alvin thank you for the call. i am not sure if you want to respond. guest: sure. once again, i want to say we should be de-coupling same-sex marriage from mary of the other challenges that people are facing throughout the country. the fact that we are talking about this one issue doesn't eliminate all of the other challenges that are out there, but recognizing marriages for same-sex couples, no way

contributes or changes all of the other issues that are out there. hoecht. host: jim from california. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to be basic on this. i have been in the mental health field for 50 years, and i have followed the homosexual movement during that time. and i just want to state to the public, this is the most dangerous social issue that has come to the american public that they field of psychiatry and psychology are corrupt about 80%, probably, are atheists and supporting and giving these people which i am very sad for. i do not fear the homosexual. but you do have the relillingous term. you do have the relillingous item where the bible calls this

an a bomb 0 /* abomnation. >> it was declassified as a mental illness in the 19 scents. this is a very settled issue within the mental health community and all of the major mental health organizations have advocated in support of marriage for same-sex couples not only for the stability it provides for the adults in the relationship but to their children as well. host: next call is douglas from florida. good morning. caller: good morning. this question is for sarah. actually, it's a statement. i just want to say from a host: we are going to move on to another question. let me ask you for your situation situation. did you ever face discriminating growing up? and how did your issues evolve in this? guest: i am a by sexual woman married to a man. i have not personally had to struggle with many of the issues that my friends and even family members deal with with regard

to access to marriage equality. but, you know, i have been incredibly fortunate. i had parents who were very supportive of me. i told my mom when i was 16 years old and her response was well, that's nice. and moved on. but my experiences are not typical for other young lgbt people across the country. many who find that their families kick them out after they come out, who even if they have supportive families when they try to form long-term relationships are told by their government that they are unvalued and unwelcome. >> that's part of what we are working to change. host: we will go to brenda in ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i would like to say to sarah, go blue. the gentleman from north carolina, to know the people's business. i had lgbt married -- not married, in relations.

we live in ohio. but why is it that -- i mean, why is it that some of our congressmen and stuff don't want push something? it's not like we don't have the same-sex marriage here in ohio. my sister is. my baby sister. i love her dealer. i would never call her retarded or call her any kind of a name for being, i mean, you know, that's why people have a choice. why can't we let people be happy like we are? i have been married to the same man going on 40 years. you know why can't we respect the lgbts and be happy and live their lives and they deserve the income tax. they work for it. they deserve the money. the illegals get everything. why can't we just not let people love people? guest: certainly that's what we are working towards. we know that the american public is very much behind us. every day that passes the poll

numbers come back stronger and stronger in support of same-sex couples marrying because most americans really do want their family members, their friends and their neighbors to be able to live happy, healthy lives and marriage is a part of that for so many people. host: our last call is jonathan from vermont, saint auburn's. you get the last word. good morning, john. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: okay. let's abolish marriage all together and let it be a legal document between two or mother and google search info wars. host: thank you jonathan. guest: there are people who will have advocated for changing our marriage system, but the vast majority of americans don't really want that. marriage is something that people grow up dreaming about from the time they are small children and it's an imports part of the fabric of our lives.

i don't think dissolving marriage across the board is really the way to go. rather, it's embracing lgbt people as part of that special fabric of our society. host: sarah warbelow thank you for stopping by. we appreciate it and remind our audience get more information by logging on to hrc.org. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: we will take a short break. when we come back we will turn our attention to the movie, "selma" and the relationship between martin luther king and president johnson. the movie was released right before christmas. we have to show you the scene live in paris called a unity march where over a million people expected to attend in this demonstration to pay tlib but to those who were killed and injured in the horrific attacks this past week. the french prime minister saying that we are at war with these terrorists, and this is courtesy of france 241. by the way you can watch this coverage. it's streamed on our website at

c-span.org. we are going to take a short break. we will be back in a moment. >> monday night on "the communicate orders" martin cooper investor of the cell phone on spectrum issues and the efforts by federal agencies to provide for the growing needs of mobile phone service providers. [video clip) is called spectrum access. >> includes a whole bunch of things. it includes mobile, but it also includes cosmic radio. i know you have heard a lot about that and it inclues some new technology that's just starting to become laboratory

available, where we can use satellites to actually create a model of the world so that when somebody transmits, they will know whether they are going to interfere with somebody else. you put all of these things together. i hesitate to tell you how much more efficient we are going to be because you would laugh me out of this room. but we are talking not about tens of times improvement or hundreds or thousands but millions of time improvement. and is that not as crazy as it sounds because from the time of marconi until now we are a trillion times more spectrally efficient than we were in marconi's time. so, the thought of being a million times more efficient in the next 20 or 30 years is not as crazy as it sounds. >> monday night at 8 eastern on the communicators on c-span 2.

"wall street journal" washington /* "washington journal continues host: author of "the black history of the white house. he teaches at american university. thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you. >> you have seen the movie a couple times? >> i have. it's magnificent. in many ways as hollywood is art, the acting is fine. music is but for me impossibling the movie makes historic drama. the movie is groundbreaking in terms of how it presents the right. first of all it produces and presents voices of people who actually impacted and actually led that movement. when you think of a movie like "mississippi burning" about the three civilrights leaders killed in mississippi that was basically about the f.b.i. and the struggle in the f.b.i. over how to address that. or you look at lincoln, a great

movie but the voices of african americans are only heard at the beginning and the movie basically focuses on lincoln and his cabinet and the congress. with "selma," for the time in the hollywood were the voices of people on the front lines, who actually are feeling the results of seg gregation and in front. the movies shows the civil rights movement and other black struggles. it was very complicated, very engaged kind of debate and struggle that went on about what direction, what strategy should be used. and with that i think the movie foreshadows or foreground did black women. and that's very unusual in when we look at movies about the black experience coming out of hollywood. so you see coretta scott king not as an appendage to martin

luther king but as someone who speaks in her voice who is dealing with the complications of her family as well as that of the movie. you have amelia who was a leader in "selma," a number of characters who stand out, why it doesn't address all of the issues that women faced in the civil rights movements, you get to see that women played a critical role. diane nash who was a leader of the young, one of the founders of the student coordinating committee, one of the key activists of the period is in the movie in an important way. host: it's not without controveers e including how lyndon johnson is depicted. here is a portion from the newly released film, "selma." [video clip] we need your help, dr. king. it's going to have to wait. it cannot wait. one big issue? i have 101.

>> tell me what it is? >> here is the next great battle. >> selma. >> dr. king. >> i tell you. >> orchestrated this in this state. it is unacceptable that they use their power to keep us voiceless. those that have gone before us say, no more. >> they are going to kill my son. >> proudly. >> we must not. we must stand up. >> march those people into rural,rural alabama, it's going to be open season. >> the trailer from scat"selma,"

professor lusane two follow-up questions. first all, why selma? guest: selma is important because it is an effort for voting rights. it wasn't just in one particular place, but in city after city and state after state, there had been efforts to push the voting rights. the student non-violent coordinating committee, the young wing of the civil rights movement had went to selma and had been there for quite awhile. and so there was already an effort there to move the agenda around voting rights. and some had experienced activists, people who were in many different ways capable of mobilizing and capable of getting people out in the streets. so when so it'sie he willsy wanted to help accelerate that, selma stuck out. also, as we get into it, corette corettea scott king had a

relationship. she was from a nearby town marion she knew people there in selma. so selma was ripe in many ways. and they had a police chief who, like bill conner in birmingham was brutal and would be potentially someone who would accelerate the images of the brutality of segregation. so for a number of different reasons, king and sclc leadership decided they would join the activists and local activists in selma in sighting the battle around voting rights. host: david kaiser one of the people writing about the film why should he care that selma gets lbj yong and a senior advisor, hhs secretary in the carter administration spoke at the lbj library in austin, texas and quotes from the phone conversations between martin

luther king and president johnson. let's watch. >> [video clip. /*] ]]. >> i think he admired king. they were both quite good at politics. you said to mention sell"selma" in january of '65 -- '64, rather, in a phone conversation one of these wonderful taped phone conversations between king and the president johnson, johnson starts talking about -- '65. i'm sorry. about the voting rights act and king reminds him the five southern states he didn't carry had the lowest voting record. johnson says to king -- now if you can find a worse condition, this is january 15th, the worst condition you run in to in alabama, mississippi, louisiana,

south carolina where people were denied the write to vote, to cast a vote. if you just take that one illustration, get it on the radio, get it on television. get it in the pulpits. get it in the meeting. every place you can. then pretty soon the fellow who didn't do anything but drive a tractor would say well, that's not right. >> that's not fair. >> will help us for what we are going to shove through in the end. and king says, that's right. and if we do that, johnson said, we will break through. it will be the greatest breakthrough of anything, the voting rights act. not en accepting the '64 act. i think the greatest achievement of my administration the greatest achievement in foreign policy, was the passage of the 1964 civil rights act, but i think this will be bigger because it will do things that even the '64 act couldn't do.

incredible. a partnership between these two guys that, i mean, was wonderful and, you know, idealistic but very practical. host: the comments of joe califano and that event from last april clarence lusane based upon what you saw in the film was lbj wrongly depicted? guest: no i don't think so all. with all due respect to mr. mr. califano the implication, one implication is it was johnson's idea that the civil rights movement that king focused on selma doesn't fly with the history and historic record. in fact there have been decisions made long before king had that conversation with johnson to go towards selma and, in fact, selma, itself people were arguing and mobilizing but more generally, as mr. califano wrote in wat the washington post," his argument that there was a smooth relationship between king and lbj also

doesn't side with the record. if you received david gill's book "burying the cross," "there is a river" john hope franklin's quad freedom and slavery," if you look at the historic records the work of people who are award-winning historians, they depict the tensions that existed between civil rights movement and johnson over the period from 1963 when johnson was to become president until 1968. johnson stands out relative to who came before him, including president kennedy and who came after him, president nixon in that he really did have a commitment ultimately in pressing the civil rights act and voting rights act. but it wasn't tension-free. to a great degree king and the civil rights leaders pushed and pushed and forced johnson to

make some of those decisions. he wasn't on board completely and all the way that is implied by califanots remarks. >> our guest is the claurnings lusane. he earned his doctorat from howard university, began his career working on the staff of congressman walter fauntroy the delegate for washington, d.c. phone lines are divided under the age of 25: if you are between 25 and 50: over the age of 151: >> we will continue to have the numbers on the bottom of the screen. join us on facebook or send us a tweet. before we get to the first call, i want to ask you about harry seger, your grandmother. guest: my mother was one of those activists in atlanta. she lived in bess member next to birmingham and for over 70 years, she was active as an

individual and as part of that broader movement host: this is her in the center as she celebrated her 100th birthday a few years ago. guest: she turned 101 this year or last year but she passed about two months ago. but she was active. for example, she had the right to vote. she lived in beth membermera population of about 30,000 people, more than 60% were african americans. out of the 15, 16,000 black people who lived there less than 100 were registered to vote. my grandmother was one of those people. she really kind of fought her way through. but more importantly, she was part of the movement. she worked with dr. king and france shuttleworth, another leader with jesse jackson who came down. she was part of the famous children's martha existed in the spring 1963. she moved families and worked with the families of the

children who were -- who died in the famous bombing of the church in birmingham and she was acting in the selma movement. she was on the bridge for a couple of those mars. she really was for our family really an inspiration in that she really had a commitment to doing this work in the face of tremendous kinds of opposition. there are family members and friends tell stories of how she stood down the ku klux klan. the klan would show up armed. some people would leave, of course. my grandmother, as the stories were told just simply faced them down. we were very fortunate that she was not injured in any of these activities. but she was a very great person. host: does her voice and the voices of others who are not as well well-known come through in this film? guest: they do very much.

>> that's why it's important the women who are in the film amelia boykin, for example, and anthony b. cooper were contemporaries of my grandmother. they were all around the same age. they knew these individuals. these were not people who were known outside of the civil rights movement but in alabama, in birmingham and bethmer and sellma and all of these places, these were the go-to people when you needed to get something done, if you needed to get information out, needed to mobilize people, to have a meeting, have food prepared, if you needed to have other kind of activities, these were the people you had to go to. the film is great at presenting that perspective in those individuals who have generally been unknown. host: we are talking about "selma," the movie and the relationship between dr. martin luther king and president lyndon johnson that led to the voting rights in 1965. ralph from long island new york. good morning. caller: well, i am actually

from upstate new york and i am a proud uaw member. i just want to have two comments. first, the united auto workers and ruhter we supported it in 1965 and walter and members march following bloody sunday. but i do want to point out that there were some factual errors that i saw in the movie that i saw friday night. it was that they kind of merged the september of 1963 bombing of the baptist church where the children were killed and the poll tax they kind of merged that had into 1965, and they sort of made it look like all of those events happened in 1965. the second point is that the character, the actor played lyndon johnson wasn't a good fit because johnson was a southerner, but he changed over time and he supported -- he was

anti-worker and anti-civil rights as a member of the house. but he changed over time, and he saw jack kennedy's legacy his legacy. >> that's why he supported the civil rights movement and the voting rights act. i thank you for your time. host: thank you ralph. guest: a couple of important points. >> i think the movie confuses the timeline in many ways. if you watch the film, a lot of things did sort of be thrown as the speaker notes all in and around the early part of 1965 when, in fact, a lot happened before. so, for example, the letter that was sent and the tape that was sentence to coretta scott king that recordings of martin luther king's infidelities, that happened the late part of 1964 right before king went to norway for the -- to receive his noble peace prize. in the film, it looks like that was a response to the activities in selma. it was a spocks to an anger on

the part of j. edgar hoover that king had won the noble peace price. king gets the announcement about the prize in october. a few weeks later is when j. edgar hoover says that king is the most notorious liar in the country. the film doesn't say is he met with j. edgar hoover. king was upset and demanded a meeting and i think it was around december 1st, king came to washington and he actually had a meeting with j. edgar hoover. the film confuses a number of different issues and so the speaker is right in that sense. host: artistic license, i guess. guest: license host: pink with professor clarence lusane in washington. caller: good morning, professor. how are you doing? guest: good morning. caller: i was born in marion and i am 85 years old.

i haven't seen this particular movie, but i have seen others. and sometime it confuses me and i was there. selma only became important because of the deaths of two people, general lee jackson, a person i knew home from the army. guest: right. caller: and a white minister who was killed when he came out of a chicken shack after eating somebarbecue. without lbj there would be no civil rights act because selma wasn't -- wasn't really that important on the map of that area. my uncle was the first field representative for the naacp in that area. my two oldest sons happened to be the ones who desegregated the grade schools in the state of

mississippi. nobody know who i am as a guy living here about five miles from me, he lived in selma. he lived on 1st street in selma. so i think it's a nice movie, probablying probably, but i believe artistic license has served to kind of remake history. host: pink, thank you for the call and sharing your own personal accounts on this issue. guest: i think he raises a couple of important issues, which is looking at selma and why does selma certainly have an impact. king was arrested when he first came to selma and virtually nobody cared. now, when king had been arrested a couple of years earlier in birmingham, of course, it became big news particularly after he issued the same letter from a birmingham jail. after that, king had been arrested dozens of times, so

king getting arrested didn't generate any news. the bloody sunday, the march on march 7th, the march across the edmon prentice bridge which was captured by cameras and shot out around the nation and around the world where you saw men, women and children being run over by horses, being brutally beaten and it truly was a bloody moment that was the catalyst for shocking the nation that even though the civil rights had passed the year before the issue of seg gregation, issue of racism wasn't resolved. so, it was really the virtual images on bloody sunday and there were broadcasts that didn't have narration, just showed the images was really what gave lbj the face and the opening for being able to push through the civil rights -- voting rights

act. host: andrew from aurora colorado, good morning. caller: good morning. just a couple of quick questions or points: one is about the situation in ferguson. we can see among african-american use there is a lot of apathy and one of the situations arose in the first place is because of watching a large number of americans didn't bother to vote. what does this film have for them? and what message can you give to them so that they are actually not so apathetic and bother to register to vote in the first place. host: thank you andrew. guest: a couple of points on ferguson. there is activity going on ferguson besides people being out on the streets. it's unfortunate that the media wants to focus on when the people are rioting and throwing bricks. there have been countless meetings and new organizing going on ferguson including many young people who are

looking at issues of not only police brew 2589ty and reform of the police but also political participation, and i think as we see over the next year or two, you will begin to see a much more active and robust participation. the participation of african americans you have disenfranchisement laws that exist particularly in a place like ferguson but many other places around the country where people are arrested disproportionately often for charges that simply are bogus. people that end up with criminal records and they are disenfranchised. they are not able to vote. they are not able to register and go out and vote because the laws that exist in a number of different states around the country. so, it isn't just that people don't want to participate. we have created circumstances that have made it more difficult, and it's really important that this movie is about the voting rights act because the voting rights act

and voting rights, itself are under attack in this country. in the shelby v holder decision that the supreme court ruled on a little while ago, it basically gutted the authority of the voting rights act to hold accountable the southern states under that right in 1965. depressed has the ability to correct what the supreme court does but it's unimaginable that this particular congress is going to do so. so, the profusion of disen disenfranchiseing laws that in voting rights reforms that have been made, past around the country in the last number of years are having an impact on the ability of people to register and participate in the electoral process. cbs news reporting on this. check it out at cbsnews.com. the director of the film defends the depiction of lbj is said i tried to show the full arch of

their relationship. neither man was a saints. neither man was all sinner. there were gray areas of their relationship. they had one of the most productive relationships in history. it was sometimes a rocky road to get there. it happened. it was a triumphant time for our country. we try to show the complexity and the humanity within their relationship." let's take you back to what the scene was like along the bridge. film from that era as we listen to jeanine joining united states from pittsburgh. this film by the way, courtesy of the national archives. go ahead jeanine. caller: good morning. i have a comment. i took my 17-year-old son to see "selma" this weekend because i fully believe that when i was working for my master's i got more detail about african-american history in our country as opposed to she, who is an 11th grade and he gets a gloss-over. so for "selma," for me it was to give him some information so that he could make some of his

own assessments. incidentally, i think that's missing from what we are seeing how some children react to some of the decisions that have occurred in the media. with that being said i want to know why there's a point of contention for viewers as a historian. i don't expect the president solely,sic-handedly to implement any law. we see that with the gay legislation as well as the history of civil rights. a partnership i disagree with the caller who said without lyndon johnsons it wouldn't having civilrights. it might have taken longer. but when there is an outcry, we tend to see legislation enacted. not the other way. can you speak to that? my 17-year-old and i are listening. thank you. guest: that's very good. the movie "selma" like any movie, should be a catalyst for

discussion and shouldn't be the end of discussion. there are problems with the movie, inaccuracies. i don't think that's misrepresentation. i think the director tried to present a very complicated and realistic picture of king and lbj and the interest that they represented. as we saw at the beginning of this, the clip that was shown where king and lbj are having the discussion and saying king has other interests including the war on poverty, that is not kw50i9 true. king did have other interests as well. in his noble please prize lecture, king talks about the link between poverty, racism and peace. king was very much connecting the various issues that he felt that the civil rights movement was going to have to deal with. so, the movie is really

important too look at those issues. i encourage young people to go who may -- who are separate from that time period it's 50 years. two and a half generations have passed. it's critical that there is an ongoing education about the process understand which you create change in the country, change that leads to the election of an african-american president, for example. you would not have a president barack obama without the struggle of the people of the 1950s and 1970s. host: rick says haven't seen the mow but any attempt to tell the story is good. in a movie there will be inaccuracies depicting complexities. guest: certainly, there are. the movie, there are scenes people who are not in the movie who perhaps should have been in it line fannie hammonds who was

a key voice for voting rotes in challenging lyndon johnson at the democratic con convention. carmichael who would take over after john lewis who actually was on the pettis bridge for one of those mars who is not in the movie. you get people like malcolm x who is in the movie briefly, and that's an important intervention because it shows that the movement wasn't just narrowly focused on what was going on selma. i credit the director for putting in these bits and pieces. certainly, you know, another director could have made the movie very different. again, they are books out there. there is other independent films out there that capture this, "eyes on the prize," an award winning documentary, that give you much more detail and it isn't just a two-hour movie but,

you know, giving you a longer, more it in-depth analysis of what happened in that period host: our guest and we are talking about the film "selma." patricia from milwaukee. good morning. caller: i am a retired teacher. i taught art and fine arts. i also am over fine59 years old. i have experience with the civil rights movement from a large family and there is a lot of politics that was talked at the table growing up what i taught when i was an art teacher was that my students needed to understand the different values of art and how you can express yourself. i utilized a lot of politics and civil rights movement. so that's all of the working knowledge i had to apply towards teaching. one thing that this man has pointed out is the he will quence of martin luther king. looking at poverty education,

and peace, and how do you keep that all in unison with the youth? youth? host: how would you respond to that guest: that's imports because the issues are not separate and i think the civil rights movement is often presented as solely focused on getting civil rights and voting rights. patricia who is a retired teacher who i would assume is part of a union should know that, you know, the king -- king was very much tied to the unions. the 1963 march on washington had 10 demands: seven of those demands were about employment and working rights. king in his last months of life focused on the lives of working people. he died. he was assassinated in memphis in the city assisting on-site black sanitation workers who

were trying to get an equal and level playing field. all of these issues were seen as connected by king and other leaders eye will. : as king progressed, he tied in the war in vietnam, in march, 1965, he said energy being spent in vietnam could have been spent in resolving these issues in selma. >> dana makes the point you talk about earlier. i don't generally agree. jo generally go to the movies for historical accuracy. movies are entertainment and not 100% accurate. let's go to corbin joining us from eureka, california. good morning. caller: good morning. my name is corbin. i appreciate you taking my call i grew up in albany georgia, south of albany georgia, which i am sure the guest is familiar with. it has quite the history during the civil rights movement.

guest: caller: i recently spent a couple of years down in central florida, south georgia. i just am back in the last six months the point being to other white folks out here is: i worked construction and blended in and i happen to be white. anybody who thinks that theybigotry is not strong and still out there in the country, just get out there and just blend in and just watch what people will spill out. i spent the last three years in the south. i love the people in the south, but there is a lot of ugliness that's still there and this country is in denial. host: core bishop thank you very much for the call. guest: corbin, thank you for those remarks. as you mentioned a albany was one of the sentence tral battlegrounds during the civil

rights movement i want to address the point raised at the end ongoing issues, that selma makes us aware of the advances made by the civilrights movement rachel discrimination and racism but ongoing institutional and systemic arenas of racism that have to be addressed perhaps even more urgently when we look at the gap in education, gaps in employment the we think gaps the gap inuntil, criminal justice there are not laws that constit constittargeting african-americans or latino americans but the way in which these laws are carried out and their impact have disproportionate impacts on these communities.

we have to address these issues in specific kinds of ways and it requires public policy and it requires a commitment on the part of elected and appointed officials. >> will happen as it did during that period by the push from the law, by the mobilization the activism activism, people who recognize and see the need to resolve these issues. host: let me add one other voice from historian doris kearns goodwin who worked in the johnson white house and wrote a best-selling book about lyndon john johnson and the american dream. here is what she had to say at the same event last april in austin texas. [video clip. >> i only knew him from 1967 until he died. there was no question the time i spent with him in the white house and on the ranch. he was proudest of civil rights of anything he had ever done. and he knew that it would stand the test of time. and my sense is that once he

became president, he had the power, and he had always wanted to do more than he could do. just as was said he was stuck. it was right to represent the state of texas. he is a texas senator a texas congressman. but once -- i don't think it was just john kennedy's desk although that gave him an opening. i don't think it was just the movement although that's huge. i think what you said mr. mr. ambassador and what you pointed out in this tension between martin luther king and lbj is the tension from the movement from the outside pushing in at the government from the outside, in and there is a president who knows that he needs that movement but there is going to be tension. no president wants to be pressured from the outside. the same tension existed between lincoln and frederick douglas. frederick douglas was telling him, you are not doing everything i want you to do. eventually, they became really good friends. and lincoln understood that he needed frederick douglas and the ab ol englishists.

they produced something, thank god they were there at that moment in history that changed our country forever. host: clarence, lusane your thoughts. guest: ultimately "selma" is not about lbj or martin lather king. it's the extraordinary efforts of ordinary people to address the issues that were right in front of them. what we saw and what we see in this movie and what happened historically was that people had had enough and people decided that they would mobilize organize and risk their lives to bring change to the country. host: our guest is the author of "the black history of the white house" and professor at american university. with your perspectives on the new film "selma" appreciate you being with us. guest: thank you. host: we will continue the conversation. among our guests tomorrow morning on c-span's "washington journal" he had o'keefe, what is expected to be a busy couple of

weeks in the one of 14 account congress and the keystone xl pipeline and gas and oil prices jack gerard of the american petroleum institute and on monday your money segment with john roth the eninspector general for the department of homeland security tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. "newsmakers" is coming up next. thanks for joining us on this sunday. hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week. ♪ "newsmakers is live" in about half an hour we will go live to

paris where a unity rally is taking place with french president francois hollande. the event in response to wednesday's terror attack on a french sat ircal newspaper that left 12 people dead. here are a few of the comments we have received on the 114th congress. >> the thing that really needs to happen is going back to what the incoming majority said that they need to get back to regular order. if they go back and pass the 13 bills that it take to fund the government, then everybody can see who voted on what who put what amendment up and then sending it to the president and let him pass it or veto it. >> i hope it's a more mature responsible congress that we will see emerging in the next two years. i think emblem attic of this

situation of an irresponsible congress, we can see that reflected in this john boehner challenge today. it's time for both parties to put aside the bitter partisan battles and get on to the task that they are constitutionally required to do to govern, to legislate, and i think what the american people said in november of both parties is its time to see that finally start to happen. >> i think -- i don't know. the 114th congress what can we expect of them, you know? citizens united, it's like, you know, the politicians are bought and sold really. i mean, who are they representing? us or what? the first thing on their agenda is the alaskaan -- the keystone pipeline. >> the american people are prepared to get past the polished language the false

promises. we need you to understand, sir, you work for us. we have seen nothing but foreclosures people in the streets, and frankly, we are tired of the silly games being played, and we don't believe anything we are hearing any longer to include create jobs. >> that's so over worn out. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us at tweet. join the c-span conversation. line us on facebook. follow us on twitter. ...

author dick lair on the controversial story behind the birth of a nation, tonight at 50 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> monday night on the communicators, martin cooper, inventor of the cell phone, to provide growing needs of the mobile service providers. >> the ultimate in the spectrum technology is called dynamic spectrum access, and that includes a whole bunch of things. it also includes this, and i know you've heard a lot about that, and it includes some new technology that's just starting to become laboratory available