9:!15 a.m., nick juliano talks about oil, gas, and the congressional energy agenda. host: vice president joe biden called a letter from 47 senators to iran over nuclear negotiation "highly misleading, and that america cannot deliver on its promises your coat and today senators rand paul, cory booker and others will announce

legislation that would end the federal prohibition on medical marijuana. when it comes to the topic of cable news, a new goal from quinnipiac university has responded about who they trust when it comes to coverage, and the survey concluded that overall it was fox news that led the most trusted coverage. what is your most trusted news source? whether it be cable network local news, or other sources as well. the numbers are on the screen. you can post on twitter, on our facebook page and you can e-mail us. it is quinnipiac university who

does many polls on a lot of different topics. their latest look is at journalistic coverage among cable network is and other coverage -- network news and other coverage as well. mr. paul malloy joins us. thanks for your time. can you tell us about cable news including the result that fox news was on top? guest: we approach the dust we approached this with two things, first, do you trust them a great deal or somewhat and we went down in major cable news networks. and then we asked the question what provider you trust most. in the second want, fox news came up -- in the second one fox news came up on top. host: did folks indicate why it was the top new source? guest: no, we really just as the

questions. sometimes it has to do with politics and sometimes with the media. we did not ask the why. we just as the "who do you think." host: did the people you talk to indicate whether they were republican to my democrat, or independent? guest: we broke it down demographically. there is a fairly layered answer. host: if fox was on top, how did the others ranked? give us a sense of how that worked. guest: ok, let me kick this off for you. fox was on top, and then followed by nbc, cbs, and abc. they were all clustered fairly

well. the one that did the worst was msnbc. but generally, fox was on top in the horse race and then 22% for cnn. fox got torn 9%. 15% of the people were undecided. -- foxtrot 29%. 15% of the people were undecided. host: one of the topics that came up was the people's ability to trust in their local newscast. what did you find? guest: we found that the big winner was local television news from the asked that question. local television news was trusted a great deal in the end in large numbers. and we put them together, they ended up ahead of everybody. local television news, which takes a bad rap in some cases

looked better than others nationally. host: did that surprise you? guest: we've never done these questions before on a personal level, so yeah, a little bit. it may be an indicator of something, that people turn more to their hometown news as far as what they trust rather than the networks. host: one of the things that folks talked about against the dark about cable and local news, talking about network news folks were asked about brian williams. what were the respondent answers? guest: should he get his job back, and by margin of 42% to 35% the answer was yes. we also asked about bill o'reilly, should he be fired for his reporting inaccuracies, alleged reporting inaccuracies. 12% said that he should and 23%

said that he should stay. not a great number for o'reilly but not an overwhelmingly damming number. host: tim molloy from quinnipiac university. where can folks find the full and refer them -- the polling and refer themselves? guest: if you google quinnipiac poll, it will pop right up. and we break it down by states. host: mr. malloy, thanks for your time. guest: it was a pleasure. host: and one of the takeaways, when it comes to fox news particularly 20% of those participants said that they trusted a great deal and 35% said somewhat. we want to get a sense from you about what you trust when you are consuming news. the lines are on the screen.

you can comment on twitter and facebook as well. and send an e-mail to us. alice from st. petersburg, florida is the first up. hi, would you trust the most when you go to news? caller: i am 56 and i will be 57. i read newspapers. i follow the news on the internet. i follow reporters on twitter and i get news as it is breaking. and i watched all the network channels for news. and i think what i'm -- when i'm listening to this quinnipiac poll, but i really think is the people i know that view fox

news only look at fox news and they cannot listen to anything that conflicts with their preconceived notions and their political leanings. and i know it in my own family. and it's just the latest. -- just the way it is. i suspect the reason fox came up highest is because they have loyal viewers, whereas the rest of the population goes to the pbs news hour, or watched cnn unless they are going on and on about old planes that had disappeared for a month or whatever ridiculous thing. but really, i think the majority of people below the age of 65 get their news from a variety of sources. the most unfortunate thing in this day and age is the decline of the local newspapers. because my newspaper that i get now, -- well, the thinkers burke

times is gone -- the st. petersburg times is gone. there is the tampa paper. but it's not what it used to be. host: that was alice talking about her news consumption habits. it's good to -- let's go to texarkana. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been trying to get in for some time. i mostly watch in bc and msnbc. -- nbc and msnbc. well, there are certain programs i watch every day. i watch morning joe in the mornings. i switch it back and forth from c-span2 morning joe. host: and when you watch the program, why do you trust what you are hearing from morning joe, or whomever you're listening to at the time? why do you trust them? caller: they have different

people am a different viewpoints, and you know, they discuss -- unlike fox news, it's got to be just their way. if someone comes on that they disagree with, they have a tendency to cut off their microphone and stuff like that. it's childish, really. and i think any network that lets them post continuously lie over the air and doesn't stop it, i don't think they're very credible. sean hannity, can you two occasions where he deliver lee -- i can give you two occasions where you deliberately lied on air. host: that is fair. maryland, independent line, go ahead. caller: there is no news outlet

i mean, cable outlet in this country anymore. the only place where you can get news is on the internet wave is breaking. -- when it is breaking. otherwise, you cannot see any good news. thank you. host: cortez is up next. we are talking about most trusted news source, whether it be cable or local or otherwise. germantown, maryland independent line. you are next. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i tend not to watch tv anymore. i find it to be boring post i do most of my newsgathering through the internet. as an independent liberal, i have trouble with fox news because they have

mischaracterized me most of the time. i search for my news all over the world, which might mean south america one day, different countries in africa, depending on where the story is coming trying to get a local flavor. the problem is, the news is out there, but you have to go searching for it. and if you search for it, you will find it. the trouble is, it takes some work. that is the approach i use. host: how do you judge the ability as you search through these various news sources? guest: i tried to get duplicate of sources, ones that more or less will back each other up. that is the time-consuming aspect of what i do. or example, if i'm trying to find something out in russia or china, it might not always possible because the sources are limited.

but it, you can do it. however, it tends to keep you up at night. host: and that is cortez from germantown, maryland. you heard the court does the quinnipiac poll -- you heard the quinnipiac poll about most trusted news sources and at the top was fox news. maybe it is your local newscasts. weird some people talk about newspapers. and in many cases this morning we've heard the internet. if you want to weigh in, the numbers are on the screen. it was an open letter to the leaders of the islamic republic of iran from 47 senators about the nuclear talks. that is headlining most papers today, and also drawing response from the president. this is the "wall street journal

or cap -- this is "the wall street journal." if you go to senator tom cotton's website, you can pull down a copy of this letter and look at it. it is an open letter as it's called, 47 senators signing onto it. the same letter that was released yesterday true reaction from the vice president, -- drew reaction from vice president joe biden, a person who deals in foreign relations, saying --

the president was asked about this open letter during event yesterday, in which he responded directly to it. here is his response. [video clip] >> i think it is ironic to see some members of congress wanting to make common cause with hard-liners in iran stop it is not -- in iran. it is not the usual coalition. i think we will focus right now on whether we can get a deal or not. and once we do, if we do, then we will be able to make the case to the american people, and i'm confident we will be able to move on from there. host: the president resorting to

that open letter from 47 senators. we will talk about the next segment, a look at the iran negotiations overall. we will hear next from barbara in louisville, kentucky. democrats line, you're next. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you're on, go ahead. caller: i'm very cynical about you sources. on which fox more than anyone else. but i'm very sake of a news organization or he knows -- a news culture that depends on opinion instead of giving me the news. all you have to do is tell me what happened, where it happened, and how it happened and i will figure it out. i'm very, very tired of panels

of experts pontificating on tv and telling me this is news. it is not. host: is that typically during the opinion programs of some news organizations, or during the newscast during the day you how does that work for you: -- during a newscaster in the day? how does that work for you? . caller: it is agenda and i'm tired of it. i'm tired of being able to tell your politics and who you probably contributed to by listening to you. i'm tired of news that is slanted. i'm tired of everybody take on it. i spend a lot of time on the internet getting my news. i read foreign newspapers on the internet. i no longer subscribe to my local paper because it is so biased that i don't think in the history of the years i've been reading it they have ever endorsed a republican for office.

and i will eat perfectly honest as a democrat, i don't think my party has a monopoly -- i will be perfectly honest, as a democrat, i don't think my party has a monopoly on good judgment. at this point, i'm almost ashamed to be a democrat because i'm extremely disappointed in all of the democratic leaders nationally. host: ok, barbara from kentucky. nick from illinois. hi, nick. caller: hello and good morning. nbc news is at the bottom of the news because they are people like chris matthews who make comments like "why people can only be racist." then they have people like al sharpton who make over $7 million a year and still of $5 million in -- owe $5 million in back taxes and is still not in jail.

host: sean on the independent line. caller: i think people look at the news wrong. people trust people, and that is were the problem comes in. people should look at folks as animals, you know, how you look at a snake. a snake in a certain tendencies. when you look at humans, humans have certain tendencies. a human tendency is self-serving. a lot of people have an agenda when they are giving you the news. you can never take any news as value of itself. you yourself have to go and research. you notice that is the one thing that every person said mostly that has called. yes, i look at the news, then i go research. anything someone tells you, you should research it after you hear it. the actual news itself is maybe 32nd -- 30 seconds, but they

will talk about it for 45 minutes. they will give you 30 seconds of news and then the rest of the 45 minutes will be about what they eat and -- what they see and feel. host: you say can't take nothing at face value then. caller: i take absolutely nothing at face value. this is the most true thing anybody -- i don't care what it is, if a human being has something to do with the, nine times out of 10 you need to research it. host: lakeland, florida. let's hear from george in mississippi, democrats line. caller: i don't trust fox news no further than i can throw them. they spend too much time criticizing and disrespecting the presidency. i think that i watch a lot of

msnbc and abc world news and stuff like that. i believe that they give me better news and give the facts better. host: does it surprise you that when it comes to most trusted news that fox news was top of the list? caller: it shocked me. the reason i say shocked me i thought republicans would wake up and see that they were misleading in a lot of ways. host: john from northport florida, republican line. thanks for calling. go ahead. caller: hi, my name is john. i'm calling from northport list of good morning. -- i'm calling from northport. good morning. the station to listen to his al jazeera. we trust them a lot more than

the other stations compared to fox news and cnn and msnbc. when we had a situation down at the everglades and they started to do natural gas and oil fracking that was the only channel that came to help the people because they were blindsided when that happened. we feel that is the station that helped us down here in florida. also, where i live, they were mostly ukrainian and russian people who live here. and most of the people who live here listen to that station. host: when you say help the people do you mean help them understand, or advocating against fracking? what did you mean by that? caller: picture yourself when you wake up in the morning when there is a fracking company 1000 feet run your house. you had no idea that this happened. you had no voice. even the commissioners did not know about it.

what happened was, they called al jazeera for their help, because that was the only news channel to try to get the word out to try to help them stop fracking in that area. because who would ever think you would ever do any kind of fracking in the everglades? host: sherry in north carolina independent line. you are next. caller: hi, this is cherie. am i on? host: yes, you are. go ahead. caller: i'm calling because i was next republican and now i'm independent. i was a diehard fox news person and back in 2008 and 2009 i started doing fact checking. i was just called at some of the things we were being fed. i went on cnn, msnbc, and i tell you, we need to fact check what is coming off of these new stations. i would not watch fox news more

than 20 or 30 minutes before i would fact check what i was seeing. when i watched cnn and msnbc, i fact checked like crazy. host: when you say fact check given example. where do you go to do the fact checking? caller: there are four different ways on the net that you can fact check. you can go to different newspapers, go to google go so many different ways. go and find out what the truth is because a lot of times what you are seeing on fox news is their perspective. my generation may come home from work and they watch their evening news, or they watch an hours worth of news. and that is all they have time for. they feel like -- most of the time it's not true when they are walking -- watching fox news

but they don't have the time to fact check. and they are matt and they are angry. we need to make sure that no matter where we are watching or what papers we are reading let's see what the facts are. host: that is cherie in north carolina. a couple of stories from the come -- the congressional budget office when it comes to the health care law and the cost associated with that. this is in "the wall street journal."

if you go to the pages of "the washington times," a similar story about estimations on health care law. they added this when that it was the cbo. and from washington -- ed from washington, d.c., democrats line. you are on. caller: i would like to give credit to that lady who said to fact check some good to -- good for her. i listen to c-span a lot and i'm very annoyed and very sad of what is coming over lately.

you can tell what people are listening to. and rachel maddow, she is worth her weight in gold on msnbc. and tamron hall, those people fact check their information they understand what they are talking about. the keystone pipeline, for example, they have guests on that have phd. what is coming over the networks and fox news is hurting america, i believe. i want to encourage white america and other caucasians to listen to those people who go to college and the universities and academia. they are mostly democrat sources of news information.

check these things. we are hurting our country. and we don't have a space program now because we have turned our back on our educational sources and this is hurting our country. host: republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i trust fox news. i have not found them to be wrong. we are not ignorant people listening to them. i have gone to the other channels and i cannot trust one that would hire out sharpton. al sharpton, really? and cnn, they have spent so much time on bill cosby while i was wondering what was happening in the world. so i go back to fox. i trust them, and i go to the internet. plus, i still go to the local paper. host: a couple of things.

yolanda, when you say you trust fox news, what are you basing that on? caller: i look into it more like i said, on the internet and i get some papers, usa today and i watch c-span also. i listen to news pretty much all the time. host: what is your local paper and why do you still subscribe to it? caller: mansfield news journal. just to find out and keep up with what is going on around here. i want to keep up with my city, too. i still watch fox, and i have tried the other channels. and i'm sorry, to be honest them as a republican, i felt like a lot of them, msnbc and cnn would made fun of -- make fun of

certain republicans, and i just think that is rude. host: that was yolanda. in the politico, they talk about media and philosophy of papers when it comes to papers like the l.a. times and the new york times. judy from hawaii, we are talking to people about most trusted news sources, whether be cable, network, local or other sources. go ahead. caller: i was a journalism major in college when i graduated in

1985. i remember a day where there was balance reporting. there is no balance reporting on any of these stations anymore. most of them are on the left, msnbc, abc, and then there is fox news on the right. basically, they all felt the same news all day long. and it's none of the issues that we are concerned about as people. immigration is not a big thing on our minds right now. the economy is what we are more can turned about. but they go on and on about that. i've always believed in the news, you know, until about two years ago. once the news loses its credibility -- once you lose

your credibility, it's hard to believe them anymore. i can on most see the rise as they are coming. like all of the stuff on syria. they been trying to get a war going with syria forever. and it's one thing after another. as soon as i hear "syria," i just turn the channel. i get my news from the internet now. host: gotcha. sherry is up next from des moines, iowa. hello. caller: i agree, i watch fox and i think they are very trustworthy. i watch it all day long. i have gone to msnbc and they are hateful people over there, just hateful. all the other channels, they just try to run fox down. if they don't like fox, turn the station. but quit running them down.

i agree with the lady that called in before. i find fox very credible. i don't have a computer. i cannot check out. -- check things out. but a lot of things on the computer are not giving the honest truth. fox news is number one because they deserve to be number one. thank you. host: before you leave, the number one reason why you trust fox. why to you are you -- are they trustworthy? caller: because you don't hear hate coming out of their mouth. they tell you what is going on, but they don't run down other stations. and you go to msnbc and all they do is run down fox. get over it. host: that is sherry in des moines, iowa. hillary rodham clinton in discussions over how she will address the e-mail situation. she is expected to speak at the united nations today.

and the new york times is looking specifically at the e-mail issue, saying she is comparing to address the issue of using a private e-mail account while serving as secretary of state. if you go lower on in this story in the "new york times" this morning, it talks about how president obama -- a goes back to the white house press secretary who was asked by reporters if he traded e-mails with mrs. clinton while she was secretary of state, but that the president did not understand that are e-mails -- her e-mails

were not being made available. here is a bit of that answer. [video clip] >> the president did in the course of his for several years of office trade e-mails with her as secretary of state. i would describe them not as large, but they did advocate to e-mail one another. the point that the president was making was not that he did not know secretary clinton's e-mail address. he did, but he was not aware of the details of how that e-mail address and server had been set up, or how secretary clinton and her team were planning to -- to comply with the federal records act. host: we are talking about the most popular news source. on twitter as well -- mike from maryland, thanks for

holding on. republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. i think some folks are confusing reporting or news versus opinion. if you watch any of these channels, you will find opinion pieces that you disagree with. but i find, at least with fox and cnn both, that the news reporting has got to be accurate. host: robert up next, waynesboro virginia, republican line. caller: i like fox news. it gives me the straight point. and if you don't give me no straight point fox news is my news. i like all the people on it and they are real. thank you. host: that is robert from

waynesboro, virginia. the topic of medical marijuana the subject of legislation is to be released today. in "the washington times" it has been described as sweeping legislation. liam from florida, good morning to you. democrats line. caller: good morning, good morning. listening to all of these people about fox news and everything, all i say is listen with your eyes and hear with your here's -- here with your ears and you will figure out what is wrong.

i think our country is going in a great way through the new sources i get my news from. and the president is doing a good job. and the gop in the house is paying close attention to that. host: what is the top new source for new? caller: my top news is msnbc. plus, i roll over to fox news to see what fox news is saying stop the night -- is saying. then i rolled right back to msnbc and cnn. i will not debate that fox news is better than msnbc. i just use my eyes. my eyes and my ears. host: brian in michigan independent line.

caller: good morning. i no longer watch cbs abc because on twitter that solid talk about. i get my news from twitter -- from -- if i want to know what rupert murdoch is thinking, i watch fox. if i want to do with the far left is thinking, i watch msnbc. whoever owns the news station that is the agenda. i can't watch out to zero cable doesn't get it. -- al jazeera. my cable doesn't get it. in regards to sandy hook, every news station got it wrong. they all rent to the api poll and took the first story. they got it wrong. the lady did work at the school.

she -- did not look at the school. she was in a teacher. everybody got it wrong. host: is there something you've learned by watching the bbc or other news sources, something you have learned that you think you would not have learned by watching american base programming? caller: yes, anything going on outside the united states, and that is a shame. the only thing -- the only where i could hear about the vietnam problem -- they do world news. all of the situations going on you hear about it. host: charlie from texas, democrats line. you are next. caller: hello. from my perspective, i think fox news is very biased in saying

republican talking points. if you follow any of the new station, it's the same rhetoric over and over. i watch a local channel here that i'm guessing would be the independent or college station. they have charlie rose on and i watch some msnbc. i watch some cbs and abc. also, i read the newspapers. i understand the ones that rated fox as the number one network because they probably got their information from -- whoever ran the survey was probably calling

people who had landmines -- land lines. host: that was charlie from texas. here's a story from "the washington times." if you go to the pages of "the new york times," you will see a story that has been in other papers about a deal made by the credit rating agencies and a new york attorney general, which they say will overhaul the industry.

ronnie in gilbert's film texas good morning. caller: i think it's a little bit funny that fox would even have the word "news" on their letterhead. them and msnbc on the democratic side, neither one of them has their own news.

the lady that called in and said that msnbc just wants to run down fox, evidently she doesn't is an -- doesn't listen to fox. they constantly run down the other networks. i can't hardly stand to watch either of the two for what they are saying about the republican or democratic side. host: one more call from baldwin, maryland, republican line. this is jimmy. go ahead. caller: as five cable news is concerned, it's a misnomer. it not news at all. it's totally opinion. i get my information, the start of my information from c-span

and booktv. then i just go to the books that were written by the authors. if the only place for you can really watch somebody speak -- it's the only place where you can really watch someone speak for an hour and see them open up. or you must go to the library and get these books. if the only way you will get the news. host: and that is jimmy from baldwin, maryland, the last call we will take on this topic and some you heard about the open letter from republican senators to iran over the pending nuclear deal that is going on between the united states, five other countries, and iran over its nuclear program. we will discuss the current that is of those negotiations and what we might expect in the days and weeks to come with matthew lee of the associated press. and then the koch brothers and the aclu might not agree on a lot, but they do agree that there are changes that need to be made when it comes to the

criminal justice system. both groups are starting a bipartisan group will the coalition for public safety. the "new york times" this morning has a story looking at efforts to get more people in high-paying tech jobs. that is an event you can see here at c-span, and our website if you go to the video library portion of our website. the president addressed the 10 "d's" at the conference and talk about jobs and potential workers for tech jobs. [video clip] president obama: today i'm announcing a new initiative called "tech hire" and it's going to be driven by leaders like you. there are three big components of this. first, we already have over 20

cities states, and rural communities from louisville to delaware who have signed on to fill tech openings. we've already got more than 120,000 of them in bold new ways. let me give you an example. employers can to recruit people with technology degrees from four-year colleges and that means sometimes they end up screening out with candidates who do not necessarily have traditional qualifications. they may have learned at a community college or may have served in our military. they've got the talent, but employers are missing them. so tech hire communities will help employers link up and find and hire folks based on their actual skills and not just their resumes. [applause] because it turns out, it doesn't matter where you learned code. it just matters how good you are in writing code.

if you can do the job, you should get the job. [applause] and while four-year degrees in engineering and computer is still important we have the opportunity to promote the we call coding boot camp that can teach tech skills in a fraction of the time and costs. and these new models have the ability to reach underserved communities, to reach women who are still underrepresented in this sector, and minorities who are still underrepresented in this sector, and veterans who we know can do the job. [applause] and lower income workers who may have the aptitude for tech jobs but they don't know they are within reach. host: and again, if you want to see the event in total, go to our website at www.c-span.org.

there is the page that you will see. again, www.c-span.org is where you can find that. joining us now is matthew lee from the associated press. we are here to talk about iran negotiations. can you give us a sense of where we are at this point? guest: we are getting down to the wire. there is an end of march deadline to come up with an agreement. they're calling it a framework. we have just come out from the last negotiations last week in switzerland, and secretary kerry and the iranian foreign minister will be going back to switzerland a week from yesterday. for what could be the decisive meeting. it may not be because we still have a little bit of time, the end of march. but i think there is reason to believe that they are getting very close to an actual agreement. host: your organization said in lieu of that, there were a couple of technical things that

had to be resolved or were in the process of being. what are some of those issues? guest: some of them had to do with the time over which this agreement would last. there are still some issues in terms of the iranian facilities. there is still some issue although i think this has largely been satisfied with the number of centrifuges iran will be able to maintain. and there are some questions about the enrichment levels that those centrifuges will be able to -- what they will be able to produce. host: as iran been forthcoming in this process? guest: that is a question. i think this bit about his forthcoming as one would suspect. which is, not particularly. but they have approached these negotiations, at least from a u.s. perspective, looking for a way to make a deal.

now, one could argue about whether the iranians are prepared to make the political decision to go ahead and do this and to really forswear the idea of developing nuclear weapons but i think what we have seen so far is that there has been a genuine back and forth. whether or not be back and forth on the iranian site goes far that to satisfy everyone's questions remains, and probably one will see the answer to next week. host: if i understand it correctly, the iranians have set the process of what they are going through with their nuclear program has been for energy purposes. guest: correct, that has been their argument for quite some time, that they have the right to a civilian nuclear energy program. the concern has always been for the united states, for israel for others in the west, that they are using what could be a

civilian energy program to mask to hide the development of atomic weapons which pretty much everyone is supposed to. host: we have heard about the u.s. interests in all of this. talk about the other countries involved. what are their interests particularly in a deal going through? guest: most broadly, they have the same concerns about iran possessing a nuclear weapon. this is not good for anyone. one could argue it might not even be good for iran. because then makes an a target. they have an interest in not seeing a nuclear arms race throughout the middle east, which is one thing that a lot of people have said will most likely happen if there is no deal here and iran goes ahead and continues its program trying to develop nuclear weapons. but apart from that, there is huge commercial interest at stake stop -- at stake.

the sanctions relief, which is what iran will get in exchange for the deal, is not just good for the iranian economy. it is also good for multinational corporations that want to do business there. and there are already companies that are lining up, waiting in anticipation of there being some kind of deal. it is hard to understate the commercial interests that companies have, but the broader security interest is at the top of the list. host: of all of these countries that think iran should not have this program why is there concern of them having these capabilities? guest: well, this is a country that has been original player in the most volatile region in the world, and has not, to be charitable, always done the

right and good thing in terms of stabilizing the situation. it is, as the uss, the leading state -- as the u.s. says, the leading state sponsor of terrorism in lebanon with hezbollah, and now has troops fighting in iraq. which in the short-term, that is an interest that the u.s. shares against isil, but they have also been destabilizing in trying to be destabilizing throughout the gulf. and the thought is that if a country that has that kind of history and policy gets a nuclear weapon, -- and i forgot to mention the whole iranian leadership wanting to wipe israel off the map, which is clearly of concern to the israelis. the concern is that if a country like that is able to develop a nuclear weapon that all bets are off and this will be horribly destabilizing, if not deadly for

people in the region. at the same time, they are trying to develop long-range missiles so they can deliver whatever weapon they might develop at some point outside the region. and i think that is a serious concern for everyone. host: the iran nuclear negotiations are at the top of our first segment this morning. we have matthew lee from the associated press, a diplomatic writer for that organization. if you want to asking questions the numbers are on the screen. and you can send us tweets and e-mail. if the deal goes through, who gets what out of it? guest: let's remember, the end of march deadline for this framework agreement is not a final deal. that they have set a june

deadline for. i think what we will see if they do get an agreement at the end of march, we will see some more limited easing of sanctions. and we will see a much more forceful push going into the last three months of the space they have allowed themselves to get the details, the appendices the technical aspects of what the final agreement would look like. but i think just getting the framework still is not -- you know, the final deal is not done just for the framework. i think we have another 3.5 months of waiting if they get this framework. host: the first call for you is from boca raton, florida. here is ken for matthew lee. go ahead.

caller: good morning, gentlemen. i read rouhani's book and he rhapsodize is about how he pulled the wool over the eyes of the english and the germans and the french in previous negotiations about nuclear materials. i'm also concerned -- i remember in 2002 and they discovered the secret hits behind the nuclear facility buried beneath the ground. and i'm also aware that in the wikileaks that were published all of the arab states, assuming the sunni arab states would be against israel if we take out iran.

also our member that rafsanjani said that retaliation would mean that they kill 5 million israelis but lose 20 million persians or iranians, that it would be considered worthwhile. i also remember reagan, who was not my favorite president, who said "trust, but verify." these people will not allow nuclear inspectors into some of these facilities. i wonder if we should not just tighten up more sanctions and possibly allow the israelis to be given -- they have already used saudi airspace in an attack on iran. host: color, thank you. guest: these are valor -- valid

reasons to question whether or not an agreement will be reached and viable, and if it will, in fact, produce the results that everyone wants. iran has a past history of serious deceit on this kind of thing, and still to this day the iaea, the un's nuclear watchdog, has not been able to close its file on what are known as possible military dimensions of the premiums -- the previous nuclear war capabilities in iran. what we are told about negotiating this agreement is that it will be verifiable. the inspections that will be allowed at the iranian facilities will be intrusive. i suppose, one has to take them at their word for that, but that is only -- that only goes as far

as what the iranians will actually agreed to and then actually allow. it's one thing to say ok, you're inspectors can show up anytime, or with 10 minutes to us or whatever. it's another thing to actually let them do that. so we are a long way from people's concerns being satisfied that the iranians are negotiating in good faith and even if they are, whether or not whatever they greet to -- agree to, they will allow. host: donna, go ahead. caller: my comment is that we have two republican senators and both of them have signed on to this letter. i am distraught over this. i think they should have allowed this process to move forward with our president and secretary of state and waited to see what would happen.

that is my comment. thank you. guest: certainly that is the democrats line in the administration's line. the letter is unusual to say the least. 47 senators writing an open letter directly to the leaders of a country they believe is out to destroy israel and destabilize a big part of the world. what i find to be interesting about the letter is i think there is an argument to be made, that the argument for those opposed to the mill seems to be shipping. for a long time, the argument was, whatever will come out of these talks is a bed deal. they cannot guarantee iran won't get the bomb, and it will allow them to keep a pathway.

this letter, we are now seeing a different tactic, a different kind of strategy, writing indirectly because this is an open letter, to say shifting the argument from this is a bad deal to the president does not really have the authority to negotiate and agree to a deal that will last longer than his residency. that is clearly upset the white house and you see the comments from the white house spokesman yesterday. i am not sure the letter will have much of an impact. it may make the administration even more determined to try to get a deal done. you have seen the response from the rainy and -- the iranian foreign minister. he has a phd and it's highly educated. he is not a dummy.

whatever else one might think of him, he called it a piece of propaganda and said it would not have any impact. outside of the political discussion people are having in washington, it will probably not have that much of an impact, not a large impact, on the actual negotiations. i think it shows the concerns about a deal are getting stronger as we get closer to the first end of march deadline. i think that is why the strategy or the tactic is shifting a little bit here the argument that this is absolutely a bad deal. it does not seem to have caught on that much. one of the reasons is the israelis said, the steel is not good and let's keep the interim deal they struck in november of 2000 13. let's keep that in place and keep negotiations going on and let's not agree to this

framework. that i think undercut the argument that what is happened so far is bad for everyone but iran. i think we on -- that is why we are now seeing the shift that the president does not have the authority. host: mitch mcconnell on the sunday shows talking about this process, whether this is a treaty or agreement. let's hear his comments and talk about that. mitch mcconnell: would require the deal to come before congress for approval. i am hoping we can get 67 senators to assert the historic role of the senate and the congress in looking at matters of this magnitude. obviously, the president does not want us involved in this but

he will need as if he will list -- with any of the existing sanctions. he cannot work around it forever. i am glad the premise to came. we point out the problems with the deal we anticipate will be made and also to point out he should not ignore iran passes other behavior unrelated to nuclear program, revolution all over the middle east. they have built ied's that have killed and injured in number of our personnel. this is a very dangerous regime. host: he cannot work around us and he will need us. guest: one of the most interesting things in the clip is heme mentions the chairman of the senate relations committee who did not sign the letter. senator corker has been pushing for a middle way, one that is

not so of vertically hostile to the administration's's ability to negotiate, but one which would give congress and in particular the senate, a say in what is happening. although 47 republicans did sign this, mitch mcconnell talking about senator corker of -- i am not sure is his best argument to make there. host: matthew lee of the associated press joining us. good morning. go ahead. caller: the expertise of mr. lee is of course very much appreciated. but as an 83-year-old, i just wonder whether he remembers history. i remember what it was like to see the juice my parents had hidden in my home hauled out

and brutalize before they were even taken away. if i remember what george senti on a set about history that if we forget it, then we are bound to repeated. the next thing would be, would you ever negotiate with a rattlesnake? if we look at what we just heard from the majority leader in the senate, then we could say they have proven that they are not trustworthy. guest: those are good points. doomed to repeat history. there is a lot of history here. a lot of deceit.

a lot of lying by iranians in terms of what they have been doing in terms of their nuclear program over the course of many years. those are problems the negotiators will try to have to resolve within inspection rizzi -- regime that satisfies everyone. is that possible? you know, i do not know. those who are opposed to the deal i think will oppose it no matter how strict the verification pair they will not necessarily be wrong in doing so. if iranians choose to have a secret facility someplace or secret facilities or continue what people alleged to be there previous possible military dimensions i am not sure how an agreement reached now will ever satisfy people concerned about this. host: from florida, democrats

line, hello. haywood from florida? we will move on to frank in troy, new york, independent line. caller: how are you doing today? in the past problems we have been having in the middle east, they have been fighting for hundreds of years they do not really realize anything unless we educate them. how do you educate them? most of the time, it is usually they come up with an action and we have to come up with, you're done, we have had enough. so we do not understand that and they do not understand these -- peace. they are never going to understand and they need to be handled correctly. just done with. then they can come to terms with us because it seems like our democracy always works.

their stuff never really works. oppression does not work. we have to understand that our democracy does work and their stuff does not work. that is just the way it is. guest: there is a millennia worth of history that would suggest otherwise. maybe he is talking about most modern history, the last couple centuries or so, but let's not forget the persian civilization was an enormous civilization and it far predates any concept of democracy. we look at the birthplace of civilization, which a lot of people believe is a rack. -- iraq. it is now a mess and in shambles but i do not think one can say that systems or whatever you might want to call them in the middle east are always wrong and the united states is always right. i want to go back to wanting the previous caller said about, do

you negotiate with a rattlesnake . it is a good point but we are talking about a rattlesnake here. we're talking about something that operates with basically no thought. this is a regime, not an animal. it is capable of rational thought, whether or not you think they always go along with that. something a lot of people said is you do not negotiate with friends. if you're trying to make peace you cannot do it by negotiating with the choir. negotiations go on all the time with enemies. if you decided there is not a military solution to the conflict, as what has been decided here apparently, although they say all options remain on the table you have to

talk to your enemies. if you do not, that means you have given up on that. i do not think any partners are going to acknowledge or allow that the diplomatic solution is dead and cannot be arrived at. host: we talk about the nuclear situation, influence in iraq and what is going on there does one influence the other? guest: you certainly can. as it relates to iran's broader strategy, and its increasing assertiveness in the region, sure. not just iraq, but you look at what is happening in yemen. you look at all of the sunni and arab gulf states are very concerned.

trying to stir up unrest. i think yes you can look at that but it is something distinct in these negotiations from what is going on. prime minister netanyahu came in and spoke to congress and he talked about the greater threat beyond nuclear weapons capability that iran opposes it may be the case you should have a deal with them unless it addresses the other issues of concern. what the administration has done and what the negotiating team has done is to try to separate it out. if they get a deal, it does not mean all the other concerns go away.

i think critics and skeptics of the deal will say, it is kind of like you opened the door a little bit and the camel gets its nose under the tent a little bit and then they lose the urgency they once had. they're very good questions and i do not know if they can be handled at of time. host: tony, you're on with matthew lee. caller: i have a couple of questions. first of all i would like to make a comment first. anytime i hear mitch mcconnell talking about working with the president, he was one of the guys on the president first took office is said he would not work with them. when weiner comes on tv and talking about the president going along with congress, my job always open spirit they do not want to open with the president. how can i fix problems in another country when they have

nothing in this country. my second question is, how do we determine who can have an who cannot have nuclear weapons? pakistan is in that region and they have nuclear weapons. israel has nuclear weapons. even north korea has nuclear weapons. how do we determine who can have them and who cannot have them and why are we the world police? guest: the whole idea of nuclear nonproliferation is one successive presidents of the united states have made a priority. the goal is to get the situation down to where no one has any. that is an impossible dream that i do not think will ever happen.

clearly, it is hard to make the argument that more countries should have nuclear weapons. i think the argument is much better to say fewer countries should have nuclear weapons and those who have them now should respect their pledges to not use them. that seems to me to be the best way forward. that is part of what the united nations is around four. outside of the normal protocol spear north korea did as well. what we're seeing now is an attempt to prevent iran from joining that club. it is a goal everyone seems to agree with. it is just the method getting there that has caused friction, and international friction.

caller: good morning. i want to thank you for taking my call to i am from maryland. my opinion of what i heard mr. netanyahu say during his speech i listened to the entire thing is an overreach by our congress and mr. net yahoo!, to run israel from our congress. it is wrong. also, there are countries at the table listening to the details about iran who was persia at one time. no decision has been made yet. we need to learn how to be patient and wait to hear about the decision. and not run off to war to fight with iran, syria, and anybody else.

i do not want to see my sons in either one of these wars. that is my opinion. thank you for the call. guest: as it relates to the prime minister's speech to congress, it is undeniable israel has an interest. it is also undeniable that israel is not at the table. it is, i think, perfectly normal for a leader of the country that feels it faces an exit essential threat to its very existence from iran to be concerned. whether or not his speech to congress was a good thing or changed anyone's mind, i think it is very open to debate. i am not sure. i was away when the speech was given. i saw a little bit from my hotel in switzerland.

if anyone has changed their minds regarding the negotiations as a result of the speech. clearly, i have not pulled everybody and i do not know. it seems to me to have entrenched positions even further rather than changed opinions. host: what do you see that we do not see except out of news coverage in the negotiations, things people would not be privy to. guest: we are not in the room so we do not see them except at the very beginning when they pose for photographs. what we do see that the average person would not is during breaks you see them go for strolls and take walks either to gather or secretary kerry as

they did a month and a half ago geneva, a lot of grief about it. the situation was separate here they go off on their own with their own delegations. it is interesting, sometimes you get a comment out of them and you can gauge the mood sometimes they are not a mind reader. i do not know how to do that to gauge moods. it is pretty clear someone is upset, angry as opposed to more lighthearted and more smiley more open to making cap rolled conversation -- casual conversation when you pass by on the boardwalk. host: here is kenny from

maryland on the independent line. caller: good morning. how are you guys doing today? i just have a quick clot -- a quick comment. i think it would be best for america to give the piece still a chance -- peace bill a chance. i think america is tired of war. thanks. guest: that is one way to look at it and i am not sure the only alternative to a deal right now is war. prime minister netanyahu and many others make the argument that iranians are essentially brought fling -- bluffing if congress takes actions on new sanctions.

bettis is one strategy, but it seems to be a very risky strategy. it almost mirrors the idea that they would call their bluff on this and not call the bluff on the verification for inspections. why would you automatically assume the iranians come back to the table, tail between legs, ready to give up more than they are willing to give up now? why would you automatically assume that and at the same time, automatically assume whatever they agree to, they would implement. critics with city answer is iranians have very little history of being truthful and honest in these talks. the other side is if they do not have a deal in the iranians really get their backs up and they are upset they are not

getting the sanctions, that they will go full barrel into developing nuclear weapons and then that may leave you with no choice. host: who do they affect most in iran? guest: the government most, companies, the shipping lines with banks but also they affect the iranian people. it means they session means they have fewer choice and fewer things and fewer goods they could buy. they have had significant sanctions relief since it took place, but clearly, they're looking for more and the question is, what are they going to give up? host: are there potential for more extensions? guest: i think it is unlikely. we have seen twice, the negotiators failed to meet a deadline that they set

themselves that left us with an end of march target for framework and a june target for the final deal. none of the sides have said they think an extension is desirable. that said, if we get to the end of march and there is agreement on say 99% of what the framework will look like, i do not think they will throw in the towel and say forget about it. i think it is possible the chance is small and they want to get it done as soon as possible. host: president obama weighed in on the process. here is a little of that conversation. president obama: it is fair to say there is an emergency because we have been negotiating for well over a year and the

good news is, during this time, iran has abided by the terms of the agreement. we know what is happening on the ground in iran. we have been able to roll back their 20% highly enriched uranium during this time. it has given us unprecedented access into what it -- into what they're are doing. we are not losing anything through these talks. >> you have said, if there is no deal, you will walk away. president obama: absolutely. that there is a breakout time so even if they cheated we would be able to have enough time to take action. if we do not have that kind of deal, we will not take it. host: do you sense what he is saying is truthful? guest: yes, it is true it in so far as what we know under the terms of the interim deal.

i do think he is serious that he will walk away if they do not get a deal that is except double. the problem or the question or the concerns arrive when you talk about what is actually acceptable. what is enough to make you not walk away from the deal? verification will be the key to this. as a side issue the verification will only apply to whatever it is iran agrees to if it is also on the side, in secret doing nefarious work at places not covered, that is a whole other issue, and it is one reason why critics of the deal

continually refer back to the international atomic energy agency's concerns about iran still, after years and years still not having addressed the possible military dimensions of past work. host: from michigan, christina is up next. caller: well good morning and thank you for allowing me to talk on c-span. please let me say most of what i want to say. in regards to your first question on where you get your information, i get it from c-span, watching all the boring conferences, watching all the hearings, because usually what you hear on the news is not what i got out of all of that stuff. that is where i get my information. about the situation we refused to look at history. we refuse to look at what has been going off or 100 years in what we are doing. we all talk about how we do not trust iran.

we opposed a duly elected leader in iran. they used to be our allies. they do not trust vested i know people will say, you're being anti-american. no, i am looking at the facts. i just read recently this weekend that, i believe in 2005 there was a deal being worked out where i ran only had 164 and they did agree to turn a lot of their enriched things into fuel rods, which could not be used for a weapon, and that deal was going on in 2005 but the united states under the bush administration got britain to veto that and that seems like it would be a good deal. look what we have got now. guest: it is true there were negotiations that did not involve the united states going back into the early part of the

bush administration in 2003 in 2005. -- and 2005. it is also true that after that round of negotiations failed iran ramped up its enrichment capability and started to do more. we cannot know, since those negotiations did not work, we cannot know what would have happened had they gone through. i think the situation today, or at least the situation before the interim agreement they reached, that they are now negotiating from, that agreement was reached november 13. the situation is better than it was prior to november 13 november 2013, but it is still a long way from being satisfactory to anybody. host: here is ron from

pittsburgh, pennsylvania republican line. you are on. caller: thank you. i have three main questions. the first question i don't understand why most of their program is underground and number two is which countries provide programs to event. number three people and it ran usually good side understand why they are letting these things happen. those are my three questions. let us never forget. good morning. guest: in terms of the

underground nature of the uranium facilities -- of the iranian facilities, it is a good point to have it above ground and visible. this underground nature is protective and to keep a secret. that is problematic. that is what these negotiations are meant to address. i am not sure i remember the second question. host: which countries provide the technology? guest: there is a long history of illicit trade. you can look at the north koreans and pakistanis. this know-how is out there. there are components to do it. people generally .2 north korea and pakistan -- people generally

point two north korea and pakistan. the third thing about the irnani anian people, i am not sure the leadership of iran operates in the same way that the leadership of countries that are democratically elected operate. i don't think it is fair to say we need to blame the iranian people because of the way the government is formed and its very nature. host: how much influence of this process does to the supreme leader? guest: the supreme leader will not sign off on a deal when a deal -- then a deal will not happen. it is him that makes the decisions.

the president is the supreme leader. if you judge is the deal is not the interest of the revolution which he is there to protect and guard, then it will not happen. host: from virginia, robert go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. the first one is the alternative if this deal goes through. if we want to go to war with this country. the second thing is would you think about the situation of the supreme leader and negotiations. if we make the deal, it will be best for the whole world

economically and the whole region. guest: in terms of the supreme leader and his health, i don't know. we are hindered from knowing exactly because it is not an open society. it is more open than north korea, but it is tough to tell. rumors were circulating, and there were quite a lot of them over the weekend, that the supreme leader died. they turned out not to be true. this is not the first time this has happened. it is fair to say that any disruption in the leadership the death of one later and an interim. time when there is a caretaker and then a selection of a new leader will have an impact. if the successor is not of like mind, there could be big and

petitions for the talks. that is something we cannot know at the moment. you have to proceed from where you are now. you can't anticipate what a leadership change might or might not bring. host: as you watch this process play out, what are you looking for next? guest: what we will look specifically at his next week -- at is asked week. is it possible to get as close to this framework or get it as they possibly can? it is interesting to me that the last two rounds they have had to have brought in the energy secretary from the u.s. that suggests they are getting down to the details and nitty-gritty of what is going on. it is my understanding he will be joining again. what is interesting is that the

next round which will begin on the 15th seems to be open ended. it will end around the 19th or 20th. there is no fixed and the time -- fixed end time. host: matthew lee covers the dramatic affairs for the associated rest press. thanks. guest: thank you. host: we will discuss a bipartisan effort being waged it to influence changes in the criminal justice system. christine leonard of the coalition for public safety joins us next. improved job creation in many areas, but when i came to energy jobs, there were losses are rooted. nick juliano will explain as washington journal continues after this.

>> this sunday on q&a, dr. adrian sue berman, director of the georgetown medical university watchdog project, on how lobbyists influence of and what medications to prescribe. >> the promotion of a drug starts 7-10 years before a drug comes on the market. while it is illegal for a company to market a drug before it has been approved by the fda, it is not illegal to market a disease. drug companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug for example and then blanketed medical journals and other venues with

these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a certain drugs. also to prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only other 43 new republicans and 50 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there is also the first effort can reckon a public and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the page has lots of useful information including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. new congress, best access on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org.

"washington journal" continues. host: joining is now to talk about issues when it comes to criminal justice and incarceration, christine leonard is with the coalition for public safety and is there a second of director. tell us about your group first. itwhat is your group and what are your issues and who supports you? guest: this is a very unusual venture in washington. became together as a result from groups on the progressive side of the spectrum. we have seven partners on board including the aclu and americans for tax reform and the center for american progress. freedom works and the leadership conference. all of them have decided to work together for terminal justice reform. we have four core supporting

entities right now including the john and catherine macarthur foundation and the koch brothers. it is the one topic where they all agree. it is not the case where they agree on much else, but this is an area where there is more that they agree on then they disagree. they decided to work together to see if we can get something done about the federal and state levels. host: because, no justice reform is a big term, what are you looking for? guest: all the groups are really committed to supporting meaningful substantive changes. this is in an effort to get press opportunity or to get some quick visibility. they are committed over the next three years to work with legislatures and other executive branch officials to see where we can reduce the rising incarceration rates across the country as well as the changes

that will maintain public safety in our neighborhoods. we want to see more effective systems of justice in place. host: for the partners involved what would be the interest from the republican side? guest: what has happened over the last 20 years is we have seen the cost of incarceration go up dramatically. at the same time, it is an unusual moment where crime rates are on the decline. the consequent is for people who are arrested or served time have large applications for all of our communities in terms of how they can return to work and have productive lives. one of the common themes for a lot of partnering organizations is we want to make sure the justice system respects the personality of the offense. for people who pose less serious risks to our community is, we should probably make sure we have approaches reflective of

what should happen with those individuals. perhaps lengthy incarceration stays are not the best. maybe treatment is better than a long time in jail. host: as of 2013, 7 million people total are part of the correctional system. about 1.5 million in prison and 4.7 million on probation or parole. you want to see numbers go down from that level? guest: the statistics are very sobering. and majority of the incarceration rates reflect populations across the country at the state and local level. what is very significant about that is that most of these individuals are not serving long sentences. a majority of them will come home. what we are focused on is when these individuals to come home do they have the tools for success to find a place to live? in the have access to meaningful

employment? what we want to try to avoid is the repeating cycle of crime that brings people back to the jail system because they haven't been able to find a path as they come back home. host: some will make the argument that you can relate crime rates directly to long, tough sentences. guest: the argument is made, but at the same time, our law enforcement leaders and prosecutors are the ones on the front lines. they deserve and equitable amount of credit for the reduced crime rates. they want the resources invested in the right place. when you talk to individuals who are running correction facilities across the country the disproportionality of people struggling with drug addiction is not what i think is a public safety concern. it is a flawed system. corrections officials are the ones left trying to resolve the challenge. host: christine leonard with the

coalition for public safety is our guest. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202748-8001 for republicans. send us an e-mail also at journal@c-span.org. how do you go about this? what is your plan of attack so to speak? guest: one of the most exciting aspect is even strong organizations with diverse memberships across the country the first task is to figure out where we can be most effective in their conversations. there is a lot of education that needs to happen on capitol hill and across the capitals throughout the united states. the number one concern is we

want to make sure people understand why crime rates have gone down and what are the most effective approaches to make sure we are maintaining public safety while being smart about reform. host: you mentioned the groups involved in different reasons why they are coming to the table. is that it can turn over how you go about doing this on a day-to-day level that everyone is looking for their best interests and that may cause friction? guest: it is a very unusual moment for me personally to work with a diverse range of groups. it is striking that so many of them or all of them actually have come to the table not with a predefined agenda but more about trying to find common ground. despite the rhetoric and a lot general disagreement here in washington, our discussions have been reductive because it has been about moving forward and being focused on solutions. wanting to work together on solutions. host: christine leonard our

guest joining us. on our independent line, calvin is up first. caller: good morning. i was wondering how you would feel about maximum sentences instead of me to month -- instead of minimum sentences. also how do you feel about the death sentence? guest: about minimum sentences are maximum sentences, i think one of the interesting moments we are at in this country is that a lot of people feel like each individual case should come before court and allow them to look at the circumstances. i have to say i am not sure that mandatory sentences that are minimums or maximums make sense when you need to look at the individualized circumstances rate someone into contact with the justice system. with regard to your question

about the death penalty, i have my own personal views. the important thing in all of these discussions is we want a system in place that makes sure people who are facing serious charges have had a due process and a fair hearing and adequate representation. more important than anything is that the system is working in a sense that when you look at all the exonerations that have taken place across the countries have had mistakes. host: the coalition will take a position all the -- on the death penalty formally? guest: we would take positions on issues where there is a consensu. the death penalty is an area where most americans still have strong disagreements. i don't expect that will be the first one we tackle. where there is an agreement among our coalition partners is the right to due process and a

sense of fairness for all americans. host: here is jim in new jersey. hi. caller: good morning. i just wanted to know how much attention will be spent on white-collar crime, specifically wall street time. that's it. thanks very much for taking my call. guest: that is a really good question because 10 years ago, i think a lot of the more conservative organizations in many corporations were becoming more focused on criminal justice issues in this country came to this table because they have had some contact with zealous prosecution or experiences they thought went on too long and cost of extra ordinary resources for the corporations. i think that was the beginning of a conversation about the effectiveness of our justice

system.. at this juncture the consensus extends way beyond white-collar crime. for our coalition and our supporting partners, there is no intent to focus narrowly on certain classes of offenders over others. we will not be specifically focused on white-collar offenses just like we won't be specifically focused on other types of offenses. host: allen on our republican line, go ahead. caller: hello. the incarceration is very necessary. some of them even do it to get in there again. i think it is ridiculous to leave these people out from guantanamo bay. they are criminals to start with. one mr. obama leaves him out --

when mr. obama leaves them out i am sure they are causing problems again. that is not right for our soldiers and our serviceman. guest: i agree with you on the concern about public safety and all of our communities. it is true that people who have served time in jail or have even been arrested, often come back to the system. it is very important in a real principle for all of us that people who are out to cause harm in our communities are dealt with appropriately by law enforcement and the judicial system. at the same time, what we are try to think about is what is the appropriate penalty and does the punishment fit the crime? it is an opportunity for all of us across the country to think about the really serious offenses that need serious consequences.

there are other offenses which may not have caused harm to other individuals but can have lifelong consequences for the person who was arrested. host: at one time you were director of legislative affairs for the white house also be senior counsel to senator ted kennedy. the atlantic points out it was ted kennedy's influence with strom thurmond about mandatory sentencing guidelines. do they have to be revisited? guest: we are at a different point in time. it was to make sure there was equal treatment of the law. at that juncture there was a lot of concern that judges were making decisions that were perhaps a little bit subjective. that was not uniformity. having to rigid of a system does not work either. you are seeing a lot bipartisan legislation across the country that reflects greater flex

ability for drugs is -- flexibility for judges. at the federal level, guidelines are handed down. congress also sets the statutory level. these issues are really complicated. congress has to come first at the federal level and re-examine some of those long mandatory sentences. at the state level, what is interesting is that because there is so much concern about how to revisit some of these companies did sentencing structures, you see states like massachusetts and others beginning to think about whether or not they should have their own state sentencing commission so there is an entity in addition to the legislature taking appropriate steps. host: what is the attitude to incarceration issues overall? guest: i don't think it is monolithic.

you can look at the senate and house right now and there are republican leaders who have gotten out in front on the smarter sentencing act which is a measure that would repeal certain federal mandatory in a month sentences -- mandatory minimum sentences. there are republicans who are not fully supportive of everything in those measures. what i see is encouraging. even the staunchest opponents recognize we do need to take an assessment of all of these mandatory minimum sentences. there might be some that need to be revisited. for me and my background that is a huge pendulum shift from where we were 10 years ago. congress was determined to pass more and more mandatory minimum sentences. even to see the shift or there is an examination of which ones might be able to be re-examined is a huge opportunity for us to

have a meaningful conversation. host: one of the senators that comes up is senator grassley, now head of the judiciary committee. what is he bring to the table on this topic? guest: has had a long tenure on the judiciary committee. he is a very serious senator and a sense that he looks at how these issues are impacting his home state of iowa. to give a statement on the floor of the senate where he himself acknowledged he is not fully supportive of all mandatory minimum repeals, but there were some he would take under consideration. to me, that shows an opportunity for a lot more dialogue about how we can reach common ground. as the chairman, he will have the opportunity to bring up these issues. hopefully the committee can reach a consensus. host: he said the odds of an american being subject to

federal prosecution for drug possession in any given year is less than one in a million. guest: i think what is really important in all of this as you look at the totality of the situation at the federal level. the number of federal prisons on earth i know is around 200,000. and is a small fraction compared to the incarceration rate around the country. 50% of them more or less are serving time for drug offenses. i agree with chairman grassley that we need to examine which types of offenders we are talking about. lumping together those with a high low risk and those with high risk is not a way to proceed. me to think about what better opportunities could the low offenders have for programming while serving their time in prison and what tools they need when they come back out.

the last thing any of us want is to see those costs continue to rise in terms of the prison costs and the cost in our communities and families impacted by the issues. host: our guest is christine leonard from coalition for public safety. we have a caller from austin, texas. caller: i just wanted to commend what your coalition is doing. you brought my attention that you got my attention when he brought state capitals because this is one of the few issues in texas and my perception that we have been able to get some kind of consensus and bipartisan work going on. this conversation, intention. my question is which state capitals have you seen be able to have success when it comes to building these partners in coalitions -- partners and

coalitions. we have seen democrats and republicans coming to the table on this issue because of the benefits we get from it fiscally and across the table. the steps you have seen on state capitals taken in positive direction on this issue. guest: texas has been a leader in terms of kamal justice reform in terms of actions at the state legislature and the bipartisan coalition involved in texas that brings folks from all sides of the spectrum. it is accommodation of governmental leadership as well as those working outside of government. to your question, was really exciting about our current moment is it seems like texas and mississippi and new york

mobile home up a home a, kentucky hawaii, there is criminal justice reform going all across the country. i think texas is an example that comes up a line washington because and a lot of ways, texas has been out in front as an example. there is a lot of other places across the country that we are hoping to bring greater attention and inform federal policymakers. in a lot of ways, the states are leaving on this issue at this time. caller: good morning. we have a legislation right now before our legislature on this issue. i was part of writing it. what we need to be careful of his drugs and alcohol are medical issues. and should not be criminal issues. under the rockefeller laws, we got mandatory sentencing which

has now made the united states the largest incarceration country in the world. we will have drug courts. we already have mental health court and that we will have a drug court hopefully if the legislation passes. we have met with judges. judges despise these mandatory guidelines because they don't know who is in front of them or what their backbones are or what caused -- what their backgrounds are or what caused them to take this position. when they go to prison, they are not getting the treatment or any skills for when they come out. when they do come out, they will come back to the community where there are no jobs. guest: i am so glad you brought up the example of delaware. we were able to work with delaware. delaware has taken some extraordinary strides.

getting one bill passed does not in the work -- does not end the work. i really commend the perseverance to try to tackle some of these issues because as our coalition will say, there is no silver bullet that will solve all these challenges. we have to keep working away at the complexity of what is happening in terms of our justice system are now. host: rochester new york is next. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a comment to make. i feel that as long as there is money involved whether it is politics or the criminal system, there is money to be made. it is almost like a new form of slavery again. police make money arresting people and stuff like that. it is hard for things to change,

especially if they don't have equal school systems. guest: i thin you have raised -- i think you have raised some important concerns. when the crime bill passed, it incentivize the states to build prisons as a way to get more federal funding. we are now seeing the consequences of a lot of that 20 years later. this really does come back to spending and what are the incentives and appropriate budget priorities at the federal and state levels . if we are spending so much on incarceration costs, there will be fewer resources available for public education, health care, and other systems that keep our communities healthy and safe. host: lancaster california, hello. caller: good morning. i am a retired ror investigator

for 30 years. i have seen a lot of these laws. the previous caller was correct in the point about the money being involved. i would like to really see some intensive work done prior to funding so these measures can be taken care of. i fully agree that drug offenders need to be placed in a separate spot away from the main area of the more aggressive or more violent prisoners. it is kind of a melting pot and

creator of greater criminals along the line as they go back and. guest: what we are hearing is a lot of the same reasons that were participating organization and coalition have come together. people across the country that are in jail for low-level offenses are the ones we need to be spending resources on. are there more appropriate ways we can get help to those individuals so they are not getting treatment behind the bars but rather in a health care setting? host: jennifer is up next in tallahassee florida. caller: good morning. i also agree with the previous caller who said as long as there is money involved in decision-making, there will be corruption. i want to find out is who can we turn to on the issue of sexual

assault, especially the part that involves children? if the state doesn't handle it properly? guest: i think that depends on where you live. these crimes against children are very serious. it is certainly very important if there is any kind of concern to reach out locally. usually schools have very good resources in terms of who to speak to about any potential offense involving a child. you can go directly to your local prosecutor's office. we are all committed to make sure those types of offenses are handled seriously and probably. host: you will focus on civil asset forfeiture. what is that? guest: it is a phenomenon that has grown in the last several years on the state and federal level. it is a process that allows law enforcement to seize property

including cash, from an individual that suspected of potential criminal activity. these individuals may not yet have been adjudicated guilty. they may not yet have been charged with a crime. the institute for justice has than an incredible amount of work on this issue and recently released their work -- released a report. it is startling for a lot of americans to find that the government can take your money and hold onto it for a long time without giving you the right to a hearing and then hanging onto it for periods that go past people's expectations when individuals are never found guilty of a crime. is usually some type of base with law enforcement that there has been criminal activity with the funds. we are in a climate right now where there is incredible scrutiny around a lot of

transactions. a lot of our coalition partners feel it has been overly broad. host: curtis is up next in georgia. caller: good morning. i would like to make a few comments. keep things in a common sense perspective like the movie liar liar with jim carrey. when the guys called and they were in jail and jim carrey yells on the phone stop breaking the law. first of all, don't break the law. i have a brother in a texas federal penitentiary for murder. my big brother is back in jail for about the fifth time. as far as coming out of jail and needing this and that, first of all don't break the law. i am an iraqi veteran coming back. it is eight years later, and i am still not being helped.

i look at breaking the law versus a vet coming home and not getting help. bring common sense. leave all the therapist stuff out of it. guest: thank you for your service to our country. i think one of the issues you highlighted is that there are situations for people serving their time behind bars that impacts family members. it is definitely a complicated situation. one of the things i have learned a lot in my work in this area is housing and family members support even in terms of phone calls is a way for people that have made mistakes or broken the law can try to find a path back to having a more productive life and living in our communities and a way that is not harmful to others but also has employment and other ways to contribute to the community. host: this is marie in arizona.

hello. caller: my son is in jail because he was driving on pain medication. not only is he getting potatoes and beans, but they took it to another facility nearby and they could not fix his tooth because they had no drill. this is unbelievable. he hasn't been sentenced yet. guest: you bring up a really important issue. that is what happens to people who are held in jail. the macarthur foundation has launched an incredible initiative to look at this issue across the country. they will be working with communities everywhere. they are currently seeking partners to examine what happens to people who are being held in jail prior to arrest. the issue that was mentioned around access to health care for individuals in jail is a very

serious one. unfortunately, there have been serious reports about individuals who have died due to lack of access to appropriate medical care while in jail or prison. it is one i think a lot of us are concerned about. their are jurisdictions that are doing incredible things and making incredible practice improvements to how they handle these issues. there is a lot that can be done safely and appropriately and even cost-effectively. we need to make sure all jurisdictions have the best information. host: this is joe from ohio on the independent line. caller: i wanted to ask your guests if they have a policy concerning jail paid to stay at the state level if you are convicted of a crime. you have to pay. then i have a follow-up question. guest: at this point, we are

still a new coalition so we haven't looked at that issue specifically. if it is one our participating organizations are hearing from their members about, we will take under consideration. host: quickly, what is your follow-up? caller: i expect a double standard punishment for the same crime if i am infected right beside another person and i have assets and am able to pay the punishment. guest: you raise two really important questions. one is the appropriate access to counsel. that is appropriate in terms of those who cannot access a private attorney. do they and up spending more time behind bars because it did not have representation in court? the other is fairness. if you have two defendants facing the same charge, should one of them spend more time

behind bars because they haven't had an attorney of them seek will are there proper mechanisms in place? institute of justice put out a report on this exact issue.there are 12 million people each year for admitted to jail across the country. i think you hit the nail on the head of an area where we need to focus on. host: because of your background , i want to ask you about the states that are changing their laws to allow for immigration marijuana use. is that change future discussions about sentencing for drugs? guest: it is a hot topic across the country. in many places, there is a lot of popular support for those measures. at the same time, one of the things i think about a lot is what is happening for younger people in our communities and what are the signals we are sending as the laws get changed.

it is one thing to look at whether or not they should be penalties for those separate activities but at same time, we want to make sure we are working with law enforcement and local prosecutors because of the younger ages, people have access to recreational drugs that can lead them to an addiction. it is an issue that a lot of states like colorado grappling with. now we will take a close look at that. host: wyoming. this is jane, go ahead. -- james, go ahead. caller: i would like to know why we are going out this behind the issue. these issues were discussed a long time ago, and now we have prisons full of people that have done almost nothing wrong. not nothing wrong.

still, you can't lock a person of four all this time and then expect them to come out different. guest: i think you raise a really important point. what i think is an exciting development is that there is a lot of innovative programs happening around access to post secondary education, use of internet to help people have better access to different kinds of courses than just a ged. what is surprising to me at least at the federal level is there is incredible bipartisan consensus. senators cornyn any white house of come together on the proposal that would increase programming for federal prisoners in terms of access to education, access

to employment opportunities and that is unprecedented. there has never been a measure like that before. it reflects the caller:'s concern. host: the bill you talked about comes from state efforts. what are the states -- what other states are doing interesting things? guest: i don't want to make any final decisions here because we are a coalition's all of our folks will come together to make announcements down the pike. states like kentucky with a have had incredible challenges around prescription drug abuse and as a result saw a rise in rates of incarceration, that state now has a risk assessment tool along with other things to try to expand access to treatment. there is kentucky which is not an east coast they and not a

southern state in a lot of ways. texas came up earlier as one. california is another place with there is a lot of activity and new measures were enacted last year. for us, the challenge will be looking at the states that are already engaged in reform as well as states that maybe have not yet begun. maybe there will be more political will. host: this is john from massachusetts on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. let me make it simple for you. if money is speech and middle class at and the poor all over the world are being oppressed by these international corporate white-collar fascism that will not imprisoned corporate bankers who launder money for drug dealers in this country and congressman and do business with saudis who tore down the

towers, what do you call this? this is fascism. this is merging corporations and privatizing prisons and government. leaving it to private individuals to imprison their own people for profit. guest: think there is a lot of people on curious on this topic. it is interesting that he is from massachusetts and on monday massachusetts is bringing together a commercial justice summit. think part of those conversations will be bringing people together were passionate about this topic and trying to see what we can find agreement. host: michelle in detroit, good morning. caller: the issue i would like to raise is that in michigan we have judges who send men and women to jail because they get

behind in their child support. it behooves me if they go back to jail for falling behind a second time, that their term gets longer. the first time it is usually six months. if you go get behind more than what you should, then you go to jail for almost two years. how do you expect someone who is now labeled a felon to be able to get a job to be able to pay the child support that you need to pay? guest: it is a very important issue. the people have a nice tradition to pay child support along with what is called technical issues that bring people back to prison after they serve their

initial sentence, this is an issue that is very collocated at the state level. it is a huge driver in terms of the number of people behind bars. it is an issue we can only continue to educate people about. as she said, it is a revolving door. it is not something that provides the kind of opportunities and is not cost-effective. it is a system that none of us works. when you look at things have not improved, most people would say we are not doing this the right way. we follow the same approaches in criminal justice and they have not all work. this is true in particular i think of how we can do things differently. michigan is one of the states that has some creative initiatives and is working with some colleges to bring greater coursework back to their state prisons. this will be the kind of

challenge that requires creative thinking and solutions from all different angles. i appreciate the comments the coaller made because this comes back to families. host: what are the next apps for the coalition? caller: we will continue -- guest: we will continue to me. -- meet. we will look to see what is happening at the federal level because there is a lot of enthusiasm and potential for what may happen here in congress in the next few months. it will take us a little bit longer to get organized and figure out where we will work at the state level. it has been incredible to get the feedback to see where our african be most helpful and componentry to a lot of -- where our efforts can be most helpful in couple mentoring and come to mentoring.

host: if you want to learn more about the coalition what is the website? guest: coalition for public safety.org. host: thanks for your time. the recent increases in oil production that you have read about the united rates have led to lower prices and in some cases, fewer jobs as well. nick juliano will be on next as "washington journal" continues. >> this sunday on q&a, dr. adrian berman says how lobbyists influence doctors and what medications to prescribe. >> the promotion of the drug starts 7-10 years before a drug comes on the market.

while it is illegal for a company to market a drug before it has been approved by the fda, it is not illegal to market a disease. drug companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug for example and then blanketed medical journals and medical meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug and to prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only other 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house and 12

but lukens and one new democrat and the senate, there's also 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house on the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the page has lots of useful information including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. new congress, best access on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now from environment and energy news, a reporter for the publication, nick juliano. talking about jobs specifically relating to the oil industry. what is happening in the industry? guest: has been a wild ride in the last six months. without prices over $100 a barrel in the middle of last summer.

they have been relatively low for the last few months. that is causing lots of independent drillers to cut back production and lay off workers. they are not expanding as quickly as they thought they were expanding. their is a lot of -- there is a lot of affect. host: in the mining sector, 198 thousand jobs -- 198,000 jobs. relate those numbers to the past couple of months. guest: we have seen decreases in pretty much all of the areas displayed. i was looking at that report yesterday. in the last year, the biggest losses have been in coal mining and oil and gas explanation and production. all sectors that have been down over the last month and last year, the have seen a decline. host: this is directly related to the cost of oil or production

going to? that's going down? guest: yes. it is great for u.s. consumers but not great for an oil company because the price you pay is the price they are bringing in that they used to fund their activities to expand and keep growing. when prices go down, they cannot do all those things. host: who is directly affected as far as jobs? guest: it is all along the lines. the most immediate effect now is the frontline guys out there working the rakes. if the rigs are not working you do not need the workers to go out there. the oil patch -- louisiana is another big oil-producing state. they rely a lot on offshore which is a longer timeframe.

offshore drillers are not feeling the pinch quite as immediately. anywhere there is oil and gas extracted, it is not having a great time. host: jobs in the energy sector the topic for our last portion here on "washington journal"." is it only when we will see a resurgence as the cost of the price per barrel that is a factor? guest: in terms of the overall economy, the stimulus effect you get from low oil prices is offsetting the trouble in the energy sector in terms of broader economic impact. the overall story is not necessarily a bad one. in terms of rise projections, there is always uncertainty around with the oil price will go.

not many analysts expected to get back to $100 a barrel where it was last year anytime soon. drillers are evaluating their businesses and trying to figure out how to live with prices in more or less the range they will be in for a wild. production cuts and doing less. there are all sorts of financial strategies they can employ to readjust their debt or expenses or manage their books that way. there are a lot of smart guys in houston and new york trying to figure that out right now. host: where are we keeping the minerals if we have such a glut? guest: that is one of the big concerns. we have storage tanks in various places across the country. fishing, oklahoma, is the main hub people talk about the most.

there are a lot of oil drums that you can fill up and store there and we are running out of that space. there will be a pressure to bring that i step. host: is it the refining area that is protected as well? guest: oil is an input for refiners but they all have very thin profit margins. we saw in the latest -- we saw a decrease over the last month. it is affecting the entire sector. host: jobs being affected because of lower gas prices. our guest here to talk about it. the lines will be on your screen . we will hear from jerry in madison, tennessee. caller: good morning. this is kind of a complex

question but you say oil prices have something to do with the reinvestment and the profits and what have you. my question is whenever the prices drop arise, the market is based on what the overall prices are so why do the profits rise or fall based on what the oil people have to pay for the price of it? it is kind of confusing why all of a sudden they lose all their profit and their ability to reinvest because all of a sudden the conservatives are getting a better deal. guest: part of the issue in terms of profitability of oil production depends on where you

are drilling oil and what type of oil you are drilling and what process you are using. it is known as the breakeven price. in places like north dakota, that breakeven price is higher than it is for offshore drilling in the gulf of mexico. the nature of the reserves you are drilling sort of smaller wells, but more of them when you are doing shell explosion as opposed to offshore drilling where you are drilling one well and depleting it for a longer. -- a longer amount of time. when oil drops and it cost you $48 to produce several, you do not have a lot of profit compared to what it is $100 a barrel. host: from north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. as far as the price of gas goes, i hate to say but i would rather have it low.

with the guest: it's tough to say. keystone gets a lot of attention outside of the actual overall effect it would have on the industry itself. it is a transportation project that would bring primarily crude from the oilsands in canada to the gulf coast. it would help producers in canada have another outlet to reduce their transportation costs and increase production. some north dakota oil would be carried as well. the state department says it would create a few thousand jobs in terms of construction and the inducements that activity has graded there are only 35 permanent jobs. it is a small piece of what is

happening in the energy space. host: this is one of the recent headlines. that is the topic of our conversation. our guest is nick juliano. will this eventually collapse the gas market? guest: i don't think we are there yet are in they will have to fall farther. itwhen it gets to that point, it would come back up. there is an equilibrium and i think that's what the market is trying to find, where the price will settle for a long. of time. host: joe from west virginia, you are on. though ahead. caller: i would like to make a comment and ask a question. i am retired coal miner. energy has a lot of ups and downs. the price that the people who

live around weste virginia is karen this. we have had major layoffs. there were 120,000 coal miners in west virginia. today there are less than 15,000 in the united states. you should come look at what it's done to southern west virginia. my question is, president obama has put $2 billion in two the budget to retrain all minors and absorb some of this devastation. the republican congress does not want to help rid what you think about --. what do you think about that? guest: that is an area that has gotten some pushback from the obama administration and the environmental community.

they have pulled out their financing. there was a story that pnc bank has announced they will not be financing mountaintop removal anymore. that is a trend that we are seeing it, putting pressure on those activities. in terms of worker retraining, republicans are putting together an energy bill. the chairwoman of the senate energy committee is on a parallel track. they are putting together legislation. they have put up a few details. one is to focus on workforce development and what to do with worker training pieces. i don't know exactly what the obama administration proposes in terms of targeting west virginia. there is an effort to establish more jobs on both sides of the aisle.

the issue is republicans would prefer home miners to remain co-minors and democrats would prefer them to become solar panel installers or some other green job like that. host: this is can't. caller: two questions for you. the strategic reserve in louisiana, is that topped off now? secondly, to me, this is all a game. our gasoline prices have been as low as $1.70 six weeks ago and now we are up to $2.40 yesterday. oil prices have not gone up. is there any legitimate explanation to justify the increase in gasoline prices? guest: there are a lot of factors that go into gasoline prices and oil prices are less than half.

there is local demand and various aspects like that. it is case-by-case. i don't know the particulars of your of the woods and why they would have gone up at sharply. oil prices have been trending upwards in the last few weeks. in terms of the strategic trolling reserve, that is mostly -- the troll he him reserve, that is mostly full. they wanted to make sure that if we ever needed to tap it, the infrastructure is available in terms of type lines to get the oil out of the sbr and get it where it is needed. it tends to make economic sense to refill it when prices are low and cap it when prices are high. i don't know if there is anything ongoing to change the reserve as it stands. host: it is about $50 a barrel for oil currently.

they expect the drop in the coming weeks. some analysts think by the end of the second order -- quarter it will be $41. guest: there are two major benchmarks. the domestic benchmark is west texas intermediate. that is cheaper than the international benchmark. the issue is referring to the call about gasoline prices, they tend to be set on the international market. that may also explain some of the discrepancy that people have seen. host: this is jewel. caller: i was calling in to find out why is it that we complain and cry about big oil companies and big jobs losing their jobs

and when a grocery store in our neighborhood closes or a chicken plant closes and we lose those jobs, nobody is crying. in the old days when switchboard operators lost their jobs because of progress, that's what it means. progress means you are going to lose jobs. i told them to go to mcdonald's like they told me. guest: she raises a good point. we live in a dynamic economy. people lose and get jobs all the time. i'm sure the workers at the chicken plant were upset and making some noise in the local community when they lost their jobs. there are macroeconomic a floor -- forces that affect all of this. host: the house national resources committee talked about the proposal to open up some offshore areas.

let's listen to what he had to say and put some perspective on it. >> the bottom line is the administration releases things that are unwanted by the industry. they are bound for litigation. in the atlantic ocean -- >> the brown area is the program area for the new leasing that could start as soon as 2017. >> it was already suggested in 2005. it is the least amount that you can propose. not necessarily going forward. that's ridiculous. this administration spends most of its time taking issues off the table. if we want to move forward as a nation we've got to develop

offshore and federal property and federal energy development. it can be done while reserving the environment at the same time. it's not an either or proposition. guest: he gets that long-standing dispute over what part of the federal state should be open to energy development and what should be preserved. it's a dance that both parties go through. in terms of the administration did, they open some areas off the east coast, there was some bipartisan support. at the same time, they took away some areas in alaska that raised some concerns from mr. bishop and the senator from alaska. they had quite a bit to say about that. they always try to balance the

interests of various stakeholders. environmentalists would prefer that the entire east coast be shut off. host: arnold is on the democrat line. you are on. arnold, go ahead. caller: about a year ago i think it was c-span had on the head of greenpeace. he made the following statement. he said if the world's temperature rises another 3.5 degrees, it's over. i think he said something like 95% of all surface drilling species will die, including us. we are on track to reach that increase within 60 years if we continue burning fossil fuel the way we have been for the last 50 or 60 years.

he said we still have time to stop it. the only way to stop it, there is just one way to stop the temperature from rising another 3.5 degrees. that is to leave two thirds of the oil that is in the ground in the ground. you can't bring it up or burn it. what would it do to the economy of the world if there was a way to within 10 years switch over from using fossil fuel to running vehicles electric, powered by a clean source? would that destroy the world's economy? before you answer, let me end this with a statement. what would it do to everyone's attitude about everything to see evidence of god within the structure of the text of my book

. guest: thanks. in terms of switching the economy away from oil and gas the figures you site come from bill mccibbon, he is a well-known activist. he is very active on climate change. he wrote an article in rolling stone crunching the numbers taking what fossil fuels tout and figured out the content from burning all of those and what you need to stay below 3.5 degrees. that is what he came up with. in terms of transitioning to electric vehicles, there are

thousands of entrepreneurs out there trying to figure out how to do that. elon musk is the most well-known one. tesla has several electric cars on the market. they are interested in energy storage, which will be incredibly important for deploying renewable resources. this transition is underway. it will continue in any number of venues. host: you are on next. caller: i want to let you know that every oil company is not exxon. a lot are owned by small families and they have maybe 100 employees. my family has worked in the oil industry for 20 years in different places. it's not just drilling a well and then it's over with. there are well tenders. there are the people who do the paperwork and the lawyers.

there are mechanics. there are surveyors. it takes five years to get a well drilled and several million dollars. you might get a dry well. host: how has your family been affected in the drop in oil prices? caller: the company my husband works for laid off people immediately. they are trying to sell more of their property to keep it going. you can't just walk away from an oil well. you have to have people to take care of it. even if you downsize as far as you possibly can, people have to keep the grounds up into the well. you have to pump the well or take care of it to make sure it doesn't leak. there is a lot that goes into it. they are not drilling. host: thanks. guest: kathy raises an

interesting point. there are a lot of independent people in west virginia. there are shale drillers in oklahoma and texas. they are small and dependent and it's a risky business. you can have a whole and have nothing come out of it at the end. you have money that you literally dug into the ground. those are the companies that are hurting the hardest, especially in the immediate aftermath of the price job. the bigger guys and have a cushion, they are more diversified and larger and have more cash flow and reserves. a lot of these smaller companies , they spend more than 100% of their cash flow. they are reinvesting into drilling new wells. this can pack a punch. host: can we export crude to other countries? guest: not right now except for

in very isolated instances. you can export a lightly refined type of oil. this is getting some attention on capitol hill. joe barton introduced a bill that would eliminate the ban on oil exports. he is on board. she advances the position that the administration can do this. she is not in a big hurry to introduce legislation. you may see some commerce decisions on a case-by-case basis. some companies are self certifying. if company x can export, then we can too. it's the same process. there -- refined products, those

are all export will. that's why there is a global market. that's why the gasoline price is set in amsterdam. host: this is a tweet from a viewer. why do we continue to import? guest: we export more than we import. we are still importing some crude oil. that will be the case for the foreseeable future. host: randy is up next. randy, good morning. caller: the price of gas was $3.85 a gallon. the price for a barrel was $107. now the price of a barrel is down 53% at the price of gas is only down 30%.

the barrel has come down 53%. why hasn't gas come down in proportion with the cost of a barrel of oil? guest: thanks for the question. that is a good point. i think i mentioned earlier that oil is not the only component to the rise of gasoline. there is transportation cost, taxes, other costs that go into what you see when you go to the gas pump. the other point is -- i don't have all the numbers in front of me -- the 53% drop in oil price that is a domestic benchmark. your gas price is set internationally. that may be the discrepancy. it is a complicated market and you can't always explain everything. host: we moved to dave in north

carolina. you are on with our guest nick juliano. caller: thanks. i appreciate it. i have a question about solar energy. are you against fracking? caller:guest: i don't have a position on fracking. i try to keep an open mind and stay objective about all of this. in terms of the solar plant in california, i believe it was the first to be brought online.

a few others have them -- since then. this is a massive project. it was still under construction a couple of years ago. they did get some taxpayer money. they got a loan guarantee. that is in the process of being paid back. they got an investment tax credit. that covered 30% of the cost. that is standard. there is a taxpayer cost. the obama administration waited clear from the time they were elected that more clean energy was a goal they had and that was one way they have been able to do it. solar was an infinitesimal amount when president obama came into office.

i think they installed six gigawatts last year. it's only a percent or two overall of the electricity market. it's much higher than it was when -- wind and solar together have tripled. they are on an upswing. host: how much of the situation we are in is relatable to fracking? guest: it's a lot relatable to fracking. the fracking revolution started around 2008 or 2009. i am struck by the fact that the presidential campaign did not mention fracking. nobody really knew what was and it revolutionized the energy sector altogether. fracking caused supply increases in the united states. we are at historic highs. what caused the sharp price drop

back in the fall was opec decided not to cut reduction to account for our increase in production. they wanted to maintain their market share and compete over long-term. fracking is more expensive than production in the middle east. they are starting a price war and trying to drive fractures out of business. we will see how successful they are. host: let's hear from mike in pennsylvania on the independent line. go ahead. caller: thanks. year after year, you hear about these loyal -- oil companies making these obscene profits anybody ever heard of in the history of capitalism. can you explain to people by a company like exxon or bp

couldn't be happy with a $5 billion profit for a year or two? why do they have to be so astoundingly high? guest: i think the easiest explanation is they are responding to their shareholders to whom they have a duty to maximize profits. their shareholders are tension funds and universities and 401(k)s and mom-and-pop investors and employees of the companies. i think it's basically just as simple as you mentioned maximizing profit is what you do as a large company. host: from louisiana, this is wayne. caller: you know how to bring me out of my shell. i believe in oil, gas, and coal. this country cannot survive

without that. all these environmentalists are a bunch of net cases. i don't believe in nothing they say. i am a denier from the word go. they use fossil fuels and then try to say it's destroying the earth. i don't think a solar plan will or a windmill will provide anything. that is a bunch of farce here in all it is is lies. we've got a man in the white house who lies all the time. he is pain obama not to pay the keystone pipeline. we are living under tyranny in this country. guest: thanks. i think he mentioned tom syre

who is a large donor to environmental groups. he is a counterpoint to the koch brothers. they are large donors to conservative causes. there is a lot of money out there in politics. that is the cost of doing business these days, whether that's a good thing or bad thing is up for them to decide. host: this is arnold in las vegas. caller: i wanted to make a comment about fuel-efficient cars. with the clean energy that the president is trying to get in, this is big oil losing their profits. look at fuel-efficient cars, trucks, passenger planes hybrids, they want to pay their shareholders.

guest: arnold is right. as cars have become more fuel-efficient, oil consumption has gone down overall. this is something we have seen in the last five or six years especially under president obama. for the first time in a while, he increased corporate standards and required fuel efficiency that automakers have to meet. cars are more efficient and more hybrids are on the road. natural gas is used in trucking. there are a lot of alternatives out there. that is having an effect. that is something we have seen in the last 12 months as oil prices have plummeted. truck sales are on the rise. consumers are not looking for

that mpg figure as much as they are looking for something big enough to get all the kids to soccer practice. host: where are we on an energy bill? guest: the wheels are turning. they are turning relatively slowly. so far the leader in the house and his deputy on the committee put out a framework a few weeks ago. they laid out four points. they want to deal with infrastructure, energy diplomacy, things like our relationships with canada and mexico, they want to deal with energy efficiency, and workforce development. one piece of that is a bill introduced last year that would have given more opportunities in the industry for women and

minorities. host: what is the likelihood they will get it, with a republican congress? guest: they are being very deliberate. they want to have some hearings for hand and hear from stakeholders from the issue. they want to keep things bipartisan. at this point, the energy bill is assembled separately from what republicans want to do in terms of rating in -- reining epa rules. there are some modest things that need to be done in the epa space. things like energy efficiency have struggled to gain traction for years. there is a pent-up demand. we have not had an energy bill since 2007. if they try not to make this a partisan grab bag, they might

have decent chances. host: has the white house responded to the approach republicans are taking? guest: they have been moving along with a lot of the epa rules. they are expected to be finalized this summer. that is the main focus from the administration. you have the keystone pipeline that was the first veto this year. that is waiting for a decision on the pipeline itself. host: nick juliano, thanks for your time. that is it for our program today. continue watching. there is a live committee hearing just about to take place. the topic is u.s. policy in ukraine. you will hear from defense department officials from the

ukraine/russia conflict. that will start shortly and we will take you there.