negotiations -- the iran nuclear negotiations. at 9:30, jackie kucinich talks about the religious freedom debate and what it means to the republican party. ♪ host: stepping down as chair of the senate foreign relations committee, senator menendez says he will fight corruption charges. and the justice department is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit by house speaker john boehner against the president.

canceled a planned event for the restoration of freedom of religion act. when it comes to boycott in indiana over the religious freedom law we want to get your thoughts in this hour on what you think of them. if you support them, oppose them, or think otherwise about them. here is how you can weigh in. the numbers are on the screen. you can also waiting on twitter, facebook, and send us e-mail to. there is language, or reports about language, this revision that governor mike pence called for earlier this week for the restoration of freedom of religion act.

it is to be announced thursday morning, today. here in washington, d.c., the senate for america -- center for american progress comes up with a number because of the religious freedom restoration act of $256 million and counting that could be lost from indiana economy. according to one organization that keeps track of these things, robert king joining us

on the phone. thank you for joining us. give us a snapshot of the last 44 hours -- last 24 hours of how businesses could be changing because of the indiana law. guest: the christian church disciples of christ announced that they would be moving their 2017 national convention away from indianapolis. that is a blow, because that is a pretty large convention they bring about 8000 visitors over several days. that single event alone is estimated to cost is about $5.9 million in lost ending. the irony of this is that the christian church disciples of christ is headquartered here in indianapolis. this is a stand they are making here in their own city by not holding their convention and

bringing people from all over the country to come to indianapolis. that is part of the biggest one we've had so far. host: we've also heard about this women's conference that could spend about half $1 million in the state. could you expand on that? guest: i reported on that on monday. that was really the first one to announce a change in the venue. the afscme, the organization that represents labor unions from around the country. they bring somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 to 900 people for the weekend. that is estimated to be about $500,000 for just that one weekend. they haven't even figured out an alternative location, but they decided it's not going to be indianapolis. host: mr. king, there is also a

story taking a look at the final four. is there any planned announcement or some type of protest of this event because of the law? guest: we haven't seen anything planned so far. the final four coaches issued a statement yesterday in support of the ncaa that this a problem and it needs to be addressed. we have not seen any formal protest. this is a good venue for anyone who wants to make a statement because it is one of the most-watched sports events in the country. and it seems are just arriving today. the event really doesn't start get going until the teams start practicing and the fan start coming in to watch those and coming in for the weekend. it will be interesting to see what happens. host: robert king, has the business sense from the business

community, chambers of commerce, business associations, hotels, though sides of -- those types of things, have they waiting on the impact of the loss of business? guest: well, they are. they are being very outspoken. the deal you referred to that will be announced today, our statehouse reporters have been talking about how intimately involved the business entity was in the deal that is going to be announced. they were directly part of the negotiations and their views have been taken strongly into account, perhaps even more so than the social security social conservatives that were driving the religious -- the social conservatives that were driving the religious freedom legislation. the largest group of state employers sent the letter to the governor saying, we've got to do something about this. and there have in -- has been a

lot of concern, everyone from past mayors of indianapolis, two other city leaders saying it will have an impact on our city. former governor daniels an interview with the lafayette newspaper saying there are a lot of people heartsick about what is happening to indiana and to indianapolis. i think that captures and well. host: that is robert king, with the indianapolis star, looking at the economic effect of the boycotts in indiana. mr. king, thanks for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: now it is time for you to weigh in on the boycotts on businesses in indiana because of the religious freedom restoration act. would you support or oppose these types of boycott done by businesses? you can give us your thoughts on three lines this morning. the numbers are on the screen.

let's go first of two shell beverly hills, california, go ahead. caller: good morning. i basically want to say that i'm a born again christian and i do not believe in same-sex marriage. i feel like if you own a business, you should not have to bake a cake, take photographs or make flowers. we have the right to deny that if we want to. that is my business. but i'm going to stand up for the word of god. i don't care what people say. people may call me a bigot, and i'm african-american. but i'm going to set up for the word of god. host: what do you think about these boycott that you heard announced and you heard our guest talk about you what you think about them and their effectiveness? guest: -- caller: it's about

money and the almighty dollar. why should a person because they choose that lifestyle in frigid on my staci appel this country is going -- infringe upon my faith? you turn away from god and god's word, then hey you know, god will have the final say. host: the boycotts in indiana would you support or oppose them yet -- oppose them? demerit, in florida, go ahead. caller: i see a lot of problems with the gender identity part of the bill. i think that may be a problem with the state law. i'm not really sure how the law is going to work. and i guess, in 31 states they have not passed this termination laws. that is all i really know -- discrimination laws. that is all i really know about it. host: before you go, boycotts

would you support them? she is gone. this is stephen from shelbyville, indiana. caller: good morning. how are you doing this morning? host: well, thanks. go ahead. caller: i support the boycotts, honestly. this is not about religion. this is the laws. religion don't trump laws. people have rights being taken away from them. host: being in indiana resident then how do you plan -- if you say you supported, do you change your business have a? what do you think -- your business habits? what do you think? caller: i'm not really involved in much business, so it don't really affect me at all. host: linda in missouri, on the line to oppose the boycotts. go ahead. caller: hi, i just want to understand. all these people are boycotting

the state because they are against gay marriage being served? is that what is going on? it is unbelievable if all of these people are doing this in support of gay people. oh, my god. with all these huge issues in the world and this is what happens for gay people, i'm floored. host: then why do you oppose boycotts specifically echoed -- specifically? caller: because first of all, i just don't think -- it doesn't deserve this kind of attention. there are human rights violations everywhere and they picked this one? oh, my god. it is outrageous. host: if you go to the front

page of the gazette, asking for a reconsideration of the bill coming out of arkansas, governor hutchinson. there is some of what governor hutchinson had to say. [video clip] governor hutchinson: this is a bill in ordinary times that would not be controversial. but these are not ordinary times. the bill itself is not complicated. ability else restates the -- the bill itself restates the court's

ability to deal with privileges as compared against the state. that is simple summary of what this legislation does. it is a balancing test. ability self -- the bill itself does not take winners and losers. the issue has become divisive because our nation remains split on how to balance the diversity of our culture with the traditions and firmly held religious convictions. it has divided families and there is clearly a generational gap on this issue. my son seth, sign the petition asking me, dad, the governor to veto this bill.

and he gave me permission to make that reference. and it shows in families there is a generational difference of opinion on these issues. host: the story in the new york times says that part of the reasoning behind the governor's decision is because of walmart. walmart is an unlikely social force.

again, boycotts in indiana over the religious freedom restoration act. do you support them or oppose them? if you live in indiana, we have support -- we have set aside a line for you as well. the numbers are on the screen. let's hear from tina, seal beach, california, who says she opposes them. good morning, tina. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm a senior citizen and i have watched america just start pulling apart from the inside out with one right after another right after another riot -- one riot after another riot after another riot. they are tearing down the small businessman for this and then tearing down the small

businessman for that. and the small businessman is what is -- has made america great. since i was young, i've seen the sign "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," and all of a sudden, you cannot refuse the right -- reserve the right to refuse business to anyone. and i think the polarity has gotten so great with my way or the highway that you can no longer have to both sides to a conversation. and both sides to a conversation is what made america healthy and what made a lot of evil want to come here. -- a lot of people want to come here. i oppose the city and i oppose these riots. it's like the rusty wheel gets the grease. we need to get on with national

security and get on with things that are important, jobs and the things that make america great and stop nitpicking over silly little things like this. host: james is up next from sheffield, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. host: doron, go ahead. caller: -- you are on, go ahead. caller: i support the forecast. it is plain civil rights. it's like putting a sign in your window saying "no blacks." is the exact same law. a no difference in it. host: one of those weighing in is the ceo of hewlett-packard, carly fiorina.

and adding that she thinks both those points are valid. this is in usa today. we are talking about the topic of the boycotts. we will hear from john in ellwood city, pennsylvania. he opposes the what cots. good morning. caller: good morning. first, i'm a staunch democrat and i have been since 1975. i oppose this, because people should not have to be forced to do something. there are other cake makers. there are other photographers. there are other flower people. and i think our state and

countryeople. we will put the gaze over here and we will cause them problems and we will put the blacks over here and cause them problems. and we will put these people over here and cause them problems instead of saying, you know, we are all in this together. i mean, we are, really, all in this together. that is what i got to say. thank you for letting me on c-span. i want you guys everyday. host: lee is next on -- in new berlin wisconsin. who support the boycotts. go ahead. caller: republicans are doing everything they can. what they are doing right now is having a hissy fit because they lost their battle -- their court battle for gay marriage.

they are trying to get some of this back. they know exactly what they are doing. they are trying to outlaw abortion by nitpicking at these little laws, putting in place these crazy things we have to do, even though it is a legal procedure. host: to the topic of boycotts, you called in saying you support them. why? caller: because it shows exactly where the gop is. they know exactly what they are doing with this. for anyone to call in and say oh, we should all get along and this is silly, no, it is not silly. there are gay couples, and maybe you can tell maybe they are holding hands, i don't know. and you can refuse them service for a hotel? that is ok? and they can do that with this law. host: let's hear from david in virginia, who opposes the boycotts. caller: thank you for having me

on. i've been losing my mind over this issue. this is america and we have somebody people who are serious about the first amendment. i oppose the boycott. everybody has the right to give money to whom they want to give money to. these boycotts are hypocritical. you have business leaders and other people saying they want to choose to withhold business from certain entities really, to large-scale detriment. and this is exactly what they are saying the small business owners are not allowed to do. it has to be hypocritical. it is not the same thing as jim crow laws. jim crow laws were mandated by the government to segregate people. this is a law in indiana that is restricting government involvement. anyway, the politicians are being fearful, the republicans are. but these business leaders are being just as political. they want people to spend money

and they think they can get more popularity by taking a social stand. it is hypocritical. i'm about to go to indiana and spencer money myself. thank you for having me on. host: shelley, charleston, west virginia, go ahead. caller: hello, this is shelley from charleston. i cannot believe that the people do not -- i'm sorry, i have a cold. as bad as the economy is, that people want to deny services to the lgbt community. and how arson -- how are people supposed to know? are they going to make them carry a card saying they are gay? this is a really stupid law. i hope the republicans keep on in 2016, because they are going to anyway. thank you. host: thank you.

9:00 this morning is when the renounced -- announced revisions to the religious freedom restoration act happen. 9:00 when the rollout will take place. and then about 9:30 a.m. is when the legislative process becomes part of it. that is scheduled for this morning. we are talking about boycotts against the date -- the state over this act. we've heard from many on both sides of the issue. you can weigh in. there are three lines, one for those who support, who oppose and for indiana residents. one of the evidence that took place away from indiana -- one of the events that took place away from indiana, bob menendez. saying that prosecutors charged the senator and wealthy donor solomon melton with a bribery

scheme. because of that, senator menendez announced he would step away as the senior member of the foreign relations committee. when talking about the formal charges, here is what he had just a. [video clip] -- here is what he had to say. [video clip] senator menendez: i have always stood up for what i feel is right. i fight for the issues i believe in and the people i resent, and the safety and security of this country every single day. -- the people i represent, and the safety and security of this country every single day.

i have my compliments and i am not going anywhere. [applause] i'm angry and ready to fight because today contradicts my public service career and my entire life. i'm angry because frosted peters -- prosecutors at the justice department do not know the definition of corruption and have twisted my duties as a senator and my friendship as -- into something that is improper. they are dead wrong and i'm confident they will be proven so. host: some of the gifts that prosecutors say senator menendez received included a private jet, and other things.

that was back in may, 2012. the folks at the national journal have comprised a list of other folks who have been charged with corruption, similar types of things going back to 2008. that is, ted stevens, the republican from alaska, charged with financial misconduct for failing to disclose gifts, about $250 -- $250,000 with. kay bailey hutchinson, from texas, accused of having abused her power in her previous office as state treasurer. the list, 12 in all, going back to 1807. that was in the national journalists morning. robert from texas, he said he supports the boycotts. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call, pedro. i support the boycotts because

people have rights, just like people who do not support the boycott -- the all caps. and to the lady that says she's a born-again christian, she needs to open up the bible and take a good look at it, because if she does, she will find out that christianity was creating -- created by satan. in the first chapter of genesis went satan got thrown out of heaven, he went to the second chapter of genesis and called himself the lord. he did not get a new name until the new testament and started calling himself lord jesus, and then jesus christ, which is short for christianity. people need to take a look at the holy bible. it is not heavenly. thanks for taking my call. host: terry from carolina, who opposes the boycott. your next. terry from north carolina, go ahead. caller: yes, sir, obviously, i

feel as though people have rights, but when they assume this position -- and i did dial the number incorrectly -- this position in the united states government, there are issues that concern people that have differences that need to look at the facts. how many of these people were sexually abused as children? and i have a child that has been sexually abused by a bisexual father. i think this is getting to the point of intolerance for me that i don't understand how a straight person is messed up with people that tell lies, do dirty, nasty things to children. host: randy from michigan support line, hello. caller: good morning, pedro, and

i would like to start out by thanking you and all them folks behind the scenes that bring us this great show, because it is a great show. i support the boycott because everyone pays money to put in roads, sewers, water, not just the business people. or they wouldn't have a business. and as a gay person walked up and they said, you will not use my piece of road right here, as you have a business. that is ridiculous, folks. we already have the laws on the books to protect all of you religious folks to practice your religion. you don't get to practice your beliefs. those are not protected. your right to practice your religion is, not to impose your silly beliefs on everybody. thank you. host: the washington times reports that the former official at the irs, lois lerner, not going to be prosecuted for her role in the irs scandal.

that was in the "washington times." also in the "washington times" this morning issue over the president's health care law by john boehner. the justice department was

pushing to have the suit talk out. -- tossed out. that is in the "washington times." we will hear from greg in palm beach, florida, who is supporting the boycott of businesses by the state of indiana over the restoration freedom religion act.

caller: is there a separation of government and religion in the united a seattle host: -- in the united states? host: you asked that why? caller: because of "one nation under god." if it is indivisible, between the nation and god, how can it have a separation? host: and how do you think this relates to the boycotts currently going on? caller: it relate to the boycotts because this nation is indivisible from god. and the right you are certain that these homosexuals have is not an inalienable right, which is the only right guaranteed by the cost to jean. it is not a civil right, because the government does not have -- guaranteed by the constitution. it is not a civil right, because the government does not have the

right to the church. we should boycott the business is like disney, walmart. that you would pick holy week to make this an issue, to me, it is reprehensible. there is not a separation. it is indivisible between god and this nation. it is not divisible between the states. there is a separation problem here. the institutions created by the church, look at the assertions when you are taking your oath. host: that is greg in west palm beach, florida. steve in evansville, indiana. an indiana resident. caller: great conversations morning. i think we need to take a little bit of air out of the balloon and breathe for a minute. i think we are emotionally

involved in a lot of things in this discussion and there is a better way to go. host: i guess, we look at it outside of indiana in washington, d.c. how do you all look at it inside indiana? caller: i cannot speak for a ton of people, but what it boils down to is this. we are being asked to respect other people's opinions and their belief system, and what happens is the tolerance they are expecting us to have of their beliefs and their views, they are not willing to give back to tolerate us and our beliefs and our views. it is not a two-way street. it is, you do it our way because we are a vocal minority. and you do it our way because you need to be tolerant of us. but nobody is willing on the other side to be tolerant of our religious beliefs and views. and what happens is we just keep

ratcheting up the volume and the rhetoric and he gets blown out of proportion. all this law does give -- is give small businesses and large businesses the ability to state their views. it doesn't say that is going to be right or wrong. a jury or court will decide whether their views are allied or not. -- are valid or not. for someone to say, "i'm a big and i will not serve as, why the community -- not serve x, y, z community" a court will either uphold or not and. whether you are against gay marriage or against orthodox religion, it goes both ways. it goes on and on and gets blown out of proportion. there needs to be tolerance both ways. host: that is steven in

evansville, indiana. we will hear from another indiana resident, sherry in dyer, indiana. hello. caller: good morning to you. i'm in favor of the boycott, only because it is to be the only voice that can be raised and heard that matters on the bottom line. i'm a christian, and he grieves my heart -- it grieves my heart that the jesus i know came to serve all of us. and tomorrow on good friday, he hung, and the lead and died on a cross --and bled, and died on that cross for all of us. and in his time here, he did not discriminate, did not shove aside, did not decide who was worth helping and who was not. and personally now, when i go into a restaurant or business, i asked them, do you serve all people?

and so far i'm glad to say i have not run across anybody who will tell me to deny certain people. what disturbs me is that they close these laws in the name -- they clothe these laws in the name of faith, and it has nothing to do with faith whatsoever not the phase i know, not the jesus i know. he asked us to love one another, to help one another, not to hate one another, not decide who deserves our love or compassion. and as indiana resident, it embarrasses me that we cannot love one another. we are one people made by the creator. he knows our lives. he has a plan for each one of these lies, and it's not for us to judge anyone else's life but our own. host: that is sherry joining us

from dyer, indiana, giving her thoughts on the boycotts going on against the state, against corporations. we invite you to continue on calling in on this topic. the lines will be on the screen. the house speaker john boehner in israel as part of a trip out there, appearing side-by-side with the israeli premise or benjamin netanyahu. "the new york times" writing about it, saying this.

that event taking place while the speaker was there. here is a little bit from the trip by the speaker. [video clip] john boehner: our delegation spent the last five days throughout the miller -- the middle east, and regardless of where in the middle east we have been, the message has been the same. you cannot continue to turn your eye away from the threats that face all of us. and as you said, the bonds between the united states and israel are as strong as ever. our two countries cooperate on many different levels, and while we may have political disagreements from time to time, the bonds between our two nations are strong. and they will continue to be strong. it has been an historic trip.

and frankly, it is an extort -- it is an historic opportunity to be in israel at this time. and let me take a moment to say congratulations on your reelection. prime minister: thank you. the hard part begins now, as you know. [laughter] that was the easy part. the elections are always the easy part. host: that exchange, you can see that on our website www.c-span.org. dana from texas, who supports the war caught -- the boycott. go ahead. caller: good morning. i teach at a university in central texas and just last night we showed our students who want to attend a video documentary about the 1961 bus boycotts and the lunch counter where they did this it-in -- the siti-ins and the people in the

south who beat them up, who did not want to open their lunch counters or places of business that we pay taxes to, they said the bible said, blacks should not be with white and white should not be with blacks. and i saw a 1961 -- in 1961 how the boycotts helped. we are in the second civil rights era. it was so powerful to see that last night. boycotts do work. we are not asking for different religions to marry anybody they don't want to. but this is to go to a florist a baker, and if we start saying

only this bakery will only serve these people, this florist will only serve these people, then we have started segregating ourselves in the most astral the way. and that is -- the most dastardly way. and that is not the united states my husband fought for, and that his parents worked so hard for. i'm proud to be an american citizen. so thank you. this is easter weekend, and we do reflect on christ. i hope everybody will have a good weekend. host: des moines, iowa, is next supporter of the boycott. here is john. caller: yes, sir, i'm prompted mostly by a call earlier by someone saying the pledge, "one nation, under god" and if i understand it, that was added under the mccarthy era and not in the civil war era, for instance. that was added in the mccarthy era, we wanted to stand aside

from the douglas tom issue. that was added over a political fight that happened over 70 years ago. that was not part of the original pledge of allegiance. that was added during the mccarthy red scare. it was not part of the original pledge of allegiance. people need to be aware of that. host: to the topic of the boycotts? caller: about the boycott, i'm not in between -- i'm kind of in between. and that is not the reason to support it. host: that is john telling some of his thoughts. here is mike, a resident of indiana. caller: we are devolving into model here. this is crazy. -- involving into mob rule here. it is crazy. two gig i've cannot find someone to -- to bank two gay guys

cannot find sometbody to cater their wedding, it's crazy. they need to find some little old lady to bake cakes to hold them out to ridicule, it's a witch hunt. these people ought to be ashamed of themselves. i don't care for get married. i don't care what they do. but don't force it on other people. leave people alone. host: caroline from west grove pennsylvania, your next on this topic. hello. caller: hello, nice talking to you. i believe they are stepping up people's religion. and i believe that is what is coming to. i don't like that. i'm a christian. i'm not against people, but i do not like what they are doing. they are like mobs out in the street.

as far as walmart, i do know business with them. and i don't intend to do business with them. because they have stepped in on something they have no business stepping in on. big business is involved in this and it's not right for our country. i'm opposed to them mobbing the streets. host: sylvia, up next from lafayette, louisiana. hello. caller: hello, i'm calling about the boycott. it's perfectly fine to do boycotting. that is not the problem. the problem is, it is being misconstrued in the media. these people did not refuse to serve a gay couple. they don't want to offer catering services. which is a totally different issue. you don't have to show this on the media 24/7 four days to

get the point across. it's one small issue in this country for 300 million people that are having problems supporting themselves. these are the issues. these people can find a bakery or a pizza place to cater their wedding. they just pick this for place because they were religious people. that is it, the whole issue. host: the "new york times" this morning and other publications detailed stories this morning about mandatory curbing water use in california. here's is a picture provided by the new york times this morning. here to tell us what is going on is matt stevens, the metro reporter from the los angeles times. can you set this up? whited governor brown for these restrictions in place? guest: augusta are in pretty bad

shape over here, pedro. yesterday, the government went out to do a snowpack measurement, which is essentially a dog and pony show for the media, at least the manual part of this. other readings of the sierra nevada show about 5% or 6% of the water in the snow, the water concentration in the snow, was available. that was groundbreaking, because in previous years, even when the drought was persisting in 19 77 when there was a very significant drought, the water concentration level in the know was about 25%. that was the old record, and yesterday, and we found snow water content of about 5% or 6%, prompting the governor to hand out these restrictions. host: specifically, how are these researches going to take place? who is most affected? guest: the restrictions they

rolled out yesterday focused primarily on urban life. last year in january, the governor asked residents to voluntarily reduce their water use by about 20%. and frankly, water officials in our state have come back and say, you know, you guys have not done well enough on that. the major sort of thing to take out of yesterday's announcement is that california is now being asked to mandatorily cut their water use by 25%. and to do that, the governor's office is going to replace about 50 million square feet of lawn. a lot of folks have torn up their lawn in southern california and replace it with drought tolerant landscaping. the governor has asked to create a temporary rebate program to help people replace their fixtures, toilets, things like that.

big campuses, school campuses golf courses dormitories other things that use a lot of water will have to cut back on their use. even new homes and developments will be prohibited from using potable water unless there are water efficient systems in place. a lot of the attention will be on the urban users which --sorry, go ahead. host: what has been the reaction from those types of businesses home construction, gardeners carwash, what is the reaction? guest: i think it makes the drought a reality now. there were some calls yesterday that the governor's action could have gone even further. but i think folks in general know that, you know, when he to get on board. there are stories of -- we need to get on board. there are stories of really

serious water shortages in central and northern california. in southern california, we get most of our water from northern california. and frankly, i don't think folks here have been hit that hard yet. but in general, i think the governor's word was pretty well received. host: stay on the line for a second, because it was on pbs news yesterday that the governor talked about the agricultural sector and how they might be affected by all this. here is a bit of that. [video clip] governor brown: the farming sector has taken a lot of hits. the trees are dying. they are not getting the water that the federal government promised, not a drop. they are only getting a small fraction of the state water project. agriculture is fundamental to california, and yes, they use most of the water, and they produce the food and the fiber we all depend on and which we

export to countries around the world. we are asking them, too to give us information, to file agricultural water lines, to amend the underwater -- the underground water, and to share it. this is a calm grant the program that has never been attempted any time in california history. it is bold. we have a lot to learn. we have to listen to how it rolls forward and rolls out. but i think the farmers are suffering a lot, and they are being asked to do a lot through this executive order. host: matt stevens, are they being asked to hold back on water as well? guest: it was clarified in a call yesterday with water officials that, in fact, there is no hard, mandatory cap on farmers in terms of water use. but water officials did stress that they are being asked to pitch in, too.

the major demand of farmers and agricultural users is, basically they asked them to do a better job reporting information on their water use. essentially, there are these plans that folks have to submit and depending on how many lines go to a farm, more folks will have to submit them and they will have to submit them in greater detail. host: now that the restrictions are in place, how long do they expect them to stay in place? guest: every time it rains folks look up and say, is the drought over now? we have reached the end of our rainy sisson -- season, and that is part of the reason they took

the snowpack measure now. none of the forecasters believe there is too much precipitation insight -- in sight. i believe the plan asks that the 25% mandatory cut get done by sometime in 2016. i cannot imagine anyone would hit the bricks on this -- the brakes on this any earlier than that. it's getting hotter in california now, and with less rain, that combination definitely spells out drought for us. host: matt stevens, talking about the drought in california. mr. stevens, thank you. guest: thank you. host: back to your phone calls about the boycott in indiana. my, go ahead. caller: i believe what is going on in california and with what

cost is the wrath of god. homosexuality is a sin. homosexual marriage was not even recognized by pagan laws. two emperors were forced to drink poison. i forget the other guy's name. what is wrong with us? we have gone crazy. wright has become wrong and wrong has become right. if you go to a restaurant, you don't wear a sign that says "i'm a homosexual" and people don't refuse you food to eat. but we won't -- don't want to be involved in catering a homosexual marriage anymore than we want to be involved in satan worship. it is evil. it is of the devil. and i think our leaders, their father's the devil. that is the way we are going. host: marian in indiana, hello.

caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i personally think this law is ridiculous, and i am dismayed that it is representing myself as an indiana resident. it essentially comes down to a person having to prove their faith in court. i don't how you do that, honestly. it is a waste of my money as a taxpayer. i support the boycott. i'm sorry, it's the only way indiana gets into -- get any attention and its negative. but it is putting light on the cause. mike pence says the reason he wrote it was in response to the university's position in regard to the refusal of birth control in accordance with the affordable care act. i'm sorry, but that's not

putting true too much. as long as this is getting national attention, and for the boycott. all in all, all it will prove is that mike pence will become a more suitable conservative candidate for president, even if the law is repealed or not. host: thomas from new york opposes the boycott. hello. caller: hello. my comment is, i have a good friend who does a leatherworking business and a lot of his work is selling motorcycle patches on. -- sewing motorcycle patches on. he will refuse to do something if it is hate speech and the person can go to someone else to sew the patch is on. why don't they find someone who will support them, instead of suing the individual who does not want to perform the service? host: that is new york calling it. the financial times is highlighting the changes made by the corporation mcdonald's when it comes to pay.

in several of the papers this morning you will find a full-page ad by mcdonald's. by the end of 2016 we estimate the average pay for employees will be in excess of $10. and if they choose not to take paid leave, they will get a check for that value. we understand that life balance is important and we believe this will make a difference to our people. that is the full page at. the story is in the paper this morning, talking about what is happening in the corporate restaurant mcdonald's. kevin from indiana, hello. caller: hello. i've been hearing about this since it all started here in

indiana, and how everybody's going to boycott us and all of this. i think this just proves that our true constitution is not being held up. and that everybody wants to point fingers at who is right and wrong, when basically, we don't have democracy in this country no more. it's all about lawyers telling you how to get sued, or to sue a state or somebody for your beliefs. and then you've got corporations taking their opinions and pushing them on the people. i don't understand where we are heading. host: the next call is from mike in ocean springs, who opposes the boycott. good morning. caller: yes, sir, good day.

there is no hay to my voice. i'm 51 years old. i've seen a lot of changes. i've seen an abortion law come about. i member the old-timers coming out, the mother, the dad children being raised right on farms and tough. now we see a lot of chaos. we have battle in hollywood spilling out the filthy movies that ever was. i'm not going to be supporting the boycott because most of them are homosexuals that run it. i have a cabin and i'm thinking about moving up there. these corporations are not having dominance over me. i'm a hunter and trapper. i'm a was in and i have many skills. but our freedoms are going down. this president, he is the most divisive president we've had in our life. why don't they uphold these laws that ban same-sex marriage? they have not.

why does the left have to have their every little way? because they are we will visit an online publication here in bc called the daily beast. several of their members will talk about the publication, how it works as mother the content you will find on it. we will be first joined by john avlon. here is the editor in chief of the publication. he will join us next. later on, we will talk to the senior national security correspondent nancy youssef about the latest in the iran nuclear talks in the fight against isis. first off, we will take a break and test out the -- of the daily beast. >> the most memorable moment of this week for me was hearing senator cory gardner in our

lunch yesterday say you need to be firm but flexible. the reflects the solution like the harsh polarization we are seeing across our country and the methodology that of all the senators and all the congressmen and women can adopt, we can come together as a country and solve many of our pertinent issues. >> my favorite parking from julie adams. she said remember to be humble and have a strong work ethic. be kind to people you meet on the way up. you'll meet them again on the way back down. >> i think in particular congress itself oftentimes has a lack of true statesman. senator john mccain did something very impressive last year. he committed to the veterans affairs reform bill. reading the senate torture report and maintaining how saying away from torture is essential to the character of our democracy, at the point where we have people who are willing to cross the aisle, who are willing to make these

decisions with people who they may not often agree with, that is essentially what we need to maintain the security and integrity of our nation as we go on. >> high school students who generally write academically in the top 1% of their states were in washington dc as part of the united states senate youth program. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. washington journal continues. host: throughout the years on this program, we have gone to the offices of news organizations here in washington d.c. to find out about their organizations and how they cover the news. today, we go to the "daily beast" which you can find online at dailybeast.com. john avlon the editor in chief joins us. guest: good morning. host: how do you define what you

do to other people when they come to your site? how do you set your sights -- set yourself apart from others? guest: we are essentially a politics and pop culture site but we do it back with real reporting. we are the alternative to particular partisan sites and content forums that you see some much today. my friend, the journalist to pass away a couple years ago says there are three great beats in american journalism. politics, hollywood, and war. that is what we cover at "daily beast" and the key for us is we focus on scoops, scandals, and secret worlds. we love confronting bullies, bigots, and hypocrites. that is what gives us alive in fighting as a lean and hungry beast. we are aggressive and we like to do real reporting and have fun doing it. host: what kind of stuff do you have and are they committed to find these kinds that you are looking for?

guest: absolutely. here, we have about eight reporters from politics and national security. you will be talking to some of them later in the next couple hours. in new york, we have a team considerably larger than that. we are lean and hungry compared to some outlets. the key for us is to realize and it has been key to our growth -- we grew 50% at the end of last year. we are majority mobile, and our audience is 75% millennial or gen-x. people will respond, particularly young people, to real news if it does deals with exec medicine. balancing the edge and attitude of online news brands with the quality and credibility of legacy newsprint. when you combine the two, you get the daily beast. you can make a difference and a

dent in online conversations. we grew over 230% in the social commedia last year -- social community last year. you say go out there, have fun be fair, and all of a sudden you can get a real response. it is counter to a lot of the commodity news people have come accustomed to. host: if you go to the pages by now, there is a story about finding iran's secretive drone. there's a story about monica lewinsky and bob menendez. how do you decide what goes to the front page or the top for readers to get to? guest: you look for the best story there is. you look for a good vibrant high low mix. there's a story about discovering a secret iranian drone-based and the indictment against bob menendez and the whole culture of corruption in new jersey. a funny smart piece that stacks up the complaint against menendez but the legacy of corruption in the garden state.

and then a look at monica lewinsky's resurgence. he got eric a young, feminist icon who really criticized monica lewinsky in the 1990's and she apologized saying she was essentially wrong to engage in a political pylon that was disparaging to monica lewinsky at the time. you look for the right mix and you always want to respect your audience's intelligence and time. if you get the right vibrant balance between politics and pop culture, if you break real news that makes a dent in the conversation, you have a great story mix. that is what we have been able to achieve at "daily beast" and it is a constant process. we say today our best, tomorrow better. we are under no illusions that

we have arrived. we need to say hungry and aggressive and work to get better. the growth we have seen is a vindication of the effort. host: numbers are on the screen if you want to talk to john avlon about "the daily beast." there are two goats behind you, don't be boring, don't be stupid. how do they play into the daily news work of the daily beast? those are our key editorial rules. we like to keep things simple and strong. don't be boring and don't be stupid area and that is a quick and punchy way of saying respect your audience and their time and their intelligence. particularly for younger generations, the dumbest thing you can do to appeal to millennial's is dumb it down. people are smart. you need to respect the fact. write headlines and stories that you would read and your family and friends would read. make sure you are adding value.

don't be stupid. don't bottom feed in an attempt to broaden your audience. it will not work. focus on edge and differentiation that respect to audience. the other point about don't be boring there is an ascension that some legacy news brands have that goes under the veil of commodity news. essentially everything is watered down and the voice is stripped out of it. i think that is a death sentence is what. people really want to see voice particularly in online reporting. i am a former columnist and i still write when i can. the column is a good form in general but for the daily beast, you want reporting done with a lot of voice so you add value to the conversation. there is a sense it doesn't taste right medicine. what we have found is particularly in the rising tide of social media, so many things

get commoditized. so many sites just rewrite other people stories. even opinion can be commoditized. if you break real news and add real value, it can resonate. outside of social media it can make a mark. they cannot taste that it cannot taste like medicine. one of the complaints that makes me frustrated in the world of news, particularly in tv news is on summit he says that is really important but it doesn't reign. when you to understand and take response ability for the fact that if something is important it is our job to make interesting. if we cannot do that, we have failed in our jobs. that has an urgency to as we go through this massive change. more and more readers are getting their news via the social media feeds so you need to punch harder to resonate out. you can do it with quality and credibility but it cannot taste like medicine. it cannot be boring.

host: we will spend our day at "the daily beast" talking to several of the reporters and the editor-in-chief john avlon. first call for you is from mark in st. paul, minnesota. go ahead. caller: i am wondering one of these news agencies going to report on the overpayment to legislators in d.c. they get a huge salary, unlimited sick days, you work under 100 days a year and get lifetime benefits after being in office for three terms. guest: i am making a point generally about the dysfunctional culture and their lifetime appointments in congress? host: he left us but i think that is his point.

guest: one thing you should know about the beast in our political perspective is it was very fashionable around a decade ago to put forward partisan news sites. partisan new sites have hurt the credibility of journalism overall. one of the things we do here is make sure we are not partisan and not neutral -- not partisan and neutral. we punch left and right and that gives us unpredictable. we are voices ranging from liberal to libertarian. that degree of partisan predictability kills credibility but it compounds the problems we are seeing in washington. in my own writing, i have zeroed in on the dysfunctional nature of washington dc because of the unprecedented polarization. people are right to be frustrated. 90 to recognize and we need to recognize that partisan media has had a really compounding effect on the problems in washington.

we have the opportunity to be correct and independent. that is one of our key values. one of our key phrases that we use inside the beast to remind us who we are and how we are different is that we are independent, irreverent, and intelligent. that is a promise to ourselves and our readers. young people are sick of partisan media. there is a region a majority of millennials self identify as independent. they are sick of the partisan straitjacket they get put in that leaves our country to dysfunction rather than being able to solve albums. -- solve problems. host: linda you are our next caller. go ahead. caller: you said your audience is mostly millennials but yet recently i saw a poll that said millennials don't know much of anything. i am hoping or i would like to

know how your site would increase the knowledge of young people that they don't seem to be getting through the education. guest: there is a tendency in all generations to look at the rising generation and say we are going to hell in a handbasket. these kids today. that impulse is understandable but it is rarely accurate as history will show. the key to appealing to millennials which is half hour audience is to understand a couple of key facts. it is the most diverse generation in american history. they have a real distrust of organizations and institutions which leads to a high degree of political independence. these are young folks who are massively news consumers on mobile devices, which is why it is significant we are mostly mobile.

that has huge implications for the industry overall. they are getting a lot of their news through social media feeds. i really do believe the dumbest way you can appeal to millennial's and younger readers is by dumbing the news down. they will reward intelligence and integrity as long as there is punch and energy and attitude to it. that is what we can provide, and that is our obligation. it is a big mistake to write off a whole generation. it is a mistake most generations have fallen into. i understand the temptation but it is ultimately proven wrong. the trick to proving it wrong is to offer them something other than dumb celebrity gossip 24 hours a day. that will not scratch the itch. they are more interested in a wider range of things. in the last six months or so, we have seen our top two verticals be world news and entertainment. they run the and neck -- they run that connectin neck.

the diversity of this generation is one key to understanding that. the most diverse generation in american history -- for a news is not foreign because it involves real stories and real time. if you can bring that drama out rather than make it look like dry copy, you will get a real response. host: on our democrat line, here is richard. go ahead. richard from new york, good morning. caller: i just have a criticism of the news media in general. hopefully a suggestion of how to help. i noticed a move to sensationalism and entertainment and news and a visceral entertainment rather than an educational slant. i think it is important for everybody in the country and i think one of the problems is the

lack of education. we can see it in the television shows. they are much less substantive in terms of education about science. i don't know if your member shows like quantum leap. we need to have more educational substance. that will help people make better decisions when they are voting. i understand it cannot be boring. i have worked in the school system. you have to engage people on an emotional level. i wanted to emphasize science and math in addition to politics and entertainment. guest: first of all, i appreciate your point and i appreciate the quantum leap reference is a high water mark of american television. the key is to entertain while you educate. you to be able to do both. if you're only serving up

hard-core math and science all-day any wonder why no one is visiting your new site, it is probably you. if you can entertain while you educate, you get the best of both worlds. at the end of the day that is what is at the heart of a high low approach to news and new sites. you want to offer people both because it will have a greater resonance. it is our obligation and our commitment to educate while we entertain our readers. that will make sure a larger number of folks read it. that is the name of the game at the end of the day if you want to raise the level of civil discourse. one thing about science and math and technology, one of the verticals we have had great success with over the last year and change is the tech and health vertical. we got rid of a business vertical. it was too broad. we decided to focus on tech and health and intersection between the two. we have seen real success in that vertical because there is a

real interest particularly among millennials. you see it getting picked up on referral sites and training on social a lot -- trending on social a lot. the key to making it work is not to just publish a bunch of dry academic position papers and wonder why no one gives a damn. host: you're putting a lot of content on the web, what is your editorial process like? who looks over the copy that eventually makes it onto the web? guest: in many ways, we have a traditional newsroom structure. we are freed from some of the restrictions and legacy obligations that can stop legacy organizations from embracing the full potential of the web. we have a meeting every morning at 10:00 a.m. and we have an afternoon editorial meeting or we catch up on what

news has broken during the day and what is coming in. we have editors on essentially 24 hours a day so we are able to keep updating the cheat sheet which is one of our most popular products which allows breaking news with a point of view and direct links back to the original source. we are constantly updating the site. there isn't the solution of turning on a site and it is the equivalent of a paper.3 the idea was that from inception. there is a wild west quality to the state of online news right now. that is about opportunity. quality controls of having editors and reporters in fact checks and a real system of rigor to ensure high-quality is in place at the beast. host: from rochester new york here is andrew. good morning.

caller: morning. it is cold but it is always called out here. guest: cold and beautiful sound like rochester. caller: you ever been out there? guest: yeah i sure have. upstate new york is beautiful. caller: who does rush limbaugh work for? guest: it works for his radio syndicate for whom he is well-paid. i will take that ball and run with it for a second. first of all, if you pull back for a second and look at the forces that are transforming news media over the past decade in change -- and change, there have been essentially three revolutions within have my lifetime. you happy days when there were essentially three sanctioned networks that were repository of

all news knowledge and perhaps as many magazines and change. then you have the rise of talk radio and partisan media which was designed in the eyes of the people who advocated it. they believe the implicit bias of mainstream media required explicit bias to balance. then you had the fragmentation in the media environment with the rise of online. what you had was a bunch of business strategies about appealing to narrow but niche audiences. in that environment, we saw the rise of partisan news and the way you cap the audiences entertained was to keep them infused. rush limbaugh has become a very wealthy man pursuing a formula. that are a couple of fundamental problems, most of which you are seeing with partisan media particularly on the right. you are seeing an aging

demographic you're appealing to. the average age of rush's listeners is often mid-sixties or higher. you can sell those folks a steady diet of resentment and agitation and nostalgia for a past that never was. you can get rich doing it. from over the every political movement becomes a business and ends up as a racket. we are aiming to be a correction to the impulse. you high watermark of media has been already hit. if you look at the demographic changes for millennials is they want more independence. they distrust predict ability -- predictability. we can be part of the push back. that is part of what we mean by calling bs on belize and hypocrites. -- on belullie and hypocritess.

it is our opportunity and obligation to cut through that and be independent and unpredictable. to hit left and right where it is appropriate. the folks who have gotten rich off of ginning people up with distorting data and news, those are the folks we are competing against. host: when it comes to the business side, who are your backers? how do you make your money? what are some of the names attached when it comes to backers? guest: we were founded and owned by the ic corporation which is owned by barry diller. he founded the site in 2008 with tina brown. i succeeded tina when she left in the fall of 2013. we are focused on millennials and mobile content marketing. we have seen a dramatic increase in our deal size over the past

year. we have seen dramatic growth in the content marketing format which will be a real way publishers can look to provide premium content and work with advertisers. we are careful about not blurring those lines. one of the revolutions that is occurring right now is advertisers understanding they need to do something more than simply pitch if they want to engage premium audiences. it is about quality of audience that can engage. you have a bunch of different competing models and we are in a dw griffith moment. we are making new rules in real-time and we are all aggressively experiencing. what i will say about the business side is that none of us have the luxury to treat the business side of someone else's problem. we all need to think entrepreneurially.

if i can get on my soapbox for a second, journalism is the only profession that is mentioned in the constitution. if we cannot figure out together this generation has an opportunity in opposition to do it how to make journalism work as a business model, ultimately, democracy is in a bit of trouble. there is a moral urgency bigger than ourselves and our company behind coming up with business models that work for journalism today. i'm confident we can crack it. we are making great progress. is an exciting time. host: we are visiting the d.c. bureau of "the daily beast" today. on thursday, april 9, we will be at the daily caller. our next caller from south carolina, go ahead. caller: thank you john for what

you said concerning rush limbaugh and that entire segment. it made me feel much more at ease. i like the beast. i have read it several times. i am a democrat in a largely republican area. it is good to hear that these are the things you want to do. one of the things i want you to clarify is that you sent news has to be interesting. has to be factual. i come from the old groups that watched the three stations. has to be factual. who cares about what is being said, it has to be true. that is what we have gotten away from. limbaugh has spent 20 years terrifying old people and people like him.

it has to be that's the other side has to be truth and not hollywood. that is where news has gone wrong. everybody wants to put on a cute outfit and go out there and look and sound cute. guest: i think you are confusing one with the other. the obligation to make what is important interesting is about engaging people. it is about being realistic about the human experience but it does not mean and i am not advocating turning news into essentially a farcical game show . one of my favorite quotes is from senator daniel patrick moynihan that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. we call a lot of bs on the snake oil peddlers who are trying to

put media solutions that are simply cookie-cutter color by numbers. the one thing about truth, that is about our goal. we have to be truthful to be credible. when you to avoid falling into the trap that you believe your team in the political sphere has a monopoly on truth. neither party has a monopoly on virtual vice. media becomes essential as someone who can call balls and strikes. who can call left and right when the folks color outside of the light. one of our top stories is about the indictment of a democratic senator. there are a lot of democrats rallying around him today than he to look carefully at that indictment and follow the process realizing that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. he cannot flinch from that are select the facts. the two things the collar raised are not crossed at all. when they become a steady diet,

we are opposed to that. i do not believe you have to choose between being interesting and covering important news. you can do both. host: looking at the story about bob menendez, i have only seen the headline. guest: what is your problem with that? host: go-ahead. guest: headlines have always mattered. they matter more in an era of social media. they matter enormously. the key for "the daily beast" is that we want our headlines to be conversational and clever and clear. we want to balance attitude with accuracy. we want to engage we want to dial up the edge in attitude without sacrificing accuracy.

with that piece is about is the incident with menendez and our reporter put in a larger context about the tsunami of sleaze that ends up affecting the tri-state area politicians and new jersey in particular. that history of corruption and indictments and that culture that ends up derailing so many major politicians's careers. is that a visceral headline he would not read in the new york times or ap, you are doing right? host: from texas, go ahead. caller: to the former caller -- weekly standard is owned by murdoch. crystal is nothing but a paid propagandist who hasn't made a profit since the magazine opened. let me get to mine.

last time i called, they said the bush family did not own the drone and the spying program. with-- has made a lot of money and there's oversight. the pentagon has video of children being raped at of a great -- there are three mass graves in falluja. host: what would you like our guest to address? caller:hcc holdings reinsurance on the 20 hours. walker had reinsurance on the twin towers. guest: first of all, i am an

independent. our work for rudy giuliani when he was mayor of new york and probably so during 9/11. i wrote a book regarding -- there is a need for accountability journalism. that should be the end of all journalism. too often it is not. part of accountability journalism and calling bs is confronting conspiracy theorists who have gotten big megaphones in political debates and distorted them as we have seen critically during the obama era. some folks coddle and encourage than others call bs and confronted. that is what we do here. host: clemson, south carolina. jordan go ahead. caller: i was calling in because the host spoke about the facts

and data and that is reasonable and respectful as a journalist. however, a lot of my commentary comes from the fact that interpretation of facts and data is where a lot of people have the curiosity and dispute. data is raw, but the interpretation of the implications is where a lot of these alternative folks get their lines from. i wanted to see what the host had to say about that. guest: i am a former columnist. i co-edited a book with two others. i love opinion and analysis. i don't think that alone is sufficient. analysis needs to be levied with facts. at the daily beast, we provide a range of writers. there is a vibrant balance

between reporting and opinion that does engage people in deep ways. ultimately, what engages people, especially right now is news sites that are willing to show the courage to do something a little bit different. to not only report and have opinion but to take real stance. -- real stance. when the charlie hebdo attacks occur, we reposted some of the covers out of solidarity. we work up with them just after six ago km a lot of -- just after 6:00 a.m. a lot of legacy sites were reluctant to do so. we were also engaged in the sony hacked e-mails when a lot of legacy brands were reluctant to do so. you can do that with the voice and analysis.

analysis should be part of any news digest. ultimately, it is the decisions you make, the stands and fights you choose to engage, a new balance real reporting with fiber opinion that is a protectable. that you have something that is a fascinating site that engages readers and a deeper way. you create real lasting relationships with those readers. that is where the real value comes from. host: you talk about the effect of millennials and dealing with politics. what is your 2016 strategy? guest: in terms of covering? i think the daily beast will be the break real news to cover all the candidate with a lot of voice. there will be an impulse to flood the zone with minutia. there is always an impulse to engage in the process story pursuit of the day where everyone piles on a process story that is fairly irrelevant

to the actual state of the race. it is our obligation to do something different. we will look for moments of courage or hypocrisy. we will cover candidates with a lot of voice, a skepticism that never slides into cynicism. it makes a beast story feel and read different. we will always go to our core principles. host: hillary clinton a story today talking about a relationship with the wife of builder basile -- of new york mayor bill de blasio. how often do you post new stories? guest: constantly throughout the day. the idea that a new site flips in the morning and that is the day's edition is a total

hangover from a newspaper era that is irrelevant to how things actually work today. it is a 24 hour cycle. that was a revolution with cable news. newspapers used at multiple editions throughout the day.they constantly updated . a site should do that. that is a no-brainer. we update constantly throughout the day as news breaks. we have a major flip in the early morning and then midday and evening. that is so uncovered throughout the day with constant adjustments. we are looking at data and analytics in real time. there are huge opportunities. when you look at a time of major transition, there is a tendency the specially for legacy brands to focus on the obstacles rather than the opportunities. the tools we have at our disposal for my business analytics and editorial side for

what i do on a day-to-day basis they are extraordinary in terms of being responsive to readers. to see what they like and what is working and what doesn't. that way they will provide real value. has to be a dynamically for our process or you're doing it wrong. host: richard in virginia, go ahead. caller: i have a question that will come out of this discussion. you to had a video about two months go depicting a series of news broadcasters around the country, maybe 16 or so. the terminology they all used was identical. even buzzwords. with six corporations in the individuals owning the national media, can we not say relive under controlled media? guest: you cannot, especially

with news media online. you make a fair point about media businesses and conglomerates controlling a large percentage of news media. i want to be cautious about the anecdote you offered suggesting there is somehow a scripting being handed out that people read from. that is not true. to hammer the point home, having worked in government and news media, the ultimate check on conspiracy theories is that people are not organized. we have a lot more outlets than ever before. there is a broader diet and more alternatives than ever before. it should be said that one of the things we are about here is we aren't independent company. we are not owned by a larger news conglomerate. independence is one of our core attributes of that reinforces it really this is a dynamic time in

news. when you're selecting in his diet, the key is to make sure you are not stacking at all on one side of the deck. you can use that provides different perspectives and elements and you find out who you connect with you. host: what is your news diet? guest: obviously the daily beast when a four hours a day -- the daily beast 24 hours a day. as a younger man i read the economist in high school along with rolling stone and all that. i think they do extraordinarily well. one of the interesting things you are seeing is these legacy brands had a leg up had a hard time transitioning to digital but i thought the economist doesn't credible well. the new yorker is a paragon of quality and always has been. my professional respect for david remnick as an editor and writer an extraordinary artist.

vanity fair is a print product and remains vibrant and has made a lot of strides on their digital side. buzz feed news is an isolated vertical. it is doing a lot of good work with a lot of good people. we are competitive. that is part of what hope to succeed and grow. in the larger sense, we all to appreciate anyone who is trying to engage original online journalism minor. there is a certain element of those was for doing original reported work amid what was a sea of partisan media and online content forums that rip off other work, we have a degree of common cause. we try to reinforce quality and original work. host: michigan, democrats line,

karen hello. caller: i have not seen any news person or any politician talk about the fact that we have had nuclear weapons in this world for 70 years, and the only time is ever been used is 71 years ago and we were the ones that used them. now at seems like the right wing is attempting to push us into a war over nuclear weapons. we have some pretty kooky people in charge of nuclear weapons in this world. we have north korea and pakistan and india. i probably don't even know how many countries have nuclear weapons. not one, no matter how much power they want, has used them as a weapon. now they want us to go to war

over a nuclear weapon. i think iran will find that if we spend all this money and time devoted to a nuclear weapon and don't dare use it, they must have 10 nuclear submarines weaponize all over this world. what do they think will happen to the country that detonates a nuclear weapon against their enemies? the country will be annihilated. guest: your guest is responding to the ongoing iranian nuclear negotiations, which has been a real subject of debate for years now but has really come to a point. in the cold war, the strategy was called "mad" the insured no one would use the nuclear arsenals they built. the theory makes about as much sense as the acronym suggests.

we have come a long way as a world without a nuclear detonation since hiroshima. one of the real problems of our time is nuclear proliferation. you have a lot of state actors trying to gain security of nuclear weapons, many of whom are state sponsors of terrorism or exporters of weapons. that is a nightmare scenario for the western world. iran having nuclear weapons becomes massively destabilize. not only for the region, but also for the world. it is dangerous given the history as a state sponsor of terrorism. you wonder why foreign news resonates now and it doesn't feel like something remote being done in geneva. people have a visceral response from the rise of al qaeda and the attacks of 9/11 to the rise of isis and iran and the blurred lines throughout the middle east

today. it is one of the reasons why our middle east coverage and our foreign coverage has resonated. which are to focus and differentiate our foreign coverage. focus on dictators and terrorists will recover them and break them with real news and move the ball forward and not slide into any artisan defense of one predictable approach or another whether it be republican or democrat. these are issues of life and that death. president obama certainly talked a lot about nuclear weapons at the outset of his term and was attacked for it even though his position now is similar to ronald reagan, ironically. this is an issue we all should

engage in. it is not merely some else's problem. this is our time to be stewards of this earth and nuclear weapons are one of the things that could bend the arc of history dramatically and negatively. we want to engage in that debate and not just fall to preordained scripts. host: john avlon is the editor-in-chief of "the daily beast." we are visiting the d.c. bureau today. thanks for your time. guest: my pleasure. host: we will continue with our visit with nancy youssef to discuss the issues of the iran talks and the fight against isis. later on, the daily beast's senior politics editor about the fallout over indiana's religious freedom bill. the d.c. bureau of the daily beast our focus for the day. we will be right back.

>> here are some of our featured programs for this holiday weekend on the c-span network. on c-span, saturday at 8 p.m. eastern, former texas state senator and gubernatorial candidate wendy davis on the challenges facing women in politics. easter sunday at 6:30 p.m., jack nicholas receives the congressional gold medal for his contributions to the game and community service. saturday night at 10:00 pm eastern on afterwards, activist and author cornell west on the radical political thinking of martin luther king jr.. sunday at noon, our live three-hour conversation with former investigative reporter for the washington post, a new york times best-selling author ronald kessler.

has written 20 books. on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at eight ago p.m. eastern, east carolina university professor charles calhoun on the obstacles faced and a congressman's made by ulysses s. grant during his presidency. sunday afternoon at 6:00 p.m. on american artifacts, patrick schroeder takes us on a tour of appomattox courthouse, the site of the confederate surrender in 1865. >> the misnomer role that's the best memorable moment was even senator gartner saying you need to be firm in your principles of flexible in the details. i think it really reflects the solution like a harsh polarization we are seeing across our country and the methodology that if all the senators and congressmen and women and all the state legislatures can adopt, we can

really come together as a country and solve many of our pertinent issues. >> my favorite quote came from julie adams. she said remember to be humble and have a strong work ethic. become to the people you meet on the way up. you will meet them on the way back down. >> i think in particular in congress itself, oftentimes we have a lack of true statesman. as much as i disagree with him, senator john mccain did something very impressive luster. he committed to the veterans affairs reform bill. reading the senate shut her up or and maintaining how staying away from torture is essential to the character of our democracy. at the point where we have people who are willing to cross the aisle and make these decisions with people who they may not often agree with, that is essentially what we need to maintain the security and integrity of our nation as we go on. >> high school students who generally rank academically in the top 1% of their state were in washington dc as part of the united states senate youth program.

sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. "washington journal" continues. host: we are featuring guests of the d.c. bureau of "the daily beast." joining us now is nancy youssef. she is the senior national security correspondent. guest: good morning. host: you recently wrote a story that the u.s. took ownership of a new iraq war. tell us about the story. guest: i wanted to write that piece because this was in the middle of the campaign to reclaim tikrit from the islamic state. it is saddam hussein's hometown. two weeks into that battle, this is in a largely iranian led effort. about three weeks in as the effort was stalled and the islamic state was able to push

back, the u.s. began to intervene. it had some notably -- notably not conducted airstrikes on that city. on march 25, the u.s. started connecting airstrikes and before that it provided intelligence from drones to the iraqi military. suddenly the iranian advisors and the militias backed by them stepped away. at that moment, the war and the battle for tikrit became a us-led operation and not an iranian operation. i wanted to make a note of that because it was a notable shift in the war. it was the first time we saw iranian influence retreat in the u.s. took ownership. it is interesting we are talking about that today because we are seeing the iraqi prime minister claim iraq over isis in tikrit and that shift away from an iranian commission to a u.s.

l led to the fall of the city out ofead isis hands. i think it was an opportunity because we saw the threat of having iran having so much play over the battle plan there was what came next. few would have the iranian influence on iraqi government, on the outcome of iraq at large. this is an opportunity to take some of the influence back if you will. militarily, it was becoming dangerous. you had an atomic state of no more than 1000 fighters able to push back 23,000 shia militiamen and iraqi security forces. it is an opportunity to say going by the way of iran and potentially putting sectarian issues to the forefront is not the best way to take back iraq from the islamic state.

working with us and the coalition will give you a better long-term outcome. there was a chance for the u.s. to make a statement and make it forcefully. host: how would you characterize the influence of isis as it stands in iraq and other places? how do you communicate that to your readership through the editorial process and guidelines to use? guest: it as a fluid situation in terms of the islamic state because of the fall of ikrittikrit. this is the first time we see the islamic state lose territory they were so entrenched in. we were talking about the city of jkkobani which was a city they were trying to take hold. tikrit was a city they had a hold of and so the fact that

they lost territory which was a keystone to their mission to create an islamic caliphate was a big deal. we started to see some changes in syria, most notably in the part of southern damascus where the islamic state moved in a few days ago. it is an area dominated by palestinian refugees. it is an area as close as isis has come to downtown damascus, just five miles away. we are seeing a big loss so far in iraq and a shift in syria. i spent four years in iraq from 2003 two 2007. it is a challenge because you are trying to understand the dynamics and the ground from 6000 miles away.

i depend a lot on local media reporting. the u.s. military, and i try to put a focus on how the military is seeing it because i am limited in what i can say in terms of on the ground operations because i am not there. i am trying to project in my pieces how the military sees it and what it means for the u.s.'s broader strategy. host: used to get the same access to pentagon and security officials that you wrote for other organizations? guest: i get more access believe are not because some of the people in the military know "the daily beast." they commit a lot of younger soldiers who are readers of "the daily beast" and the online element allows this instant interaction between military commanders and myself. i think having that has changed the dynamic in terms of my reported. they are not waiting hours for the story to come out. sometimes they see it within an hour. we have a conversation in real time between what i am reporting

and with the dynamics are. we are talking about issues in these pieces that are changing our by our. to be able to update stories at that level has led to a great interaction. i find that they are more receptive than when they had to wait hours. host: nancy youssef is your to talk about national security issues and foreign affairs and isis and things along that nature. the first call for you comes from tommy in tennessee on our independent line. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: my question is why is it being reported about isis being close to the golan heights? bombing syria is a threat to israel and the golan heights area. i wonder why it hasn't been

reported yet. guest: i haven't heard those reports yet. the challenge i have in reporting on these events is i am depending on u.s. intelligence gathered. that maybe an oversight and our part in a sense of not asking the question. there is so much focus on the iraq because of the immediacy of the threat that there has not in a lot of discussion but i will take that question to the pentagon today. host: from prescott, arizona, go ahead. caller: good morning. it seems as if you just mentioned national security, national interest, national defense, that we celebrate and we go to war -- we salivate. we are close to a war with iran. why is it you think all the video we see of isis fighters they are in the desert and nowhere near a cactus. they are not the mosul

international airport monitoring the flights. why are they on monkey bars and standing around and shooting at cactuses instead of being in the cities they have supposedly taken over? guest: it is an interesting question. the videos are done in a strategically. i feel some angst today because with tikrit fall is we c isis bring back the message of terrorism. as they were losing kobani is when the video of the jordanian pilot came out where he was burned to death. it was then in a sophisticated manner. that doesn't mitigate the threat they pose. the increasingly do show their place in urban warfare. one of their last western

hostages have been featured regularly in cities showing isis's presence. the u.s. struck a drone that was used to make aerial videos of the areas they control. isis is putting out very sophisticated videos. they are very well produced and there is a lot of calculation in terms of what is in those videos but the timing of the. host: linda lives in washington, go ahead. you are on. caller: i have two quick questions. one is about a certain term that is used by the iranians that is an anti-somatic slur -- anti-sosemitic slur. it is a must a parallel to we

wouldn't use the n-word because we understand it is insulting. i wonder because i keep hearing it more recently than ever. why aren't we -- why haven't we enabled to get our equipment that the u.s. taxpayers pay for that is sitting or not being used or it has not made its way up to just a tiny bit past -- think god -- thank god that they have just dispersed into the areas goes by and now the air support is gone and they are able to continue to do damage and to move into populated areas. i appreciate your hard work and

god bless. guest: thank you. i will take this second question first which is about the equipment. at the irony is a lot of the strikes that the u.s. is conducting, 2500 plus so far has been hitting u.s. agreement that prices procured when it took iraq's second-biggest city last june. there is an effort to distort u.s. equipment. a lot of the agreement that the u.s. is providing they are purposely keeping in iraq because they want to ground operation to be led by iraqi forces on the ground. i think one of the big lessons isn't that these cities cannot be taken back from crisis just with air support. you need a ground presence and the u.s. has said they will not provide this substantial ground force in iraq. it depends on local populations and that equipment is key. i can tell you from my time in

iraq that there is a big confidence boost that comes from having western suppliers weapons for the iraqi forces, so i think it is important psychologically and to the war fighting efforts. on the first question, i don't know the answer. i can tell you that i use the term because i use it as a transition of a farsi term. i will be curious to research that, but i don't think the intention is because that is how the iranian forces refer to themselves. that is from my own perspective as to where the word comes from. host: nancy youssef from "the daily beast" joining us. what does it say about the iraqi security force?

guest: i think the battle in tikrit was not asked -- was not necessarily want from iraqi military forces but if i can expand briefly. there were two kind of forces that were fighting on the ground integrate. one was iraq he army -- one was iraq he army and the shiite military forces. once isis started moving in these are forces that are not generally under government control and are led by leaders whose intent are to protect shia interest. at the peak of it, there were 20,000 shia militia and men compared to 3000 iraqi fighters. any shia militia forces that came and had to be under the command of the iraqi lee terry. it went down to maybe -- the point is that this battle would not have been won without the

shia of military forces. going forward, it means the shia military forces have great influence and i am watching to see how that manifest itself because it could lead to shia forces or shia militiamen having of much bigger sleigh in terms of the next battle and how it approaches the ice is a threat. that is probably one of the biggest takeaways. that this is something that was a product of the shia militia forces as much as anything else and they may have a big say in terms of how iraq approaches diocese -- the ice is threatened. for example, one of the big battles the u.s. and coalition that they have been preparing for months is trying to take the second-biggest city. to do that, they have to clear the north. there are lots of cities along the way that they have to clear. the next one up north of tikrit. if we start to see a push north

of tikrit the u.s. can support the plan to take back iraq from isis. for them, the priority is western iraq because on to the province that we talked about so much is a threat to shia towns south of the city that borders a lot. we start to see more of a push and that will speak to much more militia driven influence on the war fighting effort. host: letter from georgia. georgia, you are on with nancy youssef. go ahead. caller: i am concerned about our borders because we are not just saying hispanics coming across, but we are seeing terrorists coming with really crazy ideas that are crossing over. i am really concerned about our own national security and i would like to hear what nancy has to say about that. guest: well, georgia, that is an

interesting point. we talk about internal threat to the united states. the thing that gives me a lot of hope is that relative to europe, the u.s. has a smaller problem. in europe we see house in the fight is going to iraq and syria and much fewer numbers in the hundreds from the u.s. conversely, we see a lot more charges in europe, plotting terrorist attacks in their own country and more so than the u.s. the u.s.'s ability to assimilate has been such an advantage and has shaped why that threat while it exists, is not nearly as dangerous or as large as it is for the u.s.'s european allies. i'm not saying the threat is not there, but the idea that a lot of terrorists are coming in with plots against the united states is not nearly as public as it is in places like france. host: jim from parkhill

missouri. thank you for calling. go ahead. caller: my question is they've got these military thing going to be happening in the southwest united states. why would they come in and practice on our soil? for what reason is there at all to have military practicing? i think they are going to take over the country. i would like an open answer to this. why is our government and our corporation doing this? thanks. guest: sure. i can tell you i spent a lot of time in the pentagon and i can play that practice is andrew is happen all over the country by the u.s. military. they try to -- i can tell you that practices and roles have been all over the country by the u.s. military. this military has been called

the best in the world and i think it is because of the amount of time that has been put into drills and re-creating settings. i'm not sure it is a bigger threat. i think it is because of the demands that are always in motion. i think what you are seeing is that manifest in terms of daily exercise is going on across the country every day because we have put so much demand on this military to be ready. there was a time when the military could rest and train and focus on training, but because of the world we live in and the demand, we are seeing the military constantly training and getting ready for the next mission. it is not a slow period to focus on training. the way you are seeing it in places like missouri is training going on at a scale that did not happen a few years ago. host: our guest nancy youssef of "the daily beast."

and online publication dailybeast.com. how often do you post and how often are you compelled to create stories for the online publication? guest: well, it is funny because of the work i do, i don't have to worry about a compelling reason because the news itself makes it a generator in and of itself. i frankly find i don't have enough time. in the last couple days, there was activity in yemen, the u.s. unfreezing military aid to egypt. there is what is happening in the creek. -- in tikrit. i find the biggest challenge of what to write about is because national security issues are so dynamic right now and trying to figure out a way to make it resonate with readers. these are issues i think are important, so the challenge is

to make it interesting and compelling. and nuanced enough to write about. i think it is interesting in the news business there is less and less space for stories, even as issues become complicated. using that space in the best weight possible and using the topics in the best way possible is the challenge and number of stories to produce. host: you mentioned yemen. one of the headlines coming up is that youremeni officials meet aid. can you give some context to what is going on there? guest: the houthis our group of rebels supported by iran and they have been moving in for the last couple of months, taking over parts of yemen. they started in the capital and through the president.

they moved in to a place called aden before they did that and we are seeing houthi forces moving in. if that happens, it is a huge blow to saudi arabia and egypt. the saudis say the houthis as a proxy of iran and they see as an imminent threat. they have started airstrikes and we are seeing reports that confirm there is a ground force presence presumably saudi and egyptian. the egyptians have backed the saudis in this effort. this expansion by the houthis which has been remarkable because the one from a small territory to moving on to the second biggest city in yemen, is a big blow for those who see the houthis spreading out to the gulf. it is a big loss for the saudis who watch this -- who launched

this air campaign to push back houthi control because they have been extending quite quickly. that all said, this is a protracted battle for aden. i think it is a long battle and could have severe and casualties and stability in yemen. i would just add that i think the other thing to remember is that yemen is where al qaeda and the arab peninsula is based. this kind of instability is really for a battleground for them to try and exploit. -- is really fertile ground for them to try and expect. host: you are up next. go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a two-part question. one question is how did isis go further and is there any u.s.

congress involvement in the funding of isis? could you speak on? guest: those are good questions. the ice is funding question is fascinating because it has shifted. it has been -- the isis funding question is fascinating because it has shifted. isis had taking over oil-rich territories and they are making millions every month. the u.s. and coalition have been targeted in that. and other way they do it is through kidnappings and we see some horrific videos that have emerged to ransom payments. that has been a source of funding in the past. they also have foreign fighters bring money in with them and that is a source of revenue. mostly we seek funding coming from taxation of residence there. all of those have been funding sources for isis and that is a multimillion dollar organization. they have taken a huge hit in terms of oil refineries and they have taken a term -- a hit in terms of kidnapping because they

have not been able to carry out those kinds of ransom demands the way they once did. the oil revenue is certainly there, but the main revenue is from the taxation and territories they hold and the money that comes in from fort of fires. -- the fortifiers. territory is a huge part to how they get money. once you lose it territory, you lose a big source of funding revenue. the other way to get revenue is to territory expansion. often times they would wrap -- they would rob banks in these areas and i think that is one of the reasons we see them move in places that are key to them to have new territories. not only for the expansion but for revenue. they have struggled with that since the coalition strikes began. host: from dallas, texas. deborah, good morning. caller: good morning.

i enjoy your writing very much. i have a couple quick questions about the kurds. number one would be if you could speak a little bit about our level of support for the kurds and our reluctance to supply them with arms and weapons and support in general. it seems like it is halfhearted to me. my second question is about the the possibility of them being removed from the terrorist list at any point. guest: in general, the u.s. has supported the kurds. they have a presence in baghdad but the u.s. involvement in this battle against it actually

started in tikrit. again, we saw this in an area where kurdish fighters were really fighting to keep that item isis hands. the u.s. -- out of isis hands. the u.s. has been hesitant to provide direct weapons and i don't think that it's so much about not supporting the kurds but trying to respect the sovereignty of iraq and have a process such that weapons go to the iraqi government. the kurds say we are not getting the weapons from the central government and we -- and they need us to come directly and there has been a lot of pushback about how to supply weapons and not seem to be suggesting or that there is a different level of support and no respect for the process. you are right to ask because that tkk forces were a big part

of the take back of the city. there were also regional interests at stake, most notably turkey that would have serious objections. you are right to raise the question because in some ways, the u.s. has been helping the pkk. host: let's hear from clyde in san antonio, texas. caller: good morning. i am old enough to remember all the services our feeding information back to the u.s. i would like to know what newsfeeds you depend on what the information you accumulate both internationally and nationally. guest: it is a great question because we do depend -- you

know these wars and making the right decision turned on details. the detail gets lost from transition from iraq back to the united states. i'm lucky because i know so many writers that are there, so i often look for certain guidelines because i know i'm going to get great work from them. bobby worth, eric schmidt in washington. the ap has been really great and ahead of the game in terms of calling where things are going. i find, frankly because these kinds of issues turn that you have to read several pieces of work to get any semblance of a picture of what is going on there. i find i go to certain guidelines as much as i do about topics. i would say the wires are critical.

i give you an example. the wires reported on tuesday morning that tikrit was starting to fall. in "the new york times" it said it had not fallen. so just getting that little hours ahead of notice allows me to then go to the pentagon and try to flesh out what is exactly happening on the ground. i think for those who are interested in these issues, and i know it is not a great thing to hear, but these issues and the lack of foreign reporting of overall demands that you read several sources to get a full understanding of what is happening. i am providing what it looks like from the u.s. military vantage point because i think that is so important and spending taxpayer dollars. i am trying to get a reader's understanding of how the pentagon and national security apparatus is developing -- is reacting to development on the ground. i cannot do it without reading all of the wires aps asp, "the

guardian" and local news reports in iraq. i have an advantage that i can read a little bit of arabic and i can follow local news reports to see what is on the ground. it takes all of those to feel that i have a respectable understanding of what is happening on the ground. i think for those who are interested, it really demand several sources. host: nancy youssef you talked about the moment by moment of changing nature of stories. there is talk about the iran talks going into another day. tell our readers what you look at in the series of negotiations and what you are watching for. what do think about a deal actually coming forward? guest: it is interesting because it is amazing how clueless the stores become. this way we had a iran foreign minister saying there could be an announcement today and now we are hearing it could be extended for another day. i think the most fascinating thing i have seen written about this is a piece by david singer talking about how each side is

approaching a different in terms of language. the u.s. will talk in terms of specifics, how many centrifuges should iran get out -- iran be a lot. iranians are talking about it in terms of respect for their sovereignty, respect for their right to develop. respect for their sovereignty frankly. i think it is interesting because it seems to be what is the biggest challenge in all this. as committed as everybody is they stayed up all night, "the new york times" reported trying to reach a deal. the difference in language seems to be hindering it. i will be looking for the specifics of the deal and the language and what language will prevail. i think the other interesting thing is the deadline itself. who is it hurting and who was a benefiting? there is an argument that the deadline -- that imposing a self-imposed deadline has hurt the united states because iranians see this as a way to

pressure the united states. you have a deadline and you need something. and so we are going to try and push through and that has been argument that has been made. it is interesting how much the fluidity of the deadline and how much that shaped the iranian position and allows them to pull back a little if they see the deadline is not as rigid as it was just a few days ago. host: jacksonville, north carolina dee go ahead. caller: i was watching the situation in yemen back in 2013 and i always thought that the national conference and state department really good too much emphasis on getting the southern element of yemen to support the government. i don't think they paid enough attention to the houthis up north. part of my assumption was that the department the united states put too much emphasis or targeting the houthis upset

relations with iran. i guess my question is do you think that india's failure is part of the collapse in yemen? and when we talk about isis, do you think there really is a movement that isis could take advantage of what is going on in yemen? from what i understand, there is still an allegiance to al qaeda and i don't know if there is any indication that would allow isis to take advantage of that. could you speak on this? thank you. guest: those are two great questions. i will deal with the second one, a q ap does have a very firm grip on yemen. we have not seen this effort expand because there has not really been a possibility. they're looking for territory that is acceptable and not one that they have to engage in heavy battles in. it is not mean it is not

possible but there is no indication. in terms of support for the president, i was living in egypt at the time and if you forgive me, i will bring in egypt and its point. i think it was an effort to the united states to really try to sustain the democratic process. the support of a democratic movement. remember in 2013 there was a real effort to reserve the framework for creating a democratic state. i know in egypt, for example, there is a real focus on process. many egyptians took that as a support for then-president but in hindsight, i think it an important process. my guess is that in yemen it is the same thing. this is not about supporting the present as much as supporting classes. that's a, remember the president was considered an ally of the united states. he was one who allowed drone strikes and intel sharing that happened between yemen to take on aqap. the number of strikes against --

happening at that time were key in supporting that aqap threat. the lines that formed between yemen and the need to respect the democratic process was the driving factors at that time. host: maria from columbia, south carolina. go ahead. caller: yes, i wonder. so many articles have been about isis members. [indiscernible] they have been receiving medical assistance and i wonder why why is there support from israel to isis? with ices started including people from foreign countries -- when ices started including people from foreign countries, why did we not know anything about it -- when isis started including people from foreign countries, why do we not know

anything about it? that the question is [indiscernible] thank you. guest: those are great questions. on foreign fighters, i think there is a keen understanding that because there are only so many places of they can move, so we get a pretty good sense of numbers. in fact, we are starting to hear reports of friction between isis members who were foreign fighters and isis members who are local to iraq and syria. that is how much of a force that has been. there is a good sense of eyes and ears on it. the dependency that isis has on them that it has become -- we are talking about thousands of fighters at any given time and it gives you a sense of the last estimate of people killed in the u.s. led coalition is somewhere between 8000 and 9000. that is just since august.

the islamic state has been able to maintain a pretty steady flow of foreign fighters. just to give you a sense of the numbers coming in. i don't think the u.s. intended to take ownership of tikrit in the sense of wanting to claimant. i think it was really trying to maintain iraq's sovereignty and mitigate iranian influence because the fear was that if iran can claim victory against tikrit, a sunni city, then it could spell trouble in terms of the amount of influence iran would be allowed to happen iraq when they helped win their first major victory over isis and outcome on the country. i think that was the priority for the u.s. this was an opportunity to really reclaim it. not as much for the u.s. coalition, but for iraq itself to protect their sovereignty and independence. host: as we leave, when it comes

to isis, what does the us-based most in dealing with this? as far as u.s. policy, what -- how is it dealing with ices going to impact u.s. -- dealing with icsis going to impact u.s. policy over the next years? guest: even though isis seems to be driven out of decree, there are fundamental factors alive. it is not clear if the threat itself has been eliminated. for the united states, the biggest fear is that the islamic state is able to claim something of a state or territory from which you can then launch attacks on allies and at some point even the united states. host: nancy youssef is with "the daily beast." she is their daily national correspondent. you can see her riding that

dailybeast.com. nancy youssef, thank you. we continue with visitors from "the daily beast." we will talk about issues and menus including invents going on in indiana and arkansas over religious freedom laws. that will come up as "washington journal" comes back after this. ♪ >> the most memorable moment of this week for me was on hearing senator at our lunch yesterday say, you need to be firm in your principles but flexible in the details. i think it really reflects the

solution and harsh polarization we are seeing across the country and a methodology that is all the senators, all the congressmen and women and all state legislators can adapt, we can really come together as a country and solve many of our pertinent issues. >> my favorite cloak came from julie adams, secretary of the senate. -- came from julie adams, the secretary of senate. she said remember to be humble and have a strong work ethic because the people you meet on the way of you will meet them again on the way back down. >> i think in congress itself, we have a lack of two mistakes men. as much as i disagree with john mccain, he did something very impressive last year. he committed to the veterans affairs reform bill and maintaining how staying away from torture is essential to the character of our democracy. i think at the point where we have people who are willing to cross the aisle and willing to make these decisions with people who they may not often agree with, that is essentially what

we need to maintain the security, integrity of our nation as we go on. >> high school students who generally rank academically in the top 1% of their states were in washington dc as part of the united states senate youth program. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> here are some of our future programs for this holiday weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span saturday at 8:00 eastern, former texas state senator wendy davis. on the challenges facing women in politics. easter sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, jack nicholas received the congressional gold medal for his contributions to the game and community service. on c-span2, saturday night 10:00 eastern, activist and author co rnel west on the thinking of martin luther king jr. our live three-hour conversation

with investigative reporter for "the washington post." he has written 20 books, including "escape from the cia" and the first -- and "the first family detail." saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3 charles calhoun on the obstacles faced and accomplishes ments made by ulysses s. grant. historian patrick schroeder takes us on a tour of the court house in virginia. the site of the confederate surrender on april 9, 1865. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back at the d.c. bureau of "the daily beast" with jackie kucinich. guest: good morning. host: can you take a look at

events in indiana and arkansas and tell us your take on the political nature of what has been going on in those two states? guest: i think in indiana just a couple minutes ago, they started to release draft information about that law which makes it clear that they cannot use the law to discriminate against the lg bt community. that is one of the fixes they have made. they did that under pressure from business groups, mostly from business groups, and this huge national backlash that came from mike pence signing this into law. in arkansas, you have the governor there come out and say he was not going to sign this into law the difference between the two, if he does not sign it, that does not mean it cannot become law. it will become law in five days anyways. he did not say could not be vetoed. he asked them to go back and fix it to make sure it is not something that can be used to

discriminate. host: political pressures on both men from different aspects to make decisions about these laws. guest: absolutely. we have also seen in extend into the 2016 field. you saw many of the presidential contenders on the republican side and hillary clinton to an extent, but she has less of the cultural battle and her party the republican contenders weighed in on this and pretty much all of them supported mike pence and said that he was protecting religious freedom and that was a good thing. yesterday you saw jeb bush say i still support mike pence and i am not second-guessing him, but it sounds like at the end of the week, they will have this ill in a better position. i think that is the difference between someone who is coming from a position -- he was a governor and he understands that sometimes compromises need to happen. you see someone like ted cruz who was going to be on the right of the field the entire time. he will say or double down

saying they do not have to change the law. we are seeing this evangelical and more establishment part of the party and you are seeing this play out again through this particular issue and it is a theme that we are going to see over and over again as the cycle continues. host: there was a piece of the new republic out recently saying that rand paul and chris christie not weighing in on the same. why not -- on it. why not? guest: if i am remembering correctly, he kind of took the middle position as well saying that he is not undermining might pence but they have to -- mike pence, but they have to work it out. rand paul has not waiting, but i think if he does -- has not weighed in, but i think if he does he will take the middle of the stands. host: on march 31, you said indiana republicans were warned

about this bill. can you give us context of the piece? guest: lgbt activist -- fixing the, members had given edmon meant to add very minor language into the bill to make sure it would not discriminate against the lgbt community and they were rejected. they sounded an alarm saying this could be used to do this. from my wording, they were basically ignored. then the firestorm happened. some of the language will go into -- it is similar to what was presented in the amendments. they really could have avoided the republican legislature and mike pence could've avoided a lot of the problems. host: our final guest this one from "the daily beast." (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans. (202) 748-8000 is the line for

democrats. (202) 748-8002 is the line for them -- independents. guest: this has not been good for him. i covered mike pence when he was in the house of representatives and he always is very calm, cool, confident legislator. we have seen them in more of a defensive position in the last week, and that is not normal for him. his political future, this has been a really bad week for him. you have to wonder if that will play out. he probably built up his conservative credentials more, but with the business community, they are not happy with them. he was seen as a dark horse for this cycle. i don't know if that will happen anymore. he is young, you never know. it is his first term as governor, but this was an unforced error on his part. host: our first call for you is josie from jacksonville, for the. caller: it is my understanding

that the draft from the indiana republicans is not -- does not include reductions for lgbt. guest: it does not specifically say lgbt in the legislation and i have only seen a doctor as well but it doesn't stipulate that this law cannot be used to discriminate -- i have only seen a draft as well, but it does not stipulate that this law cannot be used to discriminate. recently, neither side is happy with this compromise, but that is the nature of compromise. host: from new york, cken. go ahead. guest: good morning. caller: hello. i just think how is this constitutional to let the state discriminates against me as a gay man. this is just not ok. guest: i think that is what you

are hearing a lot of activists in indiana say and in arkansas. there has been so much pressure, particularly in indiana, and i think that is why you are seeing this change. people do not think it was fair. host: jackie kucinich, as far as the topic of same-sex marriage goes, is this the 2016 topic because of the event even though most states are changing their lost in most attitudes are changing on the topic? guest: i think it depends on what the supreme court says. if the supreme court decides that gay marriage should be illegal everywhere, that's all set. you might see some culture wars. once that ruling comes down, i think it will take a lot of arguments off the table. host: michael from maryland. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. i just want to let you know that i do not agree with the

republican point on this religious freedom thing. "the daily beast" i am just learning about you guys and you brought out a number of folks and you guys are very impressive. the only question i have is, is there any color in your senior -- host: i totally apologize for that. please, forgive me. let's talk about other events. he talked about 2016, talk a little bit about what we expect in the next few weeks. we have had announcements coming up, marco rubio hosting an event soon. what do you see forthcoming in the next weeks? guest: we have rand paul who will announce next week in kentucky and the following week, marco rubio will announce. you will see these organizations really start to rev up. they will do tours, iowa, new hampshire, south carolina. they will build up their organization and launch into

full-fledged campaigns. we have seen it under the radar and people saying things like, oh, maybe i will run and maybe i will dairy these guys look like they are running. hillary clinton. a foregone conclusion for quite a while, but we are expecting that perhaps sometime in april. you never know. she has the luxury of being able to wait a little bit longer because of her name. she will raise money and she does not really have anyone to her last who has been able to really catch fire. it does not seem like it is going to be competitive at all. on the republican side, it is close at the top. the front runner people like jeb bush, scott walker, marco rubio and there is not a lot of room between them. host: we occasionally hear martin o'malley's name. what is your take on him? guest: it certainly looks like he will run, but he is also

suffering from a lot of -- from a lack of name id. he was not even registering in the polls last month, so we will see if he can drum up a little bit of us. -- a little bit of buzz. but hillary clinton will be very tough for anyone to be on the democratic side. host: mike from myrtle beach, go ahead. caller: real quick, observation as the right he comes more entrenched on these social issues, they seem to be affirming the rights of those who are on the other end of the culture war and they are kind of fighting for these affirmations even though they are trying find their own identity. how can the right, from your viewpoint, identify and i farm -- identify and confirm when their viewpoint ended up on the wrong side of this culture wars?

guest: you will see this play out on the right. i am not a strategist so i cannot tell them what to do, but i can tell it just from observing that you see more and more -- and you saw this in the last cycle -- the right wing of the party and this sort of chamber of commerce establishment really going against each other and that will not be any different this time. it might be more pronounced because you have stronger players on the right. host: when you say going against each other, you mean how? guest: i'm side, you will see them in debate for example. challenging themselves -- challenging each other on social issues. something like gay marriage. you will see a lot of friction even immigration, common core these are issues that the right wing of the party and establishment wing of the party don't agree on. it will be really interesting to watch and see where they end up in what kind of nominees we are

looking up. last couple of years, the establishment has won out but there are a lot of conservatives not happy with the candidates they have had. this year, they do have some strong people on the race. these are people who should be taken seriously. host: kathy from oregon. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been so very surprised because of the reaction that the mayors of the many cities have had. sanding the public money to be spent on government business -- fannin the public money to be spent on government business. there needs to be an investigation into this. how can that be?

i must say, please remember president obama's breakfast. freedom of religion, the right to practice how we choose, to choose our state if we choose to practice no faith at all. to do so, free of persecution and fear and discrimination. so please remember that. that is extremely important and i think there needs to be an investigation into all of these states because it is not for the good of the people to stop the business of going to indiana. thank you for taking my call. host: jackie kucinich. guest: i think what she is referring to is governors alike -- governors like in connecticut that government travel will not

be paid for it they go to indiana. i think that is what she is referring to. if you talk to people on the left to do not agree with this law, they are going to say that this is not about religious freedom. this is about this committee against the lgbt community. of course they support religious freedom, but i think from the perspective of the lgbt community and a lot of advocates that this law was not there and they did not want to endorse it by doing business with indiana. host: "the associated press" talks about this new language saying that the amendment to the act for of its service providers from using the lot of legal defense on refusing to provide goods, services, and -- that seems wide range, give your take.

-- that seems like a wide range, give your take. guest: you are really what i am reading and i think when you talk to the advocates for the lgbt community, they are saying it won't be enough and the conservative right is saying it will go to far. at the end of the day, no one will really be happy, but that is legislating. host: robert from tennessee. democrats line. caller: hello? host: go ahead. guest: hi. host: robert, go ahead, please. guest: i can hear you. caller: suppose i am a christian and i decide i am only going to serve christian people. i decide not to serve a jewish person, would that be all right under this new law? guest: again, i think that was one of the concerns. no, but that is not all right.

i think that is one of the concerns they wanted to address. various states are protecting class. under indiana law, the state law, lgbt are not a protected class under civil rights laws. certain municipality like in indianapolis is a state law and that is one concern that it was not a protected class, therefore, they could be discriminated against. host: actually, we will go to lori in tennessee on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: this country was founded on people coming from england to have a right to religion based on god and jesus. where has everything been changed? where are my rights to that

belief and while they going to be taken away? host: that is lori from tennessee -- guest: i don't know what the question was there. host: one of the stories that came out yesterday, senator bob menendez a democrat from new jersey. talk about his future. what happens now, the charges against them? pink that picture for the folks who do not know that story in full yet. guest: robert menendez had 14 count indictment come down last night. this is something he largely expected. this was not a surprise. however, he has said he will fight and not step aside from his seat in the senate. however, they did say that he has stepped aside as the foreign relations ranking member temporarily. i have to note that i cannot think of an example and if your college hobbled, tell me, of an example of someone who has stepped aside and resumed that

position. these indictments tend to go on for a long time and he says it is not true. when you read the indictment it does not look good for bob menendez. there has only been 12 senators in the history of the senate to be indicted with results. this is very serious and we are going to see this legal battle play out over the next couple of months and years. host: there is a picture about the senator bob menendez. one of the several stories will find that "the daily beast." jackie kucinich covers politics. talk a little bit about how life has changed for you and the previous incarnations that you have done at other publications. what it is like a reporter and your particular place at "the daily beast." guest: the difference between "the daily beast is quote -- "the daily beast" is that we have a lot of boys and we can engage with our readers and a

way that more established publications to cannot. that is one of the great freedoms of being here versus other publications which are all wonderful, but i happen to like this one the best. host: as a political person talk about what you expect the commerce -- the congress to be tackling when they get back. guest: first off, it is how medicare reimbursement doctors and right now they are in limbo because the senate decided not to pass it. house passed it in the senate has not taken it up. each side is blaming the other on how this happened. you are having republican senators asking that it is offset because it is something like over $100 billion that would be spent as a result. i think you will have to see the senate take that up in pretty quick fashion. host: also on the senate side, the story this morning from "the

washington post is quote about a back-and-forth against senator dick durbin and senator shuman. what is going on? we saw harry reid endorse chuck schumer and what is going on behind the scenes? guest: this site has started because senator durbin and his staff say that chuck schumer when harry reid stepped out, said he would support the durbin in keeping the current position. they say that did not happen. you rarely see these interparty disputes spill out into the public which is what makes it fascinating. kind of in the middle is patty murray, senator from washington state who is maybe looking at durbin's job. the rumor was that chuck schumer was going to endorse murray even

though it was a he said, she said, who said. i think the most notable thing about this is that you do not see these disputes and this does not usually happen. chuck schumer and dick durbin lived together for 22 years, so this is a personal fight. it is pretty nasty of their right now. we will see what happens as this plays out going forward. host: bill from fort pierce, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning. the reason for my call is that the law that was passed in indiana -- usually when the law passes, it is my understanding that there is a compelling reason for it. in other words, there have been incidents within the state court something has happened to cause this. in listening to governor pence and other legislators, i have not heard anything, specific things that happen within the

state. i just wanted to know what this -- what she thinks. guest: that is one of the arguments you have been hearing that there have not been any insistence. on another site, they said there were no instances on anybody being discriminated against as a result of the law another state. there is a push and pull in indiana right now. this has done a lot of damage within the state. there is a lot of bad feelings right now. host: when it comes to other issues involving the senate, the one thing we keep hearing over and over for the last two weeks is the future of the red a bench as -- the future of loretto blynch. guest: she was held up because of the anti-human trafficking law or bill. because of the language having to do with abortion, it has been stalled. it seems like she is caught right now in a political fight

and she is being used as this bargaining chip between republicans and democrats. it sure is a mess and not sure how it will go forward. if she -- she will probably be confirmed for a vote that she has been in limbo the longest to be in the position. host: senate definite its -- so definite as far as the boat? -- as far as the votes? guest: no, not yet. again, we are spending our day at the "daily beast" in washington dc, talking to reporters and editors about the content and process of what they do there. jackie kucinich as one who follows politics, what is it like being a reporter on capitol hill for an online publication versus the paper version that you used to work for?

guest: there is not much of a difference, i will be honest. one -- reporting on capitol hill is one of the great privileges in my career. you are indisputable building with important people and get to meet people from different states who are coming through and touring. it is a fascinating place to work. there is no real difference between online publication and a print publication. you are still looking for the truth, you are still looking to report things out. it is working on capitol hill -- working on capitol hill is such a great experience and privilege. host: do you have to post more frequently now? guest: no. [laughter] guest: i feel like they have revved up in the digital age over the last 15 years or 20 years now. i think everybody has to post more. the good thing about "the daily beast" is that there is not so

much pressure to post every update from every story. we are allowed to assess where things are going and call it like we see it rather than the breathless coverage you see. host: sandra from indiana. go ahead. caller: the lgbt community seems to be pulling the religious community in my view. how can we protect our religious views without offending the lgbt community? guest: i not a politician and i can just tell you what is going on in indiana and arkansas. i can tell you that from the business community, they did not think that this law in indiana was going to be fair and that is all i got. host: one recall from

california. independently, dave. go ahead. caller: i would just like to ask if you can hear me? i would like to know when george bush went into iraq and lie to congress and it seems like the reporters do not say anything. like they don't really care because the guy that prosecuted charles manson said that if he lied to congress he should be brought up on murder charges and the media does not ever discussed that. i was just wondering why? guest: there sure was a lot there, but i can tell you that the menendez indictment has to do with whether the senator took bribes and may have had a corrupt sanction with someone. the indictment is pretty -- is worth the read. host: what are you working on now for "the daily beast?"

guest: we are continuing on this menendez indictment. just following the 20 -- the 2016 field. we are starting to see a lot of financial disclosures, and how much people raise. ted cruz raise a couple million dollars and a couple of days. he is the first declared candidate on the republican side. we are monitoring what he is doing and it will be interesting as voters and donors speak with their pocketbooks who starts to emerge as the money leader. i sure hope there are surprises. host: jackie kucinich, thank you very much. guest: thank you. host: we also want to thank the office of "the daily beast." don't forget next week on april 9 we will be at the offices of "the daily caller." that is it for "washington journal." we take you now to the u.s.

capital and taking a look at the chaos and yemen. -- the chaos in yemen. [indiscernible] -- in one area north of the capital, where much of the countries wealthiest live coming down to the south. what used to be the border between the north and the south -- would be the second-largest city in the north. [indiscernible] this used to be known as the western protectorate. and it is into this area that they have advanced in the last two weeks. and they are posing a talent and a threat. then there is aiden itself.