and, we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning. today is saturday, april 18. welcome to "washington journal." earlier this week, congressional lawmakers struck a bipartisan agreement that will give president obama special authority to finish negotiating one of the world's largest trade bills. the president says he will sign fasttrack isf it passes. this morning we want to hear your views on fasttrack. supporters, give us a call at (202) 748-8000.

if you oppose this bill, call us at (202) 748-8001. we are also online. you can tweet at us, @cspanwj. we are on facebook facebook.com/cspan. you can also send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. good morning everyone. our topic this morning is the fast-track trade legislation that will be moving through congress quickly. let's take a look at an article from "your tim new york times," it heralds a divisive fight within the democratic party, one that could spill into the 2060 presidential campaign. some are demanding to know

hillary clinton's position on the bill to know whether to give president obama tpa. from "cq news," the proposal would require the president to consult with congress at key points in the negotiations, a condition apparently designed to address lawmakers complaints that the obama mr. asia has been excessively secretive and its handling of the tpp. yesterday, -- [video clip] >> an agreement was reached on trade promotion authority built also known as fasttrack.

basically what that would do is it would allow president obama to summit trade agreements to congress for a straight up or down vote without any amendments. the most immediate reasons of the white house once i legislation is because it is trying to conclude a big trade bill in the asia-pacific region, called the transpacific partnership, involving china vietnam, and other countries. business groups love it, labor groups environmentalists, and ngos hated. the legislation that was passed yesterday, if adopted, would speed the way for approval of tpp. the battle over fasttrack is in essence an early scrimmage over the transpacific partnership. host: we read there are not a

lot of democratic votes for this. how does the president of aligned himself with democrats and how many votes with you need to get through? guest: he needs at least 60 votes in the senate. the senate, they say is easier to pass legislation on trade than the house. you would expect that they would be able to get enough to reach 60, to get it passed, because there will be the possibility of a filibuster, so they need the 60 vote threshold. it also depends on if all republicans are united behind the bill. the more republicans that fall away, the more democrats that they need to get to the 60 vote threshold. in the house, a distance to pass with the civil majority. -- simple majority.

republicans have an ample majority and theoretically could pass on their own. again, there is some uncertainty -- people don't expect every republican to vote for this bill, the question is how many republicans will vote for it and how many democrats do they need to get over the top. of course, the white house would want as many democrats as possible, but realistically you are talking about a range of 10 to 40, maybe higher. when you start getting to the high-end, that's where people are skeptical of the numbers. host: for those who want this legislation passed, and the specific trait packed past what does this mean for you me, our viewers? what would we see, and feel from it? guest: i don't know if you would feel much discernible -- if you

would see so much impact in your everyday life. people who are from rust belt states say that nafta has had a devastating effect on their cumulat community, leading to loss manufacturing jobs. that is why union groups are fighting this so hard. they think it will be more of the same. on the other side of it, theoretically, we should be able to -- the u.s. should be able to boost exports because we will be reducing tariffs. those would be phased out or go to zero. that mr. asia argues that that will create more jobs in the united states. to the degree that the united states has trade barriers, they are relatively low. those would also be eliminated under the pact, not everyone, but that could reduce the price

of goods coming into the united states. generally, as a strategic matter, it is an economic alliance with key trading partners. then mr. asia argues that is the united states doesn't write the rules of trade and the pacific region, that china will write the rules. they are saying, it is in our interest to be here and make sure that american companies can prosper in this region because i is good for the united states as a whole. host: that was doug palmer. you can read his coverage over at "politico" covering trade issues. rebecca from alabama is on the line, opposing the legislation. tell us why. caller: i really think it will take jobs away from our country. what i have read about it is that it will -- just like nafta

did -- take manufacturing jobs, silicon valley jobs, asia is big into electronics and things like that, and their economy is not doing well. japan just jump china because china's gdp jobs and unemployment is going up. i don't really think it is good for us. host: we will go ahead now to chicago where jim is on the line. jim also opposes the legislation. caller: good morning. this bill will send more jobs overseas and eventually destroy america as far as jobs and the economy. this is the ironic thing about it. the majority of democrats are against this bill, but this president has aligned himself with republicans, who he always criticize.

why is he in bed with republicans, in bed with wall street, and continue to want to destroy america? host: we also tossed the question out to our viewers on facebook, let's take a look at comments coming in there. john scott writes, this is the worst trade deal ever, it is worse than nafta. if you thought he loss of jobs was bad with nafta, the tpp will be a death knell to our industry. gary writes, say goodbye to labor. again, i topic this morning is your view of the fasttrack legislation. if you support the legislation give us a call at (202) 748-8000 . if you oppose the legislation, call us at (202) 748-8001. we will go now to detroit, michigan where daryl is on the

line. darrell also opposes this bill. caller: good morning. first i want to talk about the big lie. the big lie is free-trade. there is no free trade. it is out of balance. right now, we have about 400 billion dollars per year and trade deficits. this is the one thing since 1975, we have never run a trade surplus. this is the one thing that americans have to get together and end this madness. thank you very much. host: to give you an idea of just how interesting the political split is on this, i want to run you through some numbers of lawmakers in the senate. the first is from democrat ron wyden, he tweets, this bill

makes historic strides in transparency, labor, environmental, human rights and open internet standards. that is ron wyden, a democrat. next we will go to a tweet from a sender of missouri, roy blunt. "trade supports our country's economic growth, create jobs, and helps our competitiveness." one more tweet from sherrod brown, "trade deals have amounted to corporate handouts and workers sellouts, no more." you can reach us at @cspanwj. next up is tim who also opposes the fasttrack legislation. tim, are you with us? caller: yes. host: good morning, you are on

"washington journal," go ahead. caller: i think this legislation needs a full vote in the house and senate. the people need to be fully informed of the consequences of this bill that has the potential and far-reaching effects for our economy, particularly at this time when our economy is so fragile. host: one group that is supporting this legislation is "the wall street journal"'s opinion page. "the overdue trade bill came out of orrin hatch and ron wyden.

it is also supported by the house ways and means committee chairman, paul ryan. what has become the political verities of our time, distrust of obama. normally, -- on the democratic left the opposition includes an array of union environmentalists, and antibusiness activist, and the man presumed to be the democrats's next senate leader." that comes from "the wall street journal." we will go now to germantown maryland with mike. caller: what people need to realize is this transpacific partnership legislation was done in secret. it was kept secret from congress. there were only allowed to see a small portion of it. there's a really good article by paul craig roberts several years

ago. he would make a great guest, by the way. what this does is a allows corporations to supersede the laws of a nation. a sickly, it is fascism on steroids. let me read this one short quote. one of the provisions allows provis corporations to sue government for the cost of complying with regulations. essentially, the laws that apply to corporations are supplanted. this is like the movie "rollerball," where corporations rule the people, and politicians and governments are left impotent. that is from infowars.com, paul craig roberts. host: speaking on friday with

italian prime minister, president obama said the transpacific partnership agreement was a good thing and opposition made no sense. [video clip] president obama: people have memories of outsourcing and job loss. the point i have made to my labor friends, and progressive friends is that companies that are looking for just low-cost labor, they have artie left. we are already at a disadvantage now. the trade agreement that i'm proposing would d actually strengthen our ability to open other markets and strengthen our position compared to where we are now. being opposed to the new trade agreement is a ratification of the status quo where a lot of people are selling here, but we are not selling their.

japan is one of the negotiators in this deal. last time i checked, if you drive around washington, there are a whole bunch of japanese cars. if you go to c tokyo and count me chrysler's, gm, and for cars there are. the current situation is not working for us. i don't know why folks would be opposed to opening up the japanese market more for u.s. autos or u.s. beef. it doesn't make any sense. host: that was president obama speaking friday at a white house press conference with the a tiny prime minister. let's go now to your tweets. first from carol that says, this debunks the myth that gop won't

work with obama, they will work with him if they feel it's good policy. from jd, seems like tpp is a bad deal for the most of america, it would be nice to see at least the framework. we will go to another caller who is also opposed to legislation. caller: thank you for letting me on c-span. this is the death knell of the middle class and the united states if they agree to this transpacific partnership. why? i can answer the president about china and japan and all that. they do not go by any agreement that we have ever negotiated with them. why will they not cheat on this one? if people don't wake up and stop this, there will be no middle class in the united states in 15 years. thank you for letting me speak. host: "politico" reports on

democrats's civil war over free-trade. "labor unions against pro-business democrats, and elizabeth warren against virtually everyone who supports a landmark piece of legislation that would allow the president to close what could be the biggest free-trade deal in history. what's at stake is giving the president streamline authority to negotiate the tpp, a 12 country free-trade deal that would dwarf nafta. but, there's much more at stake politically for democratic party whose progressive wing is enjoying an upswing thanks to the aggressive populism avoid. his work negotiate with

republicans has created several fractions within the democratic party." chris is on the line. caller: thank you for letting me talk. first-time caller. first, paul craig roberts, you should definitely look them up. the transpacific, all these trade agreements, who is writing them? you think obama and his cabinet are writing them? no, it is able to make -- a multinational company putting them together. let's look at obama's track record of following through with his promises. obamacare? failure. nafta? i'm sorry, that was bill clinton. host: let me as you, what would you like to see instead of the legislation that is being

debated right now? it's you know a lot about the issues. caller: who knows about it? have we been able to read into it? no. it is being fasttrack to congress. you look at the "wall street journal" article, what a bunch of bs. the democrats are for this, the republicans are against this -- the same bs over and over. host: "time magazine" looks at how fasttrack legislation could play into the 2015 presidential race. marco rubio is rarely on the same side as obama, but the florida republican who is running for president in 2016 wrote a letter to the white house expressing support. hillary clinton, who announced this week that she is running as president, is backed

into a corner. so far, clinton has kept quiet on whether she supports this deal. that is from "time magazine." all weekend long, are c-span's city tour is taking booktv and american history tv on the road to say augustine georgia. today, we will offer all the coverage on say augustine in one block. >> the hotel was built by henry morris and flagger. flagler is someone who is very little known outside of florida. he was one of the wealthiest men in america. he had essentially been a cofounder of standard oil company with john d rockefeller.

in the early years, rockefeller and flagler were best friends. he was a man who always wanted to undertake some great enterprise. as it turned out, florida was it. he realized that he needed to on the railroad between jacksonville and say augustine -- saint augustine to ensure that guestzs could get to his house easily. in buying the railroad, he bought the rights all the way to daytona beach. this was even before he completed the hotels and say augustine -- saint augustine. clearly the dream was starting to grow for flaggler. he was a visionary. host: our topic this morning is your view of the fasttrack legislation. if you support the bill, give us

a call at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. let's take a look at a couple of your tweets. "trade is good because we get to by other countries's products whose cost is not jacked up due to owners u.s. regulations." from inconceivable one "if anything this trade deal is too restrictive." we also got a tweet from the caving institute -- cato institute, "trade promotion authority is not an executive power grab." as for opponents of trade, most from the left, but some from the right, they have decided to wage the next battle in the war

against trade liberalization. if they succeed, the tpp and the ttip will be sidelined indefinitely. that comes from cato.org. let's go now to robinson illinois where rob opposes this legislation. caller: i totally opposes legislation. i was in manufacturing for 40 years. when they signed in the china deal, we were stripped of our jobs. we work -- were competing for $.30 or $.40 per hour. what happens is when one company goes, all the other factories that they are competing with have to go to. it is like a cancer. the same thing with mexico. some of our major companies went to warjuarez.

if you go there, it is like a tiny chicago with american factories everywhere. it makes your heart sick. what i have to say is this, when people in washington sign these, they keep their jobs, but we lose our jobs. that is what i have to say. host: we will go to columbia, south carolina. joe is on the line. joe supports the legislation. tell us why. caller: i think it can be helpful. i'm just hoping -- host: are you still with us? caller: yes. i'm just hoping small business people have the opportunity to get in on the trade. is it possible you can explain to me how it will be determined for a small business person, how

they will be able to participate in the trade? host: for more details on that, i encourage you to check out our website, c-span.org, where we will have more information and legislation to come. we will go to worry -- rory. go ahead and turn your tv or radio down so they begin here you a bit better. caller: thank you. this is rory johnson. i don't support the bill because the simple fact that it keeps the unions down, it doesn't help support me or my family, or middle-class people. [indiscernible]

it's up and down, and then fasttrack. we need all the help we can. we don't need fasttrack. we artie have the labor wpool and people who work for less pay. host: let's take a look at some of the other headlines this morning. we will go first to "washington post," obama calls congressional oversight on iran deal reasonable. obama warned congress against inserting quote a whole bunch of poison pills in the legislation

before it reaches his desk. he also said, it's not going to be tilted in the direction of trying to pass the bill. next up, mike who opposes legislation. caller: good morning. i would just remind people that -- to think back how many times we have been down this road before that has cost us. what mr. obama said a few minutes ago about seeing american-made cars running around japan. think about all the american cars you would see. japan is buying american cars now. we have had all the opportunity

in the world to ship cars over there, they are just not buying them. in the united states, we do not need those people's products who hate us. we already -- host: ohio, william is on the line. william supports the legislation. caller: good morning. the jobs are already gone. this will help the people. now, we will get things going. if obama is for, who will be against it? host: why do you like about it? caller: because of trade and stuff that people will get. host: let's go to your comments on facebook now. what is your rights, after listening to the president explain it, it is a necessary

evil for the advancement of america's interest to be in on the ground floor of the planning stages of a global marketplace. it has never been about the american worker. the american worker benefited at times, but whenever there is an opportunity to increase revenue, it will always be wall street first and the american worker second. you can find us on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. summerville, south carolina, jamie opposes the legislation. caller: i think it will take jobs from america, just like nafta did. host: all right. we will move on to chattanooga, tennessee. mitchell is on the line who supports the bill. caller: good morning. of course i support the bill. look at where we have been now trying to straighten our country

in the middle east and korea. how is that working for us? not too good. let's open up countries that are friendly to us. let's do business with those places. those places will increase our wealth. walking around, talking about doing something about social security, listen, they took money from social security, we never got a cost of living raise. i'm 61, military veteran, i cut my pay to live. let's inc. about what we're doing here. let's not put more entities -- penalties on us where we have to retire at 69 or something and work until her fingers fall off. give us a break here. host: our topic this morning is your view of the fasttrack legislation. supporters, give us a call at (202) 748-8000.

if you oppose the bill, (202) 748-8001. let's go now to more of your tweets. james tweets, free-trade agreements have permitted key many fracturing to move to foreign countries. we can't even build a plane without buying from china. another tweet comes from michael, since when is america against free trade and capitalism? another tweet from jan who says, i feel most people will be against the legislation because of past agreements being such disasters. we will look at a chart now. it will boost exports in some sectors, well harming others.

you can see different categories they look at, or services. heavy manufacturing, service communication, cars, agriculture, utilities and conduction, and government. you can see this online at "the wall street journal" website. next up is william from michigan, who opposes the bill. caller: most definitely. if you unfortunately believe this will benefit the country or our people, you are sadly mistaken. we are still writing the same bill clinton trade wreck that imposed slavery in china. this is just icing on the cake for the train wreck. what will happen is the ideology

will be transferred over to the usa. for those of you who have not felt the impact on our economy will. that's all i have. host: senator ron wyden democrat of oregon, is one of the negotiators that made this bill possible. here is what he says about the fasttrack legislation, opening foreign markets where most of the world's consumers reside is critical to creating a new opportunities for middle-class american jobs. this bill, together with strong new enforcement tools, sets our country on the right track to craft trade policies that work for more people. he is the leading democrat on the senate finance committee. from pennsylvania, rich, who opposes this bill. caller: i'm here.

i oppose this bill because it is very similar to nafta and the things that bill clinton pushed through congress. there is no reason to push our jobs overseas once again. nafta created free trade, but not fair trade. as a result, we lost millions and millions of good paying labor jobs in this nation. cities are actually reduced in population to one third of what they once were because the steel mills are gone. i used to serve steel, we made patterns. in this valley, there were about 36 blast furnaces.

you can't make steel without a blast furnace. now there is one. we are giving our jobs away with these unfair agreements. you want to look at what happened? go on the website for labor and industry and take a look at the big crime and industrial jobs since bill clinton pushed nafta. bill clinton is nothing more than a traitor, and obama is cut from the same mold. host: the previous caller mentioned the labor unions. i want to look at tweet now from the head of afl-cio who says, congress is trying to fast-track fast-track. it's bad for workers, our economy and democracy. our next call is from texas francisco who supports the bill. tell us why. caller: thank you for having me.

obviously, we are missing chunks of information. i see a lot of people are opposing this. the reality of things is we are trying to open new doors. a lot of people talk about how we are going to lose jobs. if people would start thinking more positive, maybe they would think that we will create jobs. united states, we don't know that much of the bill said to have been in closed doors. again, if the united states here at om wit and -- home would invest more in education, who thinks we will lose jobs? on the contrary. it will give us more jobs and make us more educated. those who are opposed to it and think they will lose their jobs, why?

be more competitive. we are competitive. if the president wants to do this, and thinks it will open doors to a lot of other markets open them up. we as united states people need to prove that we can ask and make more, and prosper more by opening more doors. host: take a look now at the potential impact of the u.s. transpacific trade deal. there are 12 countries participating so that is a market size of 793 million consumers. $305 billion in exports per year by 2025. those stats come from the white house. mary in iowa, you are on the line opposing the legislation. tell us about it.

caller: i remember nafta. the farm bureau was really supporting it. i never knew the farm bureau to do anything that benefited farmers. also, we had maytag in iowa. as soon as nafta came, it was maytag and whirlpool. it went right to mexico. there went a whole bunch of good paying jobs. that's what happened to a lot of jobs in iowa. also, the good paying jobs went from high-paying down to about half. that is what happens when you send your jobs overseas. the jobs that we have don't pay nearly as well. the factory jobs, and all of our

factory jobs are gone. a lot of them. it will happen this time. we will not be selling things over there. they will be selling things here or try to. we won't be able to buy them because we don't have the money. host: do you might if i ask you a question? caller: the only people that it helps are the people, the top 1%. they have way too much money anyway. host: mary, the white house says that this is a bill that will help ordinary americans, and the president says, he won't sign anything that won't help you and people in iowa. do you buy that? caller: i don't buy that, no. he has been turned by all the money, that's the thing. host: moving on now to washington dc. william is on the line. william supports the legislation. caller: yes i do. i'm retired from the d.c. police department.

[indiscernible] from the d.c. police department i got $80,000 in retirement. i was they would give the money to someone who really needs it. that's all i have. host: lynn. a new out when he the legislation. caller: i want to just the fact that most people that i hear commenting are commenting about the trade agreement itself. that is not what fast-track legislation is about. fasttrack is about congress advocating its responsibility and authority and sending more power over the executive branch to sign an agreement without checks and balances. congress has complained over and over again during the semester should about him acting like a

king. this is not about one man's personality. congress is representative of the people. they should be involved in this. they should know every detail, and it should pass through congress. they should take responsibility for the outcome, and not continue to give over their authority to the president. whether the trade agreement is good for america or not, the most important thing about the fast-track legislation is that it needs to be through congress, and not around them. thank you. host: tally in daytona beach, florida supports the legislation. tell us about it. caller: eye remover nafta. i remember the clintons. obama is different. obama is not a clinton. nafta was a time bomb, and we did not feel the fallout until years later, just like how george w. bush was a time bomb

to our economy. combine that with nafta the clintons nafta. obama is different. he is working with others to hammer down the details. i trust him. i think he knows what he is doing. i think this will be good for american workers. he will not do anything to hurt americans. i firmly believe that. i'm 75 years old, i have watched politics for years. it will work. host: let me ask you, if you're still there, a lot of people have brought up in parallel with nafta, what makes right now different? are you still there? we will move on to marlene in new jersey who opposes the legislation. caller: hello? host: you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. listen, i am 71 years old, and

contrary to what the 75-year-old said, i consider the united states now a fascist nation. the reason i say that is because fascism is when the government and big business are in bed together. in the 1950's, corporations paid 32% of federal taxes. today, they pay less than 10%. that means, guys, we making up the difference. on the second point with this free-trade, the american people just paid billions to bail general motors out. they went bankrupt and started a new company. that new company has just build a $9 million brand-new plant across the border in mexico. how many jobs did that make for americans? hello? host: i will let you finish your point. caller: i think that's pretty

much the point. people work for months and months to pay taxes, and yet a corporations like general electric made millions and millions of dollars of profit, paid no taxes and got a $9 million tax refund from the people. people need to stop. i want to tell you something else that i found out this morning. hillary clinton was secretary of state, but you know who one of her biggest contributor is right now? a multibillion-daire from ukraine. we now have troops in ukraine training soldiers. host: we will leave it there. we will take a quick break, and coming up, we will look at a "usaid today" report.

then, we will look at the earth day movement and how it is changed since it was inaugurated in the 1940's. here is part of our "newsmakers" interview where representative debbie wasserman schultz. [video clip] >> are you surprised to see them as rivals? any insight as to -- rep. wasserman shultz: i served walt jeb bush was governor. there was no one as inflexible to work with. i'm not just talking about --

because i disagree with him on issues. i disagree with plenty of people . i'm in the minority. even in the minority, i found's ways to be effective. jeb bush didn't work with anyone who didn't agree with his opinion. that is not a good harboring of his aspiration to be president. he cut taxes, almost excessively for the most wealthy floridians, and left us in a bad spot when the economy job doubt, thanks to his brother's economic policies. it was much harder for florida and we were hit harder. of what chile, for marco rubio he is trying to market himself as a new republican with new ideas. he has fully embraced all but

vulcan policies, trickle-down, cutting taxes for the wealthy increasing taxes for middle-class, and in health care -- and the health caending health care, and it at info the injury, he wrote an immigration bill, and as soon as people in his party were opposed to it, he ran away from it. if marco rubio cannot take the pressure of the extreme right wing of his own party how will he be president? >> "washington journal" continues. host: this by a nearly $3 million effort, recent data from troops show that nearly half of soldiers show pessimism and unhappiness in their jobs. here to speak about this report is gregg zoroya of "usa today."

i want you to take us back to 2009 and tell us what made the army decided to use positive psychology on troops, and when we say positive psychology, what are we talking about? guest: coping mn mechanismsg, positive ways to look of the world. in 2009, they were desperate for some way to deal with rising numbers of suicide. soldiers were dealing with posttraumatic stress there was voter disorder, depression, and so on. they were looking at a program in pennsylvania that dealt with positive psychology, that had some marginal success dealing with depression in teenagers.

he said it could make them strong now so that they would have to fix them when they come home for more. host: tell me what you found. guest: this is a controversial program. the said never been done before as far as trying to teach this to soldiers. havethere has been a lot of criticism from scientist that they did not have data for supported -- to support it. they were testing soldiers on how brazilian ar. -- resilient they are. this year, in the last 12 months, they developed a way to aggregate data, take names out of it, and see how underscore in different areas. they applied a formula to it and what they found were very high rates of problems with morale trust, and so on. host: when you looked at this

data, did you find any reason as to why there is this low morale, dissatisfaction, unhappiness? guest: i took the data to the people who tracks the soldiers and their families and asked them, does this make any sense? they said, actually, it does not surprise them at all because of some of the issues that the military faces. they are coming off of 14 years of war, soldiers over there with multiple deployments, no question that they have issues to deal with. on top of that, the army is facing downsizing. there are some soldiers that face losing their jobs. as far as retirement, congress is looking to see if they can save money there. there is lots of uncertainty. host: what about the army's response? guest: they weren't happy about the numbers coming out. the first reaction was to deny

they existed. when i provided the documents supporting them, they said -- they acknowledged the numbers, but then produced a new set of numbers where they had recalculated the formulas, change some of the specials, and they looked -- the thresholds and it looks much better. host: we want to get your calls. if you are active duty military, (202) 748-8000. if you are in iraq or afghanistan veteran, (202) 748-8001. all others, give us a call, (202) 748-8002. we are talking with gregg zoroya of "usa today." your report focuses on the army, i'm wondering if other branches have had similar reports done. guest: there has been data to suggest that morality issues that were reflected in those

numbers are shared by other services. they have had some survey work done by a publication, "military times," and also another publication that showed similar morale. host: this is not a cheap program, is a? guest: know it is not. it is a very elaborate program. they have trained some 28 thousand soldiers to be trainers for other soldiers. it costs about $50 million per year to run this program. host: let's go to diane in pennsylvania, she is a veteran. caller: i would like to discuss the morality in the present-day military. i feel like the problem is that we are not eliminating our enemy targets around

the world. if we actually allowed the military to engage the enemy and eliminate the enemy, i feel like our soldiers would have a clear mission rather than just being out there in this monkey world -- mucky world. they would know what they are doing and solving our national security problems, rather than watching this happen to our country. that is about all i have to say. thank you very much. host: gregg zoroya, your thoughts? guest: it's interesting. she points out an issue that we have come across in talking to veterans of the iraq war. especially with this latest struggle with isil, isis, where the islamic state, where they had taken over areas of iraq where many american soldiers fought and died in. talking to veterans of battle,

there is a real sense of confusion. they lost friends there. it is hard to understand in some cases what they fought for. others just say, look, we are following orders. we were told to fight there, we did. it certainly complicates the world for them, or seems to, when they come out of these conflicts and there seems to be a reversal from where they were before. host: the next caller is bob in bethlehem, pennsylvania. caller: hello? host: hey bob, you are on with gregg zoroya of "usa today." caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question. when you look back to the time when our troops were in iraq, and turned out that there was an earthquake of been turkey and iraq. our troops went up to help the people in the earthquake.

they were very happy to help those people. the ones in the other part of the country, very low, there is steam was low. same thing, you look at indonesia. when the navy went in to help the people of indonesia, they were much happier. even the people themselves were happier with our troops. is that not a tool to help our troops? thank you. guest: that's a fascinating observation. it's something that actually i saw firsthand last year. i was sent to liberia to cover the ebola outbreak. it was exactly the same situation. i spent a lot of time with the u.s. troops in liberia. the reaction of the liberians of the troops being there, they were ecstatic.

i talked to the soldiers, and these were hard and combat veterans. it was a different experience for them. some of them had been through three or four combat doors, and it was really -- to be clear, it was really nice, they said, to be in a place where they werent being threatened, didn't have to worry about bombs going off.

abuse clinics. they may need clinics for drug abuse. those clinics are overwhelmed. they have waiting lists. they cannot see everyone who needs to be treated. some argue the money can be used to expand staffing at some of the clinics and provide soldiers with substance abuse treatment they need. host: gregg zoroya of usa today. his article army morale low despite a six year $287 million optimism program. hello, you're on with gregg zoroya. are you with us? go ahead. caller: i would like to thank -- think of the troops could be raised if washington would stop

prosecuting the 47 senators. article 14 statement three of the constitution says that washington is behind them. thank you. host: what have we heard from washington? have you heard from members of congress and the house armed services who appropriate money for the army and military? guest: the story came out yesterday and i have not heard anything. i put out feelers with army leadership to find out if they are going to take a second look at this program. i'm waiting for a response. host: if you're active duty military, give us a call at (202) 748-8000. >> -- iraq and afghanistan veterans, call is at (202) 748-8001. all others call at (202)

748-8002. we go to lake placid, florida. richard is on the line, also a veteran. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the military -- i cannot imagine reading in the military under this present regime we have in the white house today. with president obama. before president obama took office and basically became commander in chief and implemented his policies, it was somewhere around 3500 wounded or dead -- our people soldiers afghanistan and fighting in the mid east of there. since he has taken over, some --

from 2009 two today, over 17,000 wounded or do it. he has not identified the enemy. he has not made clear objectives. he refers to the morale in the military, he refers to fort hood and major hassan, who was shooting soldiers as he had a bad work day, not as a terrorist act. we have a commander in chief who does not and will not identify the entity -- the enemy. so they military can achieve with clear objectives. just like the lady said. if the military's given an enemy and say this is the enemy and this is our objective, they can take care of it. he has not and will not do that as long as he is an office. talk about a bad hair day.

well, i will not go into that, but thank you. host: any response? guest: it is a complicated world. the number of casualties were excessive under the present measure should as well, i think. but they certainly rose when obama took over. i think it is a situation where the troops never know where they are going to be sent. i think many of them feel that at any moment, there could be continued violence. i know some of the military schools, the speeches build or commanders there to the young recruits are that you may think you have missed these wars. that very well may not be happening. you could be sent overseas at any time. host: gregg zoroya, i run

through a couple of the data points in the article you published on the "usa today" report. more than 400,000 soldiers scored badly in optimism. 48% had little satisfaction or commitment to their jobs. 40% did not trust immediate supervisors are fellow soldiers. 2/3 reported catastrophic thinking. 53% they -- 53% said they weren't satisfied with marriage or family. i'm am curious about catastrophic thinking. what is that? guest: dwelling too much on what may be the worst thing that could happen to you. concepts of your future and then dwelling on it more than you should. it is a psychological concept. host: combat troops get psychological treatment before combat? guest: yes. they are checked when they come

home as well. it is pre-and post employment. the army and the other services have done considerable work in trying to make therapy counselors more accessible to the troops, and embedding them in some of the units they have. trying to break down the stigma that has been part of military life for forever. that you do not seek help, that you do not need assistance. i think there has been progress in that area. host: a question on twitter related to that. michael writes when morale numbers were taken how was the predisposition and socioeconomic and mental status of the soldiers accounted for? guest: it is a test they take once a year. it is designed for them to understand where they stack up in terms of many things, not just resiliency, but nutrition

physical activity, what kind of shape they are in, how much sleep they are getting, whether they use alcohol or tobacco. it is designed for soldiers to understand where they are in comparison with other soldiers and give them goals to meet. it is designed to help them help themselves. with the army tried to do was pull some answers out of the survey they do. each soldiers required to do this once a year. they tried to aggregate the numbers and get a sense of where their answers lie as a group in areas like morality and trust and so on. host: we go to sheila in winchester virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do appreciate this topic. something we do not think about much and there has not been a whole lot wrought on it was due to the fact -- are you there? host: yes. go ahead. caller: sorry. there are 22 military vets that

commit suicide every day. i am so saddened by that. i am a cancer survivor. what helped me get through was the american cancer society. at any time -- and they may want to look at their program -- i can call in any time, day or night. i do not have to go to a switchboard. maybe they need to look at what they are doing -- they can implement that at the mva as a wounded warrior project. as an american, i want to tell every military person that is speaking and listening to your program today, thank you so much. there are people who care and love about you. we want you to get better and be able to have a good life. thank you for taking my call. have a lovely weekend. guest: these are very good observations. there is a sense out there -- it

is interesting. there are certainly a number of troops that have issues, from deployment and experience in the military. the vast majority do not. they do transfer into civilian life and carry on with their lives in a healthy fashion. but because of the number of people in the military, there is a sizable fraction that do need assistance. there are programs out there -- i think wounded warrior project is an excellent example of a project that supports troops. the veterans association does have a hotline. a documentary about that hotline one an oscar, where they work hard to assist veterans who call in with problems. they can be overwhelmed. there are times where people are

put on hold. it is not always perfect. but they certainly try to help these soldiers and veterans. host: bobbies on the line in indiana, a veteran -- bob is on the line in indiana, a veteran. caller: i'm a vietnam veteran. we pulled out on the people that needed help. we could've been that enemy just like any other enemy. we took an oath against all enemies, post -- both foreign and domestic. unfortunately, we have a domestic enemy that needs cleaned up. they are in washington. they want to run our lives and everyone else's lives. when two thirds or more of the population does not vote, there is her answer. it is not that americans do not care. we cared too much.

we protect our vote. we do not throw it away. what is your reply to this? guest: one thing that you see and they -- one thing that you will see in the years ahead is a growing number of veterans serving in congress. there is a generation coming out of the wars of that is being recruited by both republicans and democrats. you will see, as we saw after wars past, that much of the political leadership will be people who have served in the armed forces. we went through decades where that was not the case. where that will have any affect on the issues you are discussing remains to be seen. there is the potential for that kind of change. host: we go to el paso texas kevin is on the line, active duty. caller: hello. i am at fort worth texas

military for 16 and a half years. hello? host: go ahead, you're on with gregg zoroya. caller: ok. i serve in the army infantry 46 dean and a half years. i have been in iraq four times in seven years. about 40 months of time in their. of course it is not just me. my stepbrother, stub son served eight tours in afghanistan. now that there is a drawdown, the army is looking at ways to get people out. in the first two wars, standards did not matter. also with the pay raise always

being 1% or a big deal, cutting our benefits. they wanted -- they want to cuttr -- they want to cut tricare, i just our retirement system. this is part of how morale is so low. soldiers see this and think they can do it to them, do not do it to me. if i served 20 years. that is all i got to say. guest: i think you have hit the nail on the head. this is what i have heard and i think you are to be appreciated for your service -- what you and your family members have been through is at the core of what this is all about. this is a professional military. something the united states

decided to go to in the 1970's when they did not want to draft. that is one of the reasons there were multiple deployments. you have served 40 months in war, longer than some of our wars have lasted area that is how unusual this circumstance is. these are people -- because we do not have a massive army, they send the same people back to war over and over again. this is all new territory. no other country has been in the situation where you have a professional army and they are wired to fight lengthy, and expertly -- unexpectedly lengthy wars. now they are in a period of transition where they are trying to downsize. soldiers face potential layoffs. there are discussions of cutting back tricare the health

insurance for the military. it is very uncertain. we have never had a professional force used this much in such a hard fashion and then tried to move towards a period of peace and do cutbacks. these troops who have done so much now face these kind of changes. it is all new territory. it should be surprising. there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty and it can impact morel. -- morale. host: gregg zoroya here has written a piece called army morale low despite six-year tour to $87 million optimism program. it says more -- we go to illinois, veteran caller.

caller: good morning. my thing i would like to touch on is substance abuse. there is a lot of drinking and partying going on when you are a soldier. when you're back in the rear in your barracks, whatever, a lot drinking and partying goes on. that comes with depression and all kinds of other things. when a guy gets in trouble for that, there is no offer of counseling -- at least not when i was in. this was several years back. anyway, i think you get my point. can you talk on that? guest: you are right that this is a -- of this threat of substance abuse goes hand in hand with behavioral health

issues that soldiers deal with. alcohol is a form of self medication when you are with ptsd, for example. the army does have a program for substance abuse and they have clinics across the country where soldiers can come in. and certainly if soldiers are involved in any kind of substance-related incident -- drunken driving or any brawl -- they are automatically referred to these programs by their commanders and they are evenly weighted. but you get maybe one shot at this. if you suffer from the problem again, you face being discharged from the military. with the cutbacks, troops worry about if they have any kind of blemish, it could put their jobs at risk in a may curtail them from seeking help.

there are a lot of complicating factors because of some things we have already discussed. also because of the continuing large numbers of troops who need this kind of assistance. some of the counselors are very busy. there could not be enough time to provide thorough counseling at some clinics across the country. it is a problem, and issue the army is struggling with. it remains to be seen how this will play out. host: william in alabama it is on the line, also a veteran. caller: my name is william. i am an ex green beret for 12 years. i have never, in my life heard such pessimism. i fought, took seven rounds before i got through all of them. the people of this country have

been great to me, more so than the military i fought in. we trusted ourselves in the field. we got orders, we had a mission we went out and accomplished it. as a green beret, i am proud of the men and those that died with me. and women. from the norse is -- from the nurses corps that were the beret as well as i did. if you want to help us, be on our side. we need a commander in chief who is a commander in chief. not one who is wishy-washy. we have seen has lied to our face. we are soldiers of america. this we will defend. and i will always be that way. they said put down your flags hide your families. this is not how an american soldier thanks. i still fly my green beret flag

right outside my house. the heck with any terrorist who dares to, and try me. i promise you, we go toe to toe -- i have -- in every damn place on the planet! host: your thoughts? guest: first of all, green berets are among the most elite of our military. they are among the special operations. they are some of the best trained soldiers the country has. so you have done incredible work. there was an interesting, and by admiral mike mullen, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. when he was chairman, he commented about this disconnect between the american public and the military. largely because the military is

a professional force now since the mid-1970's. so there is this bifurcation going on where a large percentage of the public never had anything to do with the military. they do not have to worry about their children being drafted. children joining the military is not an option they consider. his point was this is an area of concern. the american public talks about how much of they care about the military, if they really do not have any personal connection with people who served. there is a great deal of separation there. i think a lot of folks feel that this can create some of the issues of concern we have today. there are these two worlds out there. if the 1%, he called it, are those who served in the military. host: the last caller brought up another point.

the matter of gender. obviously the military is struggling with integrating women into the combat force and other issues. were there any gender breakdowns in the results? guest: no, but it is -- that is a developing issue in the military. right now, they are trying to see if, for the first time, women will be part of ranger training which has never happened before. it is gradually changing. women are taking more roles. they are -- they have a higher percentage in the military now than before. the military is clearly shifting and that direction. host: next up, cutler from new hampshire. he is also a veteran. caller: good morning, how are you? i was in the navy from 1961 to 1966. i got the vietnam era ribbon.

i do not deserve it because i was not in vietnam. i have brothers in my recovery group who served honorably. we need to look at history. the kind of wars we get involved in -- i go back to the colonials. the british fought a certain way. colonials fought like indians and we won. i'm reading a book on the real history of vietnam and what a mess that was. i feel that this goes back to korea. politicians, they will get us into war but they do not allow the military to win. this is not a good thing. we have to regroup here. i believe we should do what israel does and have a two-year

draft. i think we are sending the same man over and over again and again. they are getting burned out. i am on a board for homeland -- for homeless veterans in the greater manchester area of new hampshire. a lot of these men are vietnam veterans. they have never gone over that war. agent orange was not recognized for years but they finally 'fessed up to that took care of it. we have a government that is anxious to go to war. the v.a. has been good to me. but there are those on the street. we have to look at that. another issue is foreign policy. we wonder why countries do not like us. it is probably based on our foreign policy. we do what is good for america.

not everybody wants to be a democracy. there are some very benevolent monarchies dictatorships, that work for that country. host: your thoughts? guest: there is no question. the caller is absolutely right that these are different wars. then what americans read about in the history books. there is not a berlin to capture in some of these wars. there is no frontline. the times i have spent in iraq and afghanistan, the frontline was the front eight of the operating base -- front gate of the operating base. when you want out that front gate, there was always the possibility of some attack. the most depressing thing for me was to see how the military adapts and learns to operate in these different environments. they learn to work with groups in the community, try to meet

with and develop connections with local tribes, local sheiks. and work on various different platforms. to try to deal with an insurgency, this kind of counterterrorism effort that has been launched in both countries. the military has demonstrated it does learn, it does adapt. the question is how much, how many times can you send people over there. how many deployments is too many? that has never really been resolved. host: alfredo in reston virginia also a veteran. caller: good morning. my salute to all the veterans and those in the armed forces. i a retiree of the u.s. army. i do not know if you have considered, the largest

corporation on the planet of earth is called the united states army. the united states army has so many missions, to rebuild countries, to defend the democracy of this country and abroad, maintain peace around the world. not an easy thing to do. you criticizing morale -- there is always an issue of morrell. -- mrorale. all the big corporations, lockheed martin and such, they have an issue with morrell -- m orale. the united states army does care for these soldiers. it is the best army in the world. they therefore have programs that you're during the surveys.

we have to look at a different angle and think about the future and the future of the nation. there are so many promises and tools to benefit not only the army but the entire world. thank you. guest: the military does try. there is an effort to try and deal with these issues. it is an interesting evolution. when the suicides began to rise around 2004 and 2005, that timeframe, and there was increase and the number of ptsd cases and depression, anxiety disorders and that sort of thing and the force and is almost like trying to turn the titanic. there is an initial reaction by the military that these are just numbers jumping momentarily.

what they are doing and how they are doing it is perfectly fine. i think the walter reed scandal spoken of in the washington post, is a perfect example of that. there was a way of doing that and they thought it was appropriate, but soldiers were languishing in the system them and not getting the care they needed. it took an exposure of that for the military to change, and it did change. over the years there -- it has been a learning process. they have finally come to realize these issues and what is needed to break down the stigma and help soldiers get the assistance they need. now we're in a postwar period almost. and what i can gather, there is a sense of the military wanting to put this behind them, move on. i think the problems have not moved on yet. that is some of what we are trying to cover. host: ohio, mark is on the line. caller: good morning.

i am calling in regards to a bill that was before congress in july, 2011. the democrats sponsored the bill. what it was was they wanted to give a small token of appreciation to the armed forces from americans. it was only designed for those who were in imminent danger, who could be killed at any moment. and yet, every republican in congress voted against it. i voted republican for 50 years. after i read that, i never -- i no longer vote republican. i cannot believe that they could not or did not feel that

american lives -- i had a grandson in iraq. his morale was unbelievably low after hearing this. republican politicians in congress -- to this day, i still cannot accept it -- they did not think american lives were worth an extra $100 a month. that is my comment. guest: i think that one thing i have observed in covering these issues is that there could be a delayed reaction. it can be very unfortunate. but sometimes it seems to take time to recognize those issues, those concerns that need to be addressed. a couple examples are those soldiers who were wounded or emotionally scarred by the attack at fort hood by hassan.

it took time for the army to recognize that those were people who had been in the same kind of trauma as troops overseas. there are only now awarding them purple hearts, giving them the benefit of medical coverage for their wounds and so on. it seems like it does take time. former defense secretary hagel within the fast -- within the past few years allowing a review of medical records of vietnam veterans who had been discharged for problems that could have been caused in part by their wartime experiences. it could've been infractions that resulted in ptsd and substance abuse. to go and find out whether those charges should in fact be honorable discharges, allowing them access to ca services.

it can take them a long -- allowing them access to v.a. services. it can take them a long time to recognize the problem and correct the problem. host: our last caller is from seaside, california. josh is a veteran. are you with us? it appears we do not have josh, so we will leave it there. we have been joined by gregg zoroya of "usa today." you can read his story about the positive psychology program and its results. thank you for joining us. up next, we look ahead to the 45th annual earth day celebration taking place next wednesday. and how our state and the environmental movement have changed since 1970. later we open our phones to you for the public policy issues you want to discuss. ♪

>> here are a few book festivals we will cover on booktv. we live from the university of southern california for the "los angeles times a civil of books with discussions on science, biographies, american history, and crime. we have conversations with authors and take your calls. the last weekend of the month we will be in maryland for the annapolis book festival, hearing from authors such as the former attorney general alberto gonzales and james rison -

risen. we also hear from david axelrod. we close out may at book expo america in new york city. the public -- the publishing industry showcases their upcoming books. and then we are alive for the printers row lit fest. we also hear from callers and talk to lawrence wright. that is on c-span, "booktv." >> this sunday on "q&a." jessica stern on isis. >> there are two aspects of isis the president needs to understand. first, their efforts and success on social media. they need for us to respond to that. -- of the need for us to respond to that.

the narrative they are spreading successfully and so far. the other is the apocalyptic narrative. it is impossible for me to know for sure that they really believe the end times are coming or whether they are capitalizing on widespread belief in muslim-majority countries, that they will witness a bit and -- witness the end of times. take a sunday night on c-span's "q&a.' >> "washington journal" continues. host: next week brings us the 40 with us -- the 40 with salvation of earth day. joining us our air peek got, the president of friends of the earth, and nick loris of the heritage foundation, and economic policies fellow. thank you for joining us.

i want to start with you erich. 45 years ago was the biggest earth -- with the first earth day. what are the biggest environmental challenges we face in the u.s.? guest: the first is money politics. climate change is the largest issue out there right now. unfortunately, the way the editorial system has been ranked with copious money coming into the political system, it is hard for every day americans and pete will -- and people to petition their government and say we need to address climate change now. that means we have to end the use of fossil fuels. the combination of how the political system has been cut off from the mac and people and fossil fuel use in general needs to change. host: nick, explain environmental economy.

guest: it is the principle that allows people to handle the environmental challenges that not only we face but developing countries as well. it starts with the establishment of private property rights. you do not take care of what you do not own. having private property rights to protect your own backyards and have an environmental gains. it does not work unless you have the rule of law to establish that. those are the two big principles that allow people to care and protect the environment and have it be enforced by a rifle government, hopefully at the state and local level. host: a recent gallup pole says that americans are not as concerned about the amendment -- the environment. guest: i think it is a

pseudo-success. i think people are comfortable with the direction president obama has taken. that poll has 49% of americans saying things are going just right. but there is another additional 40% of americans say we have to do more to protect the environment. you'd look at these as holly of the poll and those surveyed can't -- you look at the totality of the poll and those surveyed, there is a of people who want to protect the environment. guest: i think we have a tremendous environmental gains not just in the market but also in political laws made. we have seen a decrease in the pollutants that were chromatic decades ago. -- we need to take a look at additional regulations that are coming with extreme costs and have little to no environmental benefits. that is why economy and jobs is

on the top of these polls. host: our guest erica -- erich pica of friends of the earth and nick loris of the heritage foundation. next week is the 45th anniversary of earth day. to join our conversation, republicans are at (202) 748-8001. democrats are at (202) 748-8000. independents are at (202) 748-8002. our start with you, nick. what is the biggest environmental success and we have seen when we first started celebrating earth day? guest: the decreases in the nitrous and sulfur oxide. the problems we had with attaining breathable air in some areas of the country. part of that was due to the establishment of laws and regulations. but also i think phenomenal market-driven successes. i think that does not get enough credit. businesses have an inherent

desire to be environmentally conscious. often a means more money for their bottom line. so they make improvements and efficiencies whether it is an long-haul trucks or reducing the amount of plastic and a water bottle cap. these all lead to tremendous environmental games. -- gains. guest: i agree. the clean water act was also a big game -- gain. lake erie was dead. l.a. had smog pollution. the bedrock environmental laws, the passage of the clean air act, green water act environmental reduction act the creation of the environmental protection agency. these are all laws that have allowed the u.s. environmental movement and the american people to live in a healthier world.

host: nick loris, i want to ask of us. traditionally when you talk about economy and the environment, they are not really things people put together. guest: it meets in the free market and the establishment of private property rights. an environmental policy cannot be good if it is bad for people. when you give people the power and the right to protect their environment, they do so in phenomenal ways. we should have a polluter pay system. where if you are a meeting emissions harmful -- where your emitting emissions harmful to others, that is -- there was one in washington, where the government was to -- was taking that care of the vietnam memorial. a nonprofit came in and said

you're doing a bad job. and then they cleaned it up. take that on the world level in the have and environmental success story. guest: i think we need strong federal regulations. we did the pathway of state rights and individuals. that led to the bedrock laws of 45 years ago. when we let the market and corporations decide, we had copious amounts of pollution emitted into our air and water. people did not have the right to know what was being admitted. -- emitted. in theory it may work. but in practicality, i do not think americans want koch industries exxon-mobil dictating them in property rights. whether or not they are breathing in good or bad water and air. guest: i do not think

corporations should have private property rights. that is why we have a judicial system to make sure that they do not infringe. but i do not think increasing regulations, whether increasing ozone standards, the mercury toxic rules, which only has -- there is no stopping, no acknowledgment that we have drinkable water and breathable air now. these regulations are not doing much more to improve that. host: our guest are erich pica friends of the earth and nick loris of the fair ditch -- of the heritage foundation. it was a democrat -- joe is a democrat. caller: i'm a retired coal miner in southern west virginia. west virginia basically funded or provided everything or the industrial revolution. southern west virginia has been destroyed.

mountaintop removal. all the 2 million acres of forests totally obliterated that will never grow anything for the next hundred or 1000 years. impoundments, sitting and waiting. they have done testing on recently. they violated the permit requirements on the perception of these impoundments. these have billions of gallons of sludge, or what we call coal slurry. these can fail. buffalo creek ale in 1972. it had less than 3 million gallons. what will happen when the one with 8.1 billion gallons fails? how will west virginia be reconstructed? you talk about state rights.

west virginia has some of the best environmental laws ever written on its books, but they are not enforced. the fines are not. we had 29 miners killed by a corrupt coal company. basically, the u.s. government broad -- brought charges against this corporation. they charge the manager with violating the mine laws to make more profit. i would like to see you gentlemen address this. it does not work. allowing the states to enforce it does not work. you look at what is happening in illinois where chris klein is mining and bob murray is taking over with the impoundment situation. all things happening out there. southern west virginia, one of the most beautiful places in the world, is devastated. there is no jobs.

no diversification of economy that i have reached as a retired coal miner for over 10 years to congress, the state of west virginia, and the president. guest: i would say that, from my perspective, when it comes to montauk removal and fighting for west virginians to create a healthier and just world, we have failed. what you described in west virginia and and coal country is that the collectively, both west virginia and the environmental community, took for granted that there is cool that will be part of the economy. we need to make sure that when it comes to environmental enforcement that we do not have these destroyed, putting coal ash into the waters. we have to figure out a transition or the miners of west

virginia, kentucky, to get out of the business of mining coal and destroying their habitat and ecosystem on the half of the rest of the american -- on behalf of the rest of the megan people. this is an area we need more work. states in general have not been up to speed when it comes to enforcing environmental regulation. there have been laws that increase fees and taxes to fund the actual enforcement work. the has also occurred at the federal level. congress has been trying to cut the environmental protection agency's budget time and time again. we are passing regulations that should be enforced to the event these spills from occurring, but at the state and federal level there has been an effort to eliminate the funding for those

who use the enforcement from the state budget. guest: we have extracted mineral resources for a long time in this country. both the economic and environmental success has been astounding. it provided american with affordable, reliable energy. we hope -- we have laws that should be enforced. it is not just about private property rights and state laws. it is enforcing those laws and making sure companies are liable. i would mimic aric -- erich's first point is that we need to get money out of politics. we do not want money -- lobbyists and big companies influencing decisions. american people are left out in the cold. that is when you have a coil big green making these decisions, influencing the debate without the voice of the american people being heard. host: rick is on the line, a

republican from virginia. caller: i am originally from west virginia. just about all the people i know back there are, because of this administration's environmental laws and regulations, the coal mines and power plants have been shut down. many people are out of work. i do not believe in climate change. i do not think it is real. i think what is really telling was about to excuse ago when they found out that many of these scientists were fudging the data to make it sound worse than it was. that is all i have to say. guest: i think that is a huge problem. with these regulations, whether you believe in climate change or not, the clean power plan to regulate co2 emissions which

will effectively kill coal. president obama made that clear when he was running for president, saying that if you want to build a coal-fired power plant, you can, they will bankrupt them for the amount of money it will cost. it is coming true with this regulations. it will not only destroyed coal energy. but energy is our master resource. those will ripple through the economy. even if you believe in climate change and these regulations will not do anything to mitigate global temperatures. you're talking a few tenths of a degree celsius by the turn of the century with only unilateral action. i do not think china or india will play ball. we are shooting ourselves in the it for no environmental benefit. guest: climate change is real, it is happening, it is man-made. that is what the scientists are saying at the intergovernmental panel on climate change at the

united nations. when it comes to coal, president obama and his budget put in several billion dollars to help in the transition from cold to -- coal to cleaner forms of energy. we know that it is not just to just shut down coal without giving those communities an option that will help to move elsewhere it to other types and forms of economic activity. when it comes to climate change and the united rates -- the u.s. has been a leader. we have been leading the last 50 to 100 years on many issues. economic and environmental. it is not true that the united states is taking unilateral action. president obama has a non--- has been working with china announcing reduction targets by 2030. india has a huge target they have announced. we are trying to pull europe in

to be more aggressive on reduction. this is not the u.s. leading you now -- leading unilaterally. what president obama is trying to do is be a global leader in reducing emissions internationally. we, as the u.s., are the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, so we have a greater responsibility. host: president obama discussed the issue in his weekly address. here's some of what he had to say. >> the world's top climate change scientists are warning us that the climate change is already affecting the air our children breathe. climate change is already affecting people across the country. the pentagon says climate change poses an immediate risk to our national security. i will visit the ever best the

everglades to talk about how climate change affects our economy. the everglades is one of the most important and most fragile areas in our country. rising sea levels are putting a national treasure and an economic business in the form of tourism at risk. climate change cannot be ignored. the world is looking at us to lead. host: nick loris at the heritage foundation, give us your take. guest: climate change is real and man-made. we have seen warming since the 1960's. but we are not headed towards catastrophic warming that the administration says we are. we have not seen significant increases in warming since 1980. -- since the 1980's. even the inter-global panel says there has in no significant change.

mainstream scientists are saying that there is not a high likelihood that these things will happen at increased intensity and frequency. yes, it is happening, but we are not headed towards catastrophic warming. we are shooting ourselves in the foot now. with china. they are committed to making emission reductions starting in 2030. i do not take a lot of credibility to what china has said, especially because they have environmental challenges with actual pollutants in terms of readable air and -- of readable air -- breathable air and drinkable water. when we start seeing those reductions, it is not because of climate change, it is because of people suffering from real environmental changes. guest: we are seeing climate change now.

we have the lowest ice levels we have seen. sea level is beginning to rise. you're seeing the diversion of the gulf stream. you see a big ice shelf melting off of antarctica. you are seeing huge planetary shifts in how our water systems are working. tornadoes, hurricanes, we will see more intense hurricanes, but we are a planetary trend which i believe the icc has been clearer. up to a degree celsius if we do not do anything to reduce emissions and reduce our fossil fuel consumption. they call it catastrophic to society. you can look at it and say it will not happen now so let's not worry about it. that is kind of what nick is saying. the marginal cost and benefit of addressing climate change now does not really help.

if you look at the long term, if we do not start now by reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use and the amount of co2 we e-mail -- we emit, we will not be able to stop climate change and will not have the resources to mitigate and adapt to a changing world. you look at miami, new orleans, new york city. these are big economic hubs in the u.s. that will be impacted i sea level rises caused by climate change. that is already counting the islands around the world sinking into the ocean. guest: if you look at what the climate models have predicted over the past 20 years, when they predicted 8.3 degrees celsius increase, we have not seen any significant warming. this speaks to the fact that these wattles are trying to predict out to 23 hundred and predicting doomsday scenarios

when they cannot predict the next 20 years right. you're seeing climatologists working on equilibria in -- equilibrium climate sensitivity. what these studies are showing is the temperature increase is much less. up to 40 degree less than what the icc is projecting. it is not looking at doomsday scenarios, it is looking at climate models and the inaccuracies and the policy solutions. those will be costly. they will drive up american prices. they will hit low income families who spend a disproportionate amount on energy. it will not do any global temperature good. it is a few hundredths of a degree celsius by the turn of the century. host: we go back to the phones. dennis on the democrat line. caller: i am calling about agriculture.

agriculture polluted every stream in this country with high nitrates, over fertilization chemicals and cancers killing every place here. in pennsylvania, since 1987 nobody does nothing about nobody. this farmer has farmed 200 -- 2000 acres and they are responsible for 90% of the pollution in the chesapeake bay and other rivers. the susquehanna river. the gulf of mexico. the nitrate level is 4.5 milligrams per liter. it is 10 milligrams per liter in the united states. -- they are sick or in the hospital. nothing is being done. they took over the united states treasury. $9 billion they pay these people. they pollute the wells. when is the culture going to be

on here. they are the ones responsible for global warming with the spraying. guest: i would say that the agriculture sector, particularly the egg corporate at the farmers -- the big corporate agri-farmers. i grew up on a farm in west michigan. farmers are trying to do the right thing. what we have seen, when it comes agriculture we are not paying attention to the pollution that is being admitted by large corporate factory farming slaughterhouses. we are not regulating the antibiotics that are given to livestock there are causing more serious diseases. agriculture is one of those areas where it you regular should and non-regulation has fundamentally failed. they have been given a pass --

there is a division between small farmers who are doing the right thing and big companies like perdue and smithfield that are all about large concentrations of animal agriculture. where they just produce meat and more meat. we have done a poor job in the state and federal government to regulate those pollutants. guest: i think we need to get subsidies out of the agriculture business. there was a huge problem -- politicians love agriculture. it does not help that the i/o caucus exist's. all these things that have led to huge subsidies that largely go to the farm agribusinesses that do not go to the small farmers. and policies like the ethanol mandate growers a huge share of the market and returning to a free market agriculture economy where you get rid of the subsidies and the

production mandates and you have enforceable rules and regulations, then you might start to see some productive turnaround in this business. guest: we agree on eating rid of the renewal bill fuels mandate. these are central things from the left and right we have come together on many times and tried to push congress to approve. the problem is big agriculture is so powerful that it is taking away the cash cow. host: we are talking with erich pica at -- and nicolas loris. patrick is an independent. from florida. caller: thanks for taking my call. some of the people stole my thunder. i want to talk about north dakota. the front page reporting in the "wall street journal" problem

with the radioactive socks and the state legislature unanimously voted the energy companies did not have to put those pipeline inspection gadgets in the pipelines and have the -- have had three pipeline burst and requested federal funds to help clean it up. what this guy from the heritage -- foundation, never says, if the federal government does not clean the mess up, people go, well, my land is not worth anything, i am walking away from my mortgage. so the fdic bails out the banks. if these states -- one of the few things bill clinton did that i liked, he made these companies by bonds to mess up -- clean up the messes they make. one of the first things george bush did was take that out of the law so the fdic is either

going to clean it up or the epa. i know how c-span loves to talk about obama's war on coal. if you pay attention to the first page of the "wall street journal" they list that when president reagan came into office, there was 250,000 people below ground mining coal. by the time george bush senior left office there were 150,000. maybe something to do with automation, i do not know. almost half the job cuts came under reagan bush. no more on coal -- no war on coal. the front page reporting, autism booms around the areas that use pesticides and only three states monitor the use of pesticides and all those bills are getting

off medicaid or medicare to cure autism. if you do not want federal government regulations, do not take subsidies to clean up the mess. thank you. guest: i agree and i think these companies should prove that they can pay for a spill and clean it up with their own money. you saw that during the gulf of mexico spill where you had the simplest policy where these oil companies were contributing into one pot, socializing the risk with this oil spill liability trust fund, rather than have these offshore drilling companies insuring that they can pay what they need to to clean up the mess and pay for the damage they may cause. i agree with you. i do not want to see the taxpayer footing one set of environmental mess. -- one sent for the environmental mess. guest: i agree, they should pay for the damage they create.

citizens around the country should have strong civil supervision's. we should create a class action lawsuits that will hold these companies liable, partially and professionally. -- personally and professionally. i believe that -- the sample you gave in north dakota, this is how states are fundamentally ill-equipped to regulate these large, booming industries. it takes the manpower of the federal government, the environment of protection agency, the department of energy, the federal family to ensure that the rules and relations are being followed properly. what inns up happening in many of the states, and this goes back to the politics and corporate money, many of the state legislatures and many of the state department of environmental quality's are being taken over by money and politics. now you have the fox guarding

the hen house at the state level and it requires the federal government, particularly epa, to come in and it sure that the people in the communities of the state -- pollution is not state oriented. the neighboring states and communities also get impacted and it takes the epa and strong federal regulations to ensure that people are being protected just not within that state, but outside as well. guest: that's where we disagree -- the states can do a great job and have done a great job, especially when it comes to hydraulic fracturing and energy production broadly. what you are seeing on the state and private lands across the country is that energy production has been skyrocketing and overall environmental record has been fundamentally fine. there has been a few accidents here and there, which you will see in any industry, renewable energy, whether false of fuel

industry, whatever the case may be am a not even related to energy. -- fossil fuel industry. they should enforce the law that are on the books, not create more relations that will not help. and to allow economic productivity to happen while protecting the environment people even former epa administrator jackson lisa jackson said about hydraulic fracturing, she said it did not need to be a federal overhaul that the states did a good job. even former obama officials have a knowledge the states -- technology the states can have a leading role in environmental regulation. host: let's go to jake, a republican. caller: i believe the problem goes back to the money in the petrodollar. until we change the money system we will not be able to help the environment like we should and it is sad we have to talk about it.

we should cut it out completely, like the use of gas and pesticides and nuclear waste. i mean, there are better ways to get energy and we had the technology to do it. what is the hold up? guest: i think the hold up is the incentive system for politicians to get reelected. when it comes to reelection time , they are working with these big businesses to ensure they get the funds they need and these politicians support bad policies that distort energy markets, that cost taxpayers billions of dollars and that can lead to environmental degradation like we saw with the ethanol mandate and the ethanol reduction tax credit that has been billions of dollars a year to a big farm business. you have big green subsidies and fossil fuel subsidies, the wind reduction tax credit going to be companies as well.

getting the money out of politics, that distorts the market and when you get the money out of politics, that reduces the incentive for these lobbyists and politicians to decide who produces what. guest: i agree with neck on this one. $720 million was spent by the fossil fuel energy industry on the past election, and what did they get -- the mcconnell congress over its first 100 days had voted on environmental issues 44% of the time. if you can imagine, majority leader mcconnell was majority leader for six years and the first thing he did was use the keystone pipeline fight to attack environmental laws and regulations from the endangered species act and the clean water act and the clean air act, the national environmental policy act. he used very valuable time to pay back the contributors that

made a republican majority in the congress possible. that is the type of policy and politics we get when we allow too much money into the political system. guest: i think it retards the development of promising new technologies. that is one of the things that goes under look. these companies become dependent on the taxpayer. i read an interview with a wind ceo and he said our industry is to focus on securing the next handout am a rather than innovating to lower cost and being competitive in the market place without that handout. excuse the market in terms of creating this dependence on government that is not just true with the wind industry, but the fossil fuel industry and the nuclear industry where you have white water reactors and small innovative technologies that want to compete, but cannot because of these political systems. host: i want to stick with

congress, and ask you both, they had been in for 100 days, how have they done on environmental policy? guest: i would say a "d" for dirty. we have seen a systemic assault on the bedrock environment laws that help clean the air and water. senator mcconnell and majority leader mcconnell, he has been hell-bent on ensuring that we do not regulate carbon pollution ensuring we do not further clean up our waters, one in three americans taking water is under attack from pollution. he has been going after the endangered species act. we brought back the bald eagle the alligator, the grizzly bear. there are many laws that have provided lots of good in this country. we see it every day. mitch mcconnell, the first 100

days, has made repealing these environmental laws number one on his hit list. guest: i would probably say incomplete because there are so much work to be done. one of the first thing they did was pass the keystone pipeline in which president obama's state department concluded was environmentally safe, would not contribute to climate change yet he vetoed the bill. there are all these regulations coming down the pipeline, ozone standards the clean power plan which the president's former professor, lawrence tribe, called -- liked it -- likened it to burning the constitution. the promise with congress, they got lazy and granted agencies this authority to create and write regulations the way they want to and now you have this huge power at the executive level and finally congress is realizing they need to rein it in, but it is difficult.

host: michigan, joan, the democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. farmers get a price for growing more than we need. [indiscernible] i am against corporate farming. they dumped -- now they import it. thank you. host: thoughts? guest: our domestic and international art -- agricultural system has been messed up for decades. we have allowed big agricultural to dictate our policies, the subsidies, and at some point and i believe we are beginning to see this with the slow foods

movement, with the local foods movement, there needs to be a political movement in the united states and around the world that against to rebalance who controls our food supply. i think the problems we are listing, whether it is subsidies or agriculture pollution, this is the result of the imbalance of power where the big agricultural interests have bought their way into the the department of agriculture and congress to preserve their monopolistic share of the economy. guest: i agree and if you look at the subsidies the majority go to week, cotton, corn soybeans, and sugar. it is concentrated benefits on his politically connected people and disperses the cost among the rest of us in terms of higher prices for these goods and services. it gets back to the original point of getting the money out of politics. this is hurting the developing world who can compete and produce these goods at a lower cost where we could be importing these goods at a lower cost which would benefit americans

and that would free up resources to be productive elsewhere. free trade and we could be having more of that if we got rid of these agricultural subsidies. host: west virginia, catherine is on the line and she is an independent. caller: after listening to you all talk for a half an hour, i originally called about the new pipeline onslaught, but now i am depressed. your guests are correct, it is all about money and politics the united states has been bought and paid for. i cannot appeal to my representatives anywhere in west virginia coming in the federal congress, or anywhere else because they are all on the dole from the extraction industry. the reason i called was to ask one of your guests to clarify what he meant by property rights

-- i am under onslaught by this 42 inch mountain valley pipeline that they are trying to run up and down the mountains of northern west virginia. it is not enough that the southern west virginia coal fields have been turned into a sacrifice own, they want to make the northern part of west virginia a sacrifice own. this pipeline does not benefit west virginians, a goes down to virginia and to the coast. we are having all of the devastation in west virginia and none of the gain, we could not tap into a 42 inch pipeline if we wanted to. you can't appeal or try to keep them off your property, i am being sued by the pipeline company, because i have refused to allow them to survey my property because they have no standing or legal right to do so. they have not been granted permission. ferc never saw a pipeline they did not like. on top of that, i see all of

these entries on facebook about how europe gets it and how they are cutting back on fracking and forcing their new buildings in france to go green. we cannot do anything unless we can take our country back, and i hate to summit a tea party or, but that it is what it comes to come if we cannot take our country back from the big money and influence, we are doomed. we are living here while the extraction industries and big agriculture take whatever they want and they will go someplace else. relocate overseas and extract their. re. guest: i do not necessarily blame the big companies, i blame the policies that create the incentives to lobby in the first place. the government backed loans and loan guarantees, the direct handouts. this will obviously lobby for them because they benefit.

you have to fix the policies. that will remove the incentive for businesses and politicians to make decisions. private property rights -- i agree with you, it is a tricky issue because we have eminent domain laws in this country and right of way laws. without them, not a lot would get built in terms of pipelines. we have a spider web of pipelines in terms of roads, highways, whatever the economic giving maybe. i am so pathetic with the argument -- i'm sympathetic with the argument that if i do not want a pipeline in my yard built around it. guest: on the money and politics -- it can be depressing, but where i see hope, there is a constitutional amendment being pushed around too bad money in politics. -- two ban money in politics. it has opened up dollars into

the political system. there are various public financing schemes in various states, new york state just try to pass something that begins to take money out of politics. there are electoral reforms that can be incremented to reduce the bunny input -- the money in politics. i do see hope that we can remove the money incentive out of politics. my desire is that it happens fast enough. i feel this kind of angst -- we are at a moment in our country where we are in this transformational phase. this transformation is about the monopolies of the past, the fossil fuel industry, big agriculture, big finance, with technology we are transforming the very structures that hold

those monopolies together. my fear is they can buy their way out of this transformation by polluting congress with their big campaign contributions. host: madison, florida, rob is a republican. caller: good morning. i would like to know why -- what you have to say about earthquakes going around this whole country. you have to have some kind of explanation for this. guest: you are seeing an increase in earthquakes in oklahoma and a lot of it is due to fracking. the fracturing and the destruction ring of the subsurface rock as well as pumping wastewater back into those rocks. you are creating instability

within the rock formations. you are seeing increased earthquakes wherever there is fracking. the frequency is increasing as well as the intensity. this is a phenomenon being studied. the problem is -- by allowing fracking to happen -- which is what occurred, and 2005, the bush energy policy halliburton road restrictions into that bill and we are now seeing the impact of those laws 10 years later. guest: i would say that all the seismic activity has come of this wastewater. it gets back to liability, these companies should have to pay for economic damages they cause as a result of seismic activity that inflicts damage, economically or environment with.

this is not -- or environmentally. the department of energy has been studying this for decades almost since its inception. not just with underground injection wells, but with geothermal activity. we have 400 instances each year of seismic activity as the result of geothermal energy, something the democrats seem to love. it is not just fracking and underground injection wells that is causing seismic activity. i think the department of energy has done a good job studying and ensuring that this is not happening to a catastrophic level. host: georgia, james is a democrat. caller: i do not understand why we still live in the stone age. these third were that start world nations are very -- burying their trash and the pollution never hits the

atmosphere and we are dumping it into the ocean. three quarters of our -- all of our politicians should be tried for the rico act. host: any thoughts? guest: go for it. guest: the u.s. economy, 30 subsidies and incentives that have been put in the tax code and send devices -- incentivizes a once through cycle. we use that good to dispose it into a landfill. that is a function of how the policies and relations were set up over 100 years ago. a lot has changed since the first earth day am a 45 years ago, we are doing more recycling and thinking about the whole lifecycle of materials and how

we use them. we have not gone far enough in trying to close that loop, which is making sure we are only producing things in a way that can be recycled back into the economy. when we are doing once through where we take a virgin material and dispose it, we are eliminating the economic benefits from the country, if we were to figure out how to reach use -- to reuse. guest: we need to get to a free market energy policy, i am pro-market. if there is any opportunities for wind or solar to capture a place in the market, they should have the opportunity to do so through competition. if you look globally, the market for transportation. for electricity, these are multi-trillion dollar markets, so any technology that can capture a sliver of that market will make a lot annually.

if we have a free market policy that create competition, we will have the most affordable, reliable energy, which will benefit us all and protect the environmental. host: erich pica and nicolas loris of the heritage foundation, thank you for joining us. when we come back, we will open up the phone lines and we would like to hear what is on your mind this saturday morning. we will be right back. ♪ >> at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies, and during the revolution, while in her mid-40's, she was considered an enemy i the british who threatened to taking her hostage. later, she would become our nation's first first lady at age 57. martha washington, this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series, "first ladies, influence and image" examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first ladies. from martha washington to

michelle obama, sundays at eight ago p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. as a complement, c-span's new book, first ladies, presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women. providing livery stories of these fascinating women creating an illuminating entertaining, and inspiring read. now available as a hardcover or an e-book through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> a few book festivals we will cover this spring on c-span2. this weekend, left from the university of southern california for the los angeles times festival of books, with discussions on science, out of these, american history, and crime. we will have conversations with authors and be taking your calls throughout the weekend. on the last weekend of the month, we will be in the maryland state capital for the annapolis festival, hearing from authors like alberto gonzales and new york times reporter james rise and.

in may we will revisit male than for coverage of the gaithersburg book festival with tom davis and martin frost as well as former senior advisor to president obama, david axelrod. we will close out may at book expo america in new york city, where the public -- publishing industry showcases their upcoming book. we are live for the lit fest in chicago, including a three-hour in-depth program with lawrence wright and your phone calls. this spring on c-span2's booktv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have opened up the phone lines and want to talk to you about the political and public policy stories on your mind. republicans, give us a call at 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independence, 202-748-8002. you can reach out to us on

twitter, @cspanwj. on facebook or you can shoot us an e-mail. first, from the telegraph, republicans rally in nashua, a look at the 2016 republican candidates for the first in the nation republican leadership summit in nashua, new hampshire. other headlines, perry calls to cut iran agreement. he says that he would immediately eliminate any iranian agreement made under the obama administration if he were to win the presidency. we will take a look at the front page of the miami herald. a nice box -- florida contenders test new hampshire waters. marco rubio on one side, jeb bush on the other. go to the phone lines. mcallen, texas robert is a republican. caller: how can we straighten

out this country when you have a battle within our government? between the republicans and the democrats. they cannot get along. how can we straighten every thing out -- you cannot, it is impossible. host: what would you do if you were in charge? caller: if i was a republican, and a democrat came up with a good solution, i would try to figure it out, i would work together. together we stand, divided we fall. host: wisconsin kim is on the line, a democrat. caller: i am calling in regards to the heritage guy that was on the last half-hour, it he was talking about states doing a good job at regulating, i was in wisconsin and the governor has rolled back environmental regulations like you would not believe.

he was even -- he added an expansion on the company on the same day they were paying their environmental fines. we -- the politicians can no longer talk about climate change. it is forbidden. i do not understand where he is coming from about the states being a good job regulating, they are doing a good job of rolling back reading. thank you -- rolling back everything. host: from the concord monitor potential gop candidates for president to send upon nashua to state their cases and answer questions. chris christie, who was at the summit yesterday. if you missed any of the coverage, be sure to check out c-span.org where you can replay the days events and speakers from potential 2016 candidates.

next, sarah, in fort lauderdale, florida. caller: i was calling about the fda approving small-cap biotech's. they take forever to approve them. big corporations, pharmaceuticals, they sailed right through. did you know that the big pharmaceuticals run the fda. a great portion of it. they have a heavy hand going and these little companies, many times products that can save lives and reduce medical costs and all kinds of things are not even given a chance, they put them off. you brought up a subject about the war. if i could say, as a republican, do we really want to look like idiots again and stop -- start bombing another country in the middle east.

that iraq war destroyed our economy. when they stand up and say that they do not want to sign any kind of agreement with iran, let them remember that they helped destroy this country's economy with that war we never got payback for. that we were promised would be payback for and 4000 men and women died in that war. this is outrageous for america to always want to jump into something expensive and killing and it is not christian to want to fight all the time. thank you, so much. host: yesterday in nashua, new hampshire, chris christie spoke to the republican leadership. he talked about what the country needs and does not need in a president. chris christie: iran moving towards a nuclear weapon syria on fire, libya on fire, egypt under martial law. troubles all across the world vladimir putin charging into

eastern europe. the reason for this is because the people around the world know the same thing the people in the united states no -- we have a weak president. he has weakened our country and they are taking advantage of that. we can no longer afford to have weakness in the oval office. we have to have strength and clarity and hard truths. that's why i started by talking about entitlements. why would i talk about those things if they were not true? there is no political advantage to talking about those issues -- the reason you talk about them is because you want to make suggestions that will help solve the problems. and, just as important, take advantages of these opportunities we have. we have opportunities as a country, we should be simple fine our tax system and lowering taxes for corporations and

individuals so we get economic growth. this president takes big relapse for 2, 2 .5% udp growth. let him go to the families who have children graduating from college and cannot find a job. saddled with enormous debt. and feeling like we may be the first generation that leaves america a weaker lesser lace for the next generation -- place for the net generation. host: that was new jersey governor chris christie speaking in nashua, new hampshire yesterday. while republicans are in nashua hillary clinton is making moves, clinton hiring is a call signal to possible donors. recruitment of gary gensler, a former top wall street raider later as her chief financial officer was met to tell donors she is serious about avoiding the overspending that plagued her last presidential campaign. it was the latest indication that she is prepared to take a

cover stance towards the financial industry, that is from today's "new york times." st. paul, minnesota, mark is an independent. caller: i would like a discussion on the transpacific partnership, the top secret deal that our president is negotiated with large corporations to all these foreign countries. it does not look good at all for the american public. host: matt, in washington d.c., republicans line. caller: thank you for taking my call. here is the comment i want to make. the united states gives a lot of money to foreign countries including africa, to address climate change. when it comes to the problem you do not hear anything from those countries.

where is that money going to? in africa, they have no regulation to help the united states take care of the climate change. a lot of problems -- in africa, they have issues with waters and u.s. is giving money to foreign countries. do not give money to africa anymore and let them figure out -- that is my comment. host: another story developing today, a federal appeals court hearing a pitch to unfreeze executive actions on immigration. a federal appeals court appeared divided friday over the obama administrations request to lift a lower court ruling blocking the government from implement the president's executive action shielding illegal immigrants from deportation. cap, florida independent line -- cap florida.

-- tampa, florida. caller: i few months ago they had this young lady with the secret service who was lost, they shot and killed her. an individual jumps across the fence, they prosecute him. you have an individual flying a helicopter and gave them morning, they do not do anything to him. they send him back home. what is wrong with that picture? thank you. host: caller referring to the gyro copter that landed a few blocks away on the west lawn of the capitol earlier this week. robert griffin 91, he urged nixon to quit, a former republican senator and congressman from michigan who cosponsored one of the nation's most rigorous laws to fight corruption in unions and who

delivered a critical blow to richard nixon's presidency by withdrawing his support during the watergate crisis. he was 91. he was deputy minority leader in the senate in 1974 and a former loyalist when he broke with the president and urged him to resign over the watergate scandal which arose when a team of burglars broke into the democrat opposition office in washington during his 1972 reelection campaign. that obituary in today's "new york times." keeping an i on the first republican leadership summit. among the republicans expected to speak, rand paul, carly fiorina, bobby jindal, lindsey graham, john kasich. you can see our coverage of the first day on c-span.com -- c-span.org. surely in iowa, democrat line. -- shirley.

caller: i want to talk about transcanada -- hello? host: i am listening. caller: if everybody knew transcanada was mostly owned by trying -- by china and that oil sand is being brought down and is being heated and pressurized so it will be much more dangerous than ordinary oil that gets spilled every few weeks. we should be talking about the almost half a million dollar accidental deaths we have any hospitals in the united states. not just the ba is having problems -- the va is having problems. the other thing we should be talking about, is the overuse of sugar in this country that is causing alzheimer's.

my friends out there, i hope you will put sugar and alzheimer's into your computer and learn what i am talking about. thank you, very much. host: republicans in a quandary over vote on nominees, senate republicans do not want to be held responsible for rejecting the historic nomination of loretta lynch him of the first african american woman picked to be attorney general, but they are in no hurry to see her confirmed a cousin of her defense of president obama's immigration policy. host: speaking of jeb bush, he spoke yesterday in new hampshire at the first republican leadership summit. he talked about having to earn his way into the arena. jeb bush: my record is a

conservative one. it is and i'm not kidding conservative one at a record of a competent -- accomplishment. i was in a time when you could do more things and we need to restore that in washington d.c. we need to stop arguing about what we need to do and do it, which means we have to win. back to the question at hand, i will have to earn it. i will have to earn it, no one will give it to me. that is more than apparent. i will share my heart. i will share my ideas to help people move up. i will share my record, because that is the leading indicator of what i can do in the future in terms of leadership. one of the differences for the presidency that other positions is that someone sitting behind a big desk has to make decisions. you cannot make -- you cannot be and that the slate. we -- and if the sleep -- indie

slate. we elected a president who had no record of a competent, who was a state senator with little record of a competent, and what -- a competent, and what did we get, the most liberal president in modern history and i hope i can share the belief that a accomplishment matters. host: louisville, kentucky, republican line. caller: hello? host: what news story is on your mind today? caller: everything that has been talked about is on the minds of americans all over. everything that has been said is on my mind.

everything from president obama and he veterans are on my mind. glory to god. people should read the bible and see what god says about what is going on in the world today, it is in the bible, in revelations. in the old testament. it is being said in the bible today. people should go to the bible and read it. host: connecticut julia is a democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am calling about the loretto -- i am totally disturbed how they are holding her for hostage

a cousin of the president of the united states. they should pass it for her to be the attorney general. a are using this against her. i want all the conservatives and all the democrats to know that we are watching. they think we are stupid. the races, we are watching them. -- the racists -- we are watching them. i am telling everyone i know to watch these republicans and these clouds that are running for president. -- these clowns. they are against the president and he is doing the best he can. the iran war, if they do not want design, let them go to war that not my son, i have had it. my son has been to 2 wars. while they go over there and fight and bob -- why don't they go over there to fight and bomb. the minority people are watching

-- the poor people are watching and i am going to make sure not one of those clowns gets back in any president. thank god for the telephones, because i know every state and i'm calling everybody from state to state to watch what they are saying. and chris christie, he cannot even take care of his own state. host: from the washington post obama calls congressional oversight on iran deal reasonable. on friday, he praised a senate bill that would give congress a vote on nuclear deal with iran, as a reasonable compromise that would give u.s. negotiators latitude to continue talks. and the future presidents with the power to conduct foreign policy, but he warned congress against inserting a whole bunch of poison pills in the legislation before it reaches his desk. he noted that he trusted lawmakers do not make it tilted

in trying to kill the deal. as we are talking about the presidential race, this tweet says jeb and hillary are yesterday, we need a leader of tomorrow like a cruise paul, or fear enough. -- or fiorina. james tweets -- what is chris christie think at -- in running for president, he has no shot at the nomination. no shot. we are taking a look at the republican leadership summit. rand paul of kentucky expected to speak soon. we will take one more call mike in connecticut on the independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to comment that i think all the republicans must be six years old. they do not remember with the

whole george bush administration has done. if you want to elect another republican, pick up your shovel and dig that hole that bush was digging. as far as iran, if all you will do is drop more bombs instead of talking, talking is cheaper than dropping bombs. i do not think we should get into another war. i do not see another republican getting elected for a long time. host: what makes you say that? caller: they have nothing going for them. they are a bunch of blowhards. have a good day. host: another tweet -- on the presidential race -- from rick christie laid out the middle east problem created by the bush/chainey administration, he blames obama.

the lineup of the first republican leadership summit, we will be covering that in a few minutes. speaking later this evening abner scott walker, texas senator ted cruz, former arkansas governor mike ugly and weak -- mike huckabee and we will go now to the leadership summit. >> when i think of dan innis, i do not think of rowdy. he does not know me. we have a senator? we do. senator rand paul. [applause]

[no audio] [applause] senator paul: people ask me why i run for profit is and i tell them i got tired of staring at the television. i got tired of seeing people not doing what they promised. [applause] senator paul: i was disappointed that republicans doubled the debt. that we doubled the this -- the size of the department of education. they were supporting common core. i was disappointed republicans were voting for bank bailouts. i said, i have to do something or shut up. i have to complain throwing

things at my tv, or show up and participate here in i had a decision to make. it was not an easy decision. i am a physician, i live in a small town of bowling green, kentucky. i do i surgery, and i love what i did. i spent many years training and becoming a doctor and i miss it. sometimes when i am frustrated i go back and do practice. last year, i went to one mullah, -- what a mullah -- guatmala. we were with the university of utah and it 200 cataract surgeries. one man sticks out, about my age, a little older, people get them young down there and he was completely blind. he lost everything, his wife, 40 pounds, his house, his kids he had nothing. the church had taken him in, that he was functionally blind.

the next day, when we took his patch up to see the look on his face and he tears of joy and see him fall to his knees and thanking god for getting his vision back, i was like, this is a lot better than washington. [laughter] senator paul: the only time they thank god in washington is when congress is not in session. [laughter] [applause] senator paul: there is a different. sometimes we may need more of a physician's perspective, that we can solve problems, figure out the problems and get to a solution. get something done. so often it does not happen that way. groucho marx put it this way, he said the art of politics is looking for problems everywhere, finding them, misdiagnosing them, and applying the wrong remedy. so often, we pick politicians who all look alike, they sound alike, they dress alike, and

nothing ever changes. the government gets bigger and bigger and bigger. we asked ourselves, we have a decision now, we need to find someone who was going to represent us someone who will be the leader of the republican party and make the country a better place, how will we get that? some in our party say to dilute the message, let's become democrat like and then we will get more votes i could not disagree more. what we need to be boldly for what we are for. [applause] senator paul: we used to be the party that believed in a smaller government in washington, lower taxes, when is the last time you heard a republican run for president who said they will cut taxes or follow through with it. our last do it nominees, i do not remember tax cuts being part of the program.

i am in washington and listen to them. the republicans in charge of his committees, you know what they want -- revenue neutral tax reform. if that is what we are for, i'm going home. if that is all we are for, that means half of you will pay more and half will pay less. the net effect with the economy is zero. why don't we be reagan republicans and cut taxes for everybody. [applause] senator paul: i think we can have manufacturing jobs in our country and we can do it by coming competitive. people are not going to build here is our taxes are higher. our corporate income tax is 35%. people do not want to incorporate in america, they want to overseas. even the great american companies that are making profits, they make profits here

and they will not bring their profits home you'd there is $2 trillion of american profits sitting overseas. what i have proposed, let's lower the rate dramatically to encourage that money to come home. there is six -- $600 billion to $708 that could come home. what i would do with the taxes on that, i would tax it at a low rate, and i would take the tax revenue and put it in the highway fund. we are $15 billion short in the highway fund every year. news alert -- there is no trust in the trust fund. we are $15 billion short -- i think we could lower tax, bring money home and build roads at the same time. it is a win win, win. [applause] senator paul: that is an example

of looking for common ground. my cosponsor is barbara boxer. she and i do not agree on a lot, but we agreed that cutting the tax rate will bring more money home for infrastructure. the president wants more money for if a structure, i raise my hand and said i will help. you voted for this in 2005, the president voted for the same concept for one year and i said i will help. will you help? maybe not so much anymore, but we will see. maybe he will not veto the highway bill, but if so, we could cut tax and have more revenue come in. the other reason why we should be for tax cuts, why don't we be for tax cuts to help poor people . if you want to help detroit they have 20% unemployment, devastation. abandon housing everywhere, if you want to help detroit, leave more money in detroit. i have something called economic

freedom zones, kind of like what jack cap talked about years ago, but his plan -- but it is his plan on steroids. we lower the rate of federal taxes. if you live in poverty to almost zero over 10 years. you have to hire people who live in these areas to help you or detroit it would be $1.3 billion for appalachia, for my stay, the rural folks that live in the mountains, nearly $1 billion. we can have a plan for poverty he would we can have a plan for unemployment. instead of saying, we can get the votes who own business, we are already doing that. you have to get the people who work for the people owning businesses. you have to say, how will you help unemployment? you could be like the democrats and create a new program, or be like republicans of old and before tax cuts to help the poor . i think we could create millions of jobs. when reagan did this, we created

over 20 million jobs. i think the jobs in the 1990's were still being created because of the policies of reagan in the 1980's. to win again, for us to be the dominant party, for us to win not just texas, not just georgia, or us to win ohio, michigan pennsylvania, colorado, all of these purple states, new hampshire, to win these purple states, i think we need to be the party that defense the entire bill of rights. [applause] senator paul: we have been good at defending the second amendment, you probably won't see anybody not for defending the second amendment. most will come through and defend the second amendment, so alive. i also want to defend the fourth amendment. i do not think you can defend the second amendment if you do not defend the fourth amendment.

[applause] senator paul: i believe in the right to privacy as enshrined in the fourth amendment, which as you cannot get into someone's records without naming the person. naming the record and going to a judge and saying i have probable cause of a crime. it does not been collecting 300 million people's phone records. it is not consistent with a work that says mr. verizon on it. last i heard, mr. verizon is not a person. collecting hundreds of millions of records is not right. i tell people, look, your phone records are yours, you have a privacy interest you maintain no matter who is holding them, your phone records are yours. the government -- it is none of their dam is this what you're doing on your phone. [applause] senator paul: you can't say dam

-- you can say sdamn in new hampshire, can you? we need to defend the fifth amendment. government cannot take your stuff. your property, your things without just compensation. you say, surely they do not. [laughter] senator paul: the government can't take your stuff without you being convicted of a crime. the washington post is that a series of this for the last six months. they found that the people affected by this are disproportionately minorities. poor, people who live in cities where police have more patrols. an example someone lives in philadelphia, his teenage son was holding $40 worth of illegal drugs, honesty kid, do something to the kid, they came and

irritated the house and took the house and evicted the family. this is a often -- this is often a poor family living in the city. grandmother is holding the family together and owns the house. you are going to take grandmother's house. you know who is the biggest purveyor of it, the biggest hero of this -- loretta lynch. she confiscated -- this is the main reason i poser. she confiscated -- i oppose her. loretta lynch confiscated over $100 million worth of people stuff. with no conviction. she went one step further. we passed a reform 10 years ago letting prosecutors know that they had to file paperwork so the person who stuff had been taken to get a lawyer and a day

and try out. she took their stuff and never filed the paperwork on purpose so the clock would never start. one company, the hearst brothers, were a snackfood company, she this shouldn't happen in america. i am part of the movement and bill that says, we will reverse justice back to how it should be that in our country, you should be presumed innocent until found guilty. [applause] realize that the people you are often talking to, and we would be talking to, if we defended the entire bill of rights, fifth amendment, sixth amendment, may not be people that are listening so far, may not be republicans but one a republican to champion their caus