e cost of resources needed to suppress forest fighters -- forest fires in the united states. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ host: it is monday, may 11 2015. the senate returns this afternoon. house back from its district work period. president will host leaders of six arab nations at camp david in the maryland mountains to talk about iran and defense issues in the middle east. good morning and welcome to "washington journal." will focus on the issue of homegrown terrorism in the wake of the shooting in texas at the mohammed cartoon contest. the issue came before congress last week at a hearing looking at social media.

congress gets that to consider renewing or changing elements of the patriot act. our question is how concerned are you about homegrown terrorism? it is (202) 748-8000 if you are calling on the democrats line. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. for independent and all others (202) 748-8002. we welcome your comments on facebook as well. facebook.com/c-span. on twitter, send us a tweet. we will get to comments momentarily. front page of the houston chronicle in a headline courtesy of the museum. the broader issue of homegrown terrorism. "keeping track of foreign fighters." they write the specter of

americans drawn to violent jihadist is drawing scrutiny from texans in congress on the little-known foreign fighters task force which gets briefings and traveled to the middle east to assess the threat. the panel has been meeting in under the radar sessions for at least a month in a secure room at the capitol starting before the attack in garland last weekend that left two radicalize roommates from phoenix dead in heightened concerns. in meetings the task force is examining defenses against terrorists travel to and from the united states. the mission includes a look at threats on u.s. soil from terrorist groups in the process of how americans become radicalized. members plan a report in six months and possibly legislation giving congress a role in the worrisome trend of jihadist violence. front page of the usa today.

cia that war as the eye can see. u.s. has not done well in subduing the islamic state. let's read of it from this. she writes the islamic state inspired the deadly assault by the two men on an exhibit of cartoons depicting the prophet mohammed near dallas last week. cia veteran michael morel says it is only a matter of time before the group is likely to be in a position to direct more attacks on american soil. "if we don't get isis under control, we're going to see that kind of attack." efforts have not been effective in countering the islamic state's success in recruiting hundreds of american converts and were not effective at it because it is hard to do. deeper in this article they write that just last friday the level threat at military bases

-- the security threat was raised to the highest level since the 10th anniversary of 9/11, in part from concern of the texas attack. "we are definitely in a news phase -- a new phase of the global terrorist threat." that is from jeh johnson. he said low wall attackers "could strike at any moment." he was on abc's "this week." [video clip] >> we are in a new environment because of isil's effective use of social media, the internet which has the ability to reach into the homeland and possibly inspire others. our government and law enforcement are having to do a number of things to address that which is why fbi director comey and i spent a lot of times these days talking to police chiefs around the country.

we did that in a teleconference on friday. >> you had thousands of local law enforcement. our homegrown jihadists ready to strike in the u.s.? >> we have these types of bulletins on a regular basis. the director and i thought it would be appropriate that we personally participate. your question reveals the new environment we're in, in that because of the use of the internet, we could have a little or no notice in advance of an independent actor attempting to strike. that is why law enforcement at the local level needs to be ever more vigilant. we are constantly reminding them to do that. host: public security secretary jeh johnson yesterday. a question this morning. how concerned are you about homegrown terrorism? (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans.

(202) 748-8002 for independents. first up is carl. good morning. caller: i am very concerned about homegrown terrorists. even though we might have to relinquish some of our liberties as far as the government checking on our communications i think that is going to be necessary in the future. one dirty bomb in new york city could play havoc with our economy. i would like to say one more thing. i watch the show every morning. i called in yesterday and the lady interrogated me for about a minute. she told me, i don't hear a

question in there and i hung up. is this getting to be the standard operating procedure? to interrogate your callers? i don't understand that. i watch the show every day. i really was kind of offended by the way i was treated on the call. host: sometimes we try to engage our callers. just a note. we do ask that you save comments for every 30 days so that other folks can call in. we appreciate your input. let's hear from betty who was in charlotte, north carolina on our democrats line. how concerned are you? caller: very concerned because the government is not doing anything to address this terrorism in the country. they are perpetrating the terrorists. they don't do anything to punish them. they let them go.

they open our borders for all kinds of people to come in. they have no concern because they are always protected, these officials. a leave us vulnerable to these people who have infiltrated this country. they are absolutely ginning up black kids to perpetrate terrorism against police. it is all coming from the hands of the united states government. host: when you say is common from the hands of the government, what do you mean by that? guest:caller: we cleaned out gitmo. no consequences. the guy who blew up the people in boston, they are taking their sweet time trying to pin it on his brother. when they bombed isis, they are not really bombing isis. there bombing another target. the saudi's and other people who

are trying to get rid of isis don't want anything to do with us because we are not really trying to do anything to prevent isis from growing. they let them have access to the internet. they let them do all the hate speech they want. other people have any kind of opinion, the close them down but isis has free reign on the internet. i actually think the politicians in this country, democrats and republicans, they could care less about the common man exposed to terrorists. host: appreciate your input. how concerned are you about homegrown terrorism? a report on the appearance of dianne feinstein on me the press yesterday. it is on the hill.com. they write about some of what she had to say. i think their message is a force we have not seen before, said the senator.

we have to be in to cook more seriously with it. that includes social media. more of your calls and comments coming in. we're joined by mike of the hill . the senate returned today and house back from their district work period. what is on tap for today and the rest of the week? guest: a big issue in the senate this week is going to be trade. all eyes are on president obama. one of his top priorities for a second term is to get some of these international trade deals done. the senate is good to take up a bill that was passed earlier in the month from the senate finance committee. it will come out wednesday or thursday. very interesting issue because it splits -- it has obama on it and it has senate majority leader mitch mcconnell on it but it does not have harry reid.

he is a strong opponent as are a number of liberal democrats. a strange bedfellows coalition in congress. it is going to be an enormous lift for obama. it is expected to pass the senate and have a overtime in the house. -- have a tougher time in the house. host: it has been more than a week since we have seen the house bill come back in. when we last left the house, they were debating appropriations bills for 2016. where are they headed this week? guest: a big week in the house. a lot of high-profile issues on tap. they will come in on tuesday and do some suspension stuff. low hanging fruit. on wednesday they will dive back into the abortion debate. republicans tried to bring up a bill in january that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. they had to yank it because of concern from female lawmakers in

their own party and centrist republicans. the previous bill had an exception for rape victims but only if they reported the rape to police. there was concern within the party that that was going to send the wrong message to women. that it was a bar too high. the new version will yank that language. it requires a doctor to ensure that the woman has received license canceled -- licensed counseling prior to the service. another huge issue, the patriot act renewal. sections of that that are supposed to expire on june 1. section 215, the controversial section because the nsa uses that provision to justify it all collection of phone records. -- it's bulk collection of phone records. there is a lot -- there is a

push in congress to eliminate that and the house bill would bar the government from collecting phone records in bulk. that is supposed to come up on wednesday. on thursday, a defense authorization vote expected. very controversial because there are a couple resolutions that the pentagon should move to allow illegal immigrants who grew up in the country is kids to serve in the military. this involves all of that. another very tough issue for republicans to move that bill with the immigration language attached. a big move to get it out. a move to expand it. that fight will also be going on on thursday.

host: the hill is reporting that there is republican support for allowing those dreamers to have military service? guest: sure. a republican amendment in the committee -- the armed services committee that installed the stuff. jeff denham, a republican from california, is pushing to expand the immigration language to allow illegal immigrants to serve in the military in exchange for legal status. he has tried to that in the past and leaders develop best leaders did not allow him a vote on the floor. it is not clear if they're going to do the same thing this year. he is pushing for that as more conservative guys want to eliminate the language that is already in their. re. you will that republican versus republican battle on the floor on thursday. host: we appreciate mike l

illis joining us. the question is how concerned are you about homegrown terrorists? john is on the line. caller: our foundations. we have no excuse to look for terrorism. we have a government that has its head in the sand. more hungry people and starving children in this world -- in this country. everything is unraveling. let's start over. it's just going to get worse and worse. host: we hear from iron river michigan. randy, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my

call. one of the things making a lot of terrorism, they take away everything you've got, they find a marijuana plant in your house and take all your money. they take your guns, take your ability to protect yourself. nobody has died from pot. how many people has the united states killed for having pot? when a pick us up they tell us they're going to expose you -- you're going to go see tyrone. that is terrorism. when they throw you in jail that is what they do to you. i am a white guy. you tell me how i deserve that? i'm a certified custom fabricator. in 2004, and built over 2000 different things for one company . i built over 13,000 different things for the government, yet look at me today. sitting here. i'm a felon, can't take care of

myself, can't eat. it is all about terrorism. host: angela is on our independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am very concerned about homegrown terrorist. more people are concerned about isis. isis is fighting for their freedom and it seems as if the people here in the united states are also -- particularly the black people, are fighting for their freedom also. it seems like the people that are in power want to consider isis a terrorist group. the people here, under our religion, under christianity and all of that kind of stuff, they don't want to consider those people terrorists. you have homegrown terrorists who are white black, all these different races of people in the united states. i feel like our government is one of the biggest terrorists of

all. host: are you concerned whatever their group or color any affiliation with radical groups overseas? caller: i am concerned because we don't know who these people are. we don't know who these people are. we don't know what they look like. they can be you, me, anybody. that is dangerous. i feel like it is a lot of sleeper cells in the united states because our borders, not only on the mexican side, but from the whole world. it is so easy to come to the united states. host: how concerned are you about homegrown terrorism? we started with a look at the houston chronicle this morning. keeping track of foreign fighters. they write about this panel, the foreign fighters task force having been traveled and visited the middle east last week. one of those who visited the middle east was the homeland

security chair, mike mccall of texas. i wanted to show you what he had to say yesterday on fox news sunday about the spread -- potential spread of homegrown terrorism in the u.s.. [video clip] >> i think there has been an uptick in the level of chatter. internet calls to arms to light up the tension isis followers -- potential isis followers in the united states. we are seeing directives almost on a daily basis. i am over here with the french counterterrorism experts. how we can stop foreign fighters from coming out of iraq in syria to europe. we have this phenomenon in the united states were they can be activated by the internet and terrorism has gone viral. host: rochester, new hampshire. judy is owner independent line.

-- julie is on our independent line. caller: i do not think -- everybody disrespects the american flag. they allow it to go on youtube. they have a stomping challenge on the american flag. where are our laws to protect our flag? that represents our country. if you can't protect our flag how are you going to protect the american people? thank you for taking my call. host: here is william in peru -- william in buford, georgia. caller: americans are not concerned with homegrown terrorism. if we were, we could take organizations like the ku klux klan and make those organizations, put them on terrorist watch lists and we can find out who is funding these organizations. you can find out some of your

local police officers are part of these organizations. we are too concerned about homegrown terrorism. only terrorism of color. host: that is william in georgia. a couple comments on twitter. a tweet here from william who says we already have homegrown terrorists, they are called tea baggers. carol says when we allow concern of homegrown terrorists to consume us, they have one. won. back to an issue that mike mentioned in terms of the expiring provisions of the patriot act, the bulk collection of phone data that the court in new york ruled was an overstep of congressional authority. senator marco rubio is writing about that in the usa today.

now is no time to end the program, he writes. today our nation faces a greater threat of terrorism than september 11 2001. americans have been largely kept safe for almost 14 years. a contributor to this success has been the development and use of counterterrorism tools such as those authorized under the foreign intelligence patriot act. there's not a single document the case of abuse. fbi director james komi warned last week that potentially thousands of terrorist sympathizers in the united states are being self radicalized online.

the comments, the opinion of senator marco rubio in today's usa today. your thoughts on homegrown terrorism. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm extraordinarily concerned about the homegrown terrorism stuff. i think that our leader in chief has turned somewhat of a blind eye. he has let daddy terrorists go from guantanamo. -- he has let very bad terrorists go from guantanamo. i think it is a naive of us not to be aware of how severe this threat is. in texas, i think it is terrible that the woman had her provocative conference. i don't think it is all muslims. the radicalized group is a

significant problem. i think we need to address that and we don't need to try to provoke any kind of anything toward our government. we're going to get plenty as it is. any government officials who go out and embark on taking on this task, i appreciate it. host: the headline in the new york times on another issue. the meeting at camp david this week with the president and leaders of arab nations. saudi king plans to skip meetings in washington. a data -- an ally sanding -- sending two ministers. a similar story and the wall street journal. rulers snub arab summit. a right that saudi arabia's king old out of a summit to be hosted by president obama on thursday.

king solomon's decision appeared to ripple across the persian gulf. baja rain said that its ruler had opted not to travel to washington. the only two monarchs and the six countries confirmed to attend the summit at the white house. iran -- and iran packed that is proceeding toward the june 30 deadline without support from regional powers. king solman's decision signals that the arab states are not on board and could continue to act on their own to thwart tehran. next up is joe in columbia south carolina on our republicans line. caller: please.

i don't believe it is homegrown. i think due to the issues of some of our military and angry with the finance. people are just upset with the way things are, especially dealing with an african-american president. i think these guys who want to attach themselves to something. we don't see people blowing things up walking into stores and just blowing things up. it is not that way at this point. i wish we stopped putting fear in americans. it's over there. if we would have stopped interfering in people's lives we would not have some of this problem. those guys are gangsters.

they're not even islamic. islam forbids rape. it forbids robbery. it forbids -- whether you want to believe this or not. islam teaches muslims to protect christians church, even if it costs them their own lives. everything those guys are doing is against or forbidden to their car o -- there comeeir quran. i think they are opportunists. there try to get that oil money. there try to get a state so they can start making revenue. please people, do not get into this isms to create a religious

war with jews, with judeo -- with judaism and christianity and islam. do not do that here. do not let those gangsters use religion as an excuse. it is not that way.

they work hard and that uzbeks are peaceful and respectful of their elders. this they can all agree on. they also say how shocked they are about recent eye physicians of terrorism that have put a spotlight on a growing -- of terrorism that have infected the best that represents the nexus of the u guys for a. zthreebek -- three uzbek men from brooklyn, -- wary post-soviet immigrant community still divided by old world regions and by religious observance. that is from the new york times." we have stand on our democrat line. good morning.

caller: good morning. i think a big problem is apathy across the united states. individual apathy, individual dumbness, all on our smartphone. every time i call someone for something, i have to really almost attack of them. we are just at war with each other. we have individual terrorists walking around everywhere. why does everybody have ugly tattoos and they ruin their years. we are a mess. we do not have any literacy. everything is a mess. i have to ride transit occasionally. there was somebody on here who had a blade on his leg, getting it out of a box. i told the bus driver that he had a blade, and the drivers that if you put it away it is

ok. then he takes a penknife out. that guy had a plan. it is everywhere. we had people breaking into the white house. -- whatever to do right. just do it right. host: sandra and pennsylvania. robert is next in tennessee. caller: good morning. i am no more afraid of a terrorist then i am of you, and i do not know you and you do not know me. i am more afraid of the u.s. government that breeds this terrorism than i am of a terrorist. i do business with terrorist every day, if i buy a pack of cigarettes. i go up to someone's store from pakistan or wherever they are from. they are just fine with me. the u.s. government breeds this

because we stick our nose and everybody else's business in the middle east and then we turn around and allow corporations and this country to bring 50,000, 100,000 people from every country in the middle east here and then they wind up in business. you wonder who our homegrown terrorists come from, it comes straight from the government. they have to keep a war started all the time in order to continue the war machine. john mccain is the latest proponent and lindsey graham is right there with him. most of these republicans and quite frankly, obama is with them. it is both sides of the aisle. they keep a war going all the time because it is good for business. that is my opinion. i would love to hear someone else's comment regarding it. host: thank you for your opinion. on twitter, it thoughts from -- when they say what do they do to the americans who supported the

germans in the late 1930's. have to look that up. from lou horseshoe who says how concerned is our president when he never calls it homegrown terrorism. in "the hill" from last week, loan will threat rises for obama. the low -- the terrorism attack and sexist highlights a dilemma for the white house. it is difficult to prevent lone wolf assaults, but if it happens, the president will be blame. let's go to st. petersburg, how concerned are you about homegrown terrorism. this is alan in st. petersburg florida. caller: i just wanted to say that the united states government has in in an alliance with saudi arabia going back at least to the early 1940's. what is little commented on, i think, is that saudi arabia's

government has been one of the main financiers of that wing of the most extreme form of islam. i do not believe that the people who want to make a blanket commendation -- combination of islam. but the most extreme form of islam have been financed by the saudi arabian government going back a long time back. and the u.s. has been in alliance with the saudi arabian government. the u.s. did this even when the saudi arabian government were sympathetic with hitler during world war ii, which was a government the u.s. was supposed to be fighting against. the u.s. government has been in alliance with the saudi arabian's under both republican and democratic administrations.

to me, that is rich. i just want to say one thing. i am very sympathetic with many of the antiwar comments of people of different political persuasions, who has stated, correctly, in my view, that by constantly invading other people's countries, you're not going to create goodwill around the world for america. thank you for taking my call. host: alan in florida. over the weekend, the south carolina freedom summit with lots of republican candidates, potential candidates. you can find all of the on our video library at c-span.org. the headlight from that -- the headline from that is gop presidential hopefuls amp up security rhetoric in the "washington post." they use intensely strong language to underline their

hard-line positions during the summit. though national security and foreign relations have long been a dominant issue at forums like this many candidates seem to have intensified their rhetoric as they angle to be seen as the staunchest enforcer and fears as protector of the country. the positioning comes amid increased rate -- increased concern about terrorism and a debate about the negotiations over iran's nuclear program. dan is on the independent line. caller: how are you doing? i wanted to comment that during the budget -- that homeland security, everybody get on the tv on homeland security that if they do not get on did it puts the country at risk. they ended up funding homeland security, and then homeland security gets on and talks about

they will not be able to prevent any of the lone wolf attacks because it is hard to -- i disagree. everything comes from social media. hackers can hack governments. i believe we should be able to go in and event -- preevent -- prevent those media forms of terrorism that are out there to stop them. the funding that god they are not using wisely. they go out and, on the republicans not helping with funding, but where did the funding go -- host: what does that look like in terms of stopping it on social media? how does the government step in and stop an individual user on twitter, for example, using a hashtag that may indicate

terrorist activity? caller: they look at everything else. they have been looking at our phones. monitoring phones across the country. thousands of thousands of calls. why cannot they have a group that put on an low on social media. anything that comes across that is terrorism-related or islam-related to the respect of not islam people but the faith of isis that requires them to do something devastating to any country, person throughout the world and block it. they have the tools. they got pay the tools by the republicans and the democrats voting on the edge it because it was a necessity. we heard how if they did not there would be a huge threat in this country and they are fearful if they do not get it,

things could happen. they get the money and things are happening, what is going on to stop it? we are in the age of technology. super technology. i find it hard to believe the government does not have the super technology to do something about it. host: a couple more minutes on your phone calls and thoughts on homegrown terrorism. on twitter admin you cannot let the media hype about terrorism consume you. the biggest concern we have is feeding the poor in america. this one says i am concerned our foreign policy is controlled by oil companies and arms manufacturers. we are at @cspanwj to tweak. sue is on the democrat line. go ahead. caller: i am calling in reference to the gentleman in tennessee who would like to have some call about his feedback. i agree with him. the people in this country of

higher government one war. it makes a lot of money. in the second comment with the man who just hung up the phone i believe is everyone is worrying about the hop -- hawk stuff, why are all the components made in the u.s. and china? you guys made a recipe for disaster. you gave away jobs that were supposed to be an america and gave it to people who can make components that can be hacked into. you do not have anybody to be blamed for yourself if you do not go vote these lunatics out of office. host: a couple quick stories from the weekend. in "usa today," this headline forth mississippi suspects arrested in the shooting over the weekend of the two parties borough police officers. a fourth suspect was arrested in the fatal shooting of two

hattiesburg police officers, liquori tates, a recent graduate of the academy and benjamin deen the recipient of the 2012 award for police officer. in the new york times, in talks with merkel, cute and calls for improving relations with europe. one hear from the wall street journal. it says michael rebukes pete and -- putin attribute. it says that russia itself was breaking international law in ukraine. where we have sought more cooperation in recent years, she said in germany. the criminal and illegal annexation of command -- crimea and the warfare in eastern ukraine has --

republican line, go ahead. caller: i think we should take terrorism a very seriously. we have a citizen guard with x military patriots who have firearms that can register. they are in restaurants, shopping malls carrying concealed weapons. it would not cost a lot of money. i think that would be a big factor around the world. terrorists around the world know we have an army of citizens waiting for you. host: one more. janice in kentucky, democrat line. caller: i would like to say i am very concerned about homegrown terrorism. it is very concerning to me. host: what in particular? caller: you see it all the time

on the news. the guns and everything people have in their homes that look like arsenals. you just sit -- see it all the time on the news. that is all i wanted to say. host: more of your calls coming up as washington journal continues. we will be joined by former white house counsel lanny davis who will talk about questions and allegations about bill and hillary clinton's national finances, the recent controversy over the concern foundation's relationship with foreign entities. later, russell moore on the role of evangelical voters in the 2016 elections. ♪

>> tonight on the communicators. at this year's consumer-electronics show, we met up with author -- novak, who said we are in a new phase of technology which are likely to enhance the human condition. >> robots are especially interesting. 2014 was the year of robot angst. i do not know if a day went by when i did not see a story about how robots are stealing jobs from humans and we will all end up out of work. you hear it daily. you hear about a robot that are at bartending, waitressing and so on and so on then humans. the thing i find -- the point i think is missed is that every prior revolution or advance in automation has resulted in

better jobs for humans. we are worried about robots taking our jobs and having a hard time imagining what we will do not just 200 years from now but also 10 years from now. i think history has shown we will gear out a way to combine with robots to create a -- create new jobs that were previously unimaginable. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators those quote on c-span -- "the indicators" on c-span 2. >> here are some of the book festivals we'll cover. we will cover the gaithersburg book festival with tom davis and martin frost as well as david axelrod. we close that may at book expo america in new york city where the publishing community showcases their upcoming books. then we are live at the printers

row lit fest, including three-hour live in depth programming with lawrence wright and your phone calls. >> "washington journal" continues. host: lanny davis joining us this morning. former white house special counsel and longtime friend and associate of both ill and hillary clinton. currently executive vice president at lanny communications. you are with us to talk about some of the discussions about the clinton finances. the clinton foundation. hillary's use of her personal e-mail server in her time as secretary of state. tells about your relationship with filling hillary -- with bill and hillary. guest: i met hillary won her last name was still rodham. the first question she asked is where is the nearest legal services clinic to volunteer.

i said your idea law school and you're asking me what courses how to study, are you really interested in volunteering? it tells me a lot about who hillary was and is and what her commitment to public service is. bill clinton shortly thereafter. he was a volunteer in the state senate campaign before joad became a u.s. senator. we all go back to the drinking water in new haven and yell in those days. -- in yale in those days. host: what is your relationship with them now? guest: i am a lawyer and friend of both clintons. i am not involved in their campaign. host: the new sets the scene for our discussion. there are questions about clinton ethics and their talking about forecast coming into the

clinton foundation. if you are still an advisor to bill or hillary, how would you view what they have done so far in terms of their reaction to some of the news about the foundation and how would you advise them going forward. guest: the answer they have showed -- they have chosen is transparency, which i have agreed with. there have been inadvertent errors, but they are so minor compared to the disclosed information. they do not take any anonymous donations. i look at the good works that very few people have in their headlines. few people even republicans deny that because of the clinton foundation, there are millions of people in africa who are no longer suffering from aids. there are thousands of american schools who have preschool

programs and special nutrition because of the clinton foundation. i could go on and on. it is curious that something so positive that even the -- that even republicans say has been fantastic have been twisted into a negative. let's look at that headline as indicative of everything, including the book written, raising questions, innuendo of wrongdoing. even the accusation of bribery. taking money for a policy change at the state department. the india on -- the in a lot of suggest and never states money going to hillary and bill and the foundation in exchange for policy changes at the state. even the author and the publisher of the book said there is no evidence of illegality or anything unethical. that is the publisher. in my view, there is the

difference between innuendo and fact. host: you mention transparency. that is the one thing you would -- leading up to the publication of the book "clinton cash" and the stores that have come out in terms of how the foundation is funded. do you think the clinton foundation and campaign were as transparent as they should be prior to this recent news? guest: i said there have been inadvertent examples of nondisclosure. a very small percentage of the total of $2 billion raised has been inadvertently not disclosed. those have led to headlines. you can headline a 1% inadvertent or 99% transparency. let's put it this way that no one can deny. their disclosure of foreign nation contributions which help hiv victims just as much as non-foreign contributions have in transparent with very few exceptions.

those have been inadvertent. host: lanny davis is with us. we invite you to join the conversation. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for all others, (202) 748-8002. also send us a tweet at @cspanwj . "clinton cash" -- one of the reasons we responded -- we invited you here was to respond to that. one of the issues he brought up is speaking fees and speaking to foreign entities. [video clip] >> the clintons are unique and fit into this pattern. no post-presidency has been marked by as much money making as well clinton has engaged in. between 2001 and 2012, they took in some $36 million. that is on president in scale and scope. they have created a new model.

this model, if it is allowed to continue and is successful, will be adopted by others. the model is getting around rules and laws we have in place that event foreign entities from influencing american politics. you cannot give campaign contributions into american political campaigns if you are a foreign entity. but with the clinton foundation and the ability to pay speaking fees to the spouse of the secretary of state foreign entities have a way of giving money to families of elected officials in hopes of influencing them. i think that is troubling. host: mr. davis? guest: it is interesting how he braces things. let me emphasize his words. "in the hopes of influencing" and on the same time in a friendly interview of him, he says i have no facts to prove

wrongdoing or illegality by hillary clinton in exchanging money for her husband and fees or to the foundation for any policy changes at state. he says "raises questions." that is innuendo. let's not be too extreme. when i was raised in the 1950's, there was a gentleman named senator joseph -- joseph mccarthy. he raised a paper saying i have in my hand 400 people working in the state department who may be communists. headlines across the u.s. the word may be is no different to mr. sweitzer. it is saying i have no single fact suggesting a speaking fee or a donation connected to secretary clinton's policy decisions. the ones he cites, i will use the uranium mine as an example. there is a flurry of facts

disproving any connection. the decision to approve that was made by nine different federal agencies, including the state department representative, who on record said, "i never had mrs. clinton intervene in anything before this board." the utah radiation commission approved this transaction. the nuclear regulatory commission, completely independent, approved this transaction. that disproves that secretary clinton had anything to do -- the proof is she did not. he does not cite those facts, he just says it raises the question that the donation came in and two thousand six. the decision came in 2011. that raises questions. that is called smoke and innuendo. host: let's hear from our bureaus on the issue of clinton

finances. we go to my our republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. i was not prepared to call in and then i saw the test and his rhetoric -- the guest and his rhetoric about mrs. clinton. i think it is funny he was trying to introduce that he was introduced to her in law school trying to go to donate her time, pro bono, if you will. juxtapose that with -- her defense of the child rape victim. you can pull up on youtube. she is queried about it and she gives completely contradictory answers as to why -- first she said she did it as a favor and then she said she was forced to. anyone who wants to champion her as a feminist icon just needs to pull up the transcript on how she treated that child in

defending a man who raped her. host: do you know what he is talking about? guest: he is referring to what a lot of public defenders, including myself as a lawyer -- people do not understand our ethical obligation. everyone deserves a defense. ethical -- public defenders defend anyone who comes into a criminal court. volunteers do that. she was defending somebody who had a right to a defense. he may have been guilty. lawyers, if we were not for it -- if it were not for that, they would not have a judicial process. some people do not like having the obligation to defend but without that we would not have due process, jury trials. we would be a dictatorship. host: john is on our democrat line. welcome. caller: how are you? my concern is -- the clintons

have a scope of facts that are -- by the republicans. when it was revealed about rubio being basically funded -- not just funded but having quit pro bono by some as quid pro quo by some billionaire and he had the gall to say what is the conflict? that should automatically taken out of the race. no question. that is well have been seeing in the republican party the whole time. they are talking about hypocrisy and being transparent. just talking about transparency does not make one transparent. of the republican party, they are mostly hypocrites. host: you're breaking up a little john. any response? guest: no, i heard him.

i want to say thank you for supporting the clintons. but do not go there. do not blame the republicans for this author -- and rush limbaugh has repeated that 10% of all foundation donations go to good works. the other 90% is staff and salary. pot the fact -- ponty fact -- pontifact actually debunked that. if you do not leave me as a democrat, go to fox news, where that statement was debunked. the clinton foundation is unusual in that it takes in money and does the projects itself. mr. sweitzer uses that number only 10% were given as grants to other charities. that is the way most foundations work. the clinton foundation is hands on, literally on their hands and

knees planting seeds and staffing africans in international projects. pontifact has said at least 80% of all dollars in the foundation go to good works. 88% if you include hiv. fox news is one of many who have debunked this now false statement bordering on a lie. it becomes a lie after you know what be back -- the facts are. the foundation pays people to go on their hands and knees to plant seeds and help aid victims. anyone who hears 10% or 15% going to the clinton foundation, that is false. the person saying it needs to check pontifact and fox news. host: we look up the political side of this. a poll was asking what locke

clinton has on the iowa caucus? -- how do you think these stories mr. guest: remarkable to destroy a myth that the pundits in washington, and people that write about politics, have refuted, but wrongly. since the e-mail story -- which i would love to address -- and the controversy of all the good work the clinton foundation has done, a recent poll, very respected polls done recently showed that hillary clinton's ratings have gone up on national leadership and strength. she leads every republican candidate light as large of a margin, if not larger, then before these controversies.

in other words come all of the loud noise, breathless headlines in the mainstream media, and all the talk shows have been wrong in assuming that the american people do not understand the difference between myth and innuendo versus hard facts, hard evidence, which has been lacking. so far it feeds the narrative of republican candidates and has not affected her. host: you say, this kind of headline from "national journal" -- it is looking like a table bed. -- a terrible bet. that is an inside washington headline, it you are saying that is not true, democrats are not worried about her. guest: the numbers show that

nine out of 10 democrats or eight out of 10 democrats strongly support her. i'm saying, more than democrats. republicans, independents, and democrats. nationally survey, all voters showed that if anything, she has gone up in the belief in our strength of leadership and her lead of all republicans. the one issue that does come up that she has had apparent impact is on the issue of trust. yes, the pounding of innuendo, no fax, let's be clear. smoke is not the same as fire. distrust numbers have gone up. if you compare her approval rating to all voters to any republican running for president, she is superior. you only get the headline -- the one-sided as of the coverage does not mention that she is

actually still higher in public approval than any republican running for president. host: john, thank you for waiting period republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i'm glad that mr. davis brought up that miss clinton has gone down in the polls as far as trust. it is clear that she is down among all voters, including independents, which she will need if she wants to win. that is my first comment. i'm glad you made that point which is a true point. my site, is that i see your physician. you are on here to defend her but with all due respect, i think are degrade your own credibility if you could at least point out some things that they have done wrong.

the clintons are greedy when it comes to money. their appearance is terrible even if you cannot find a quick quid pro quo, from a credibility sampling, you degrade your own credibility. if you come on and could admit to some of the appearance issues and things they have done wrong when it comes to raising money for the foundation. host: we will get a response. guest: thank you for being so fair even though we disagree. let me at least point out to you that the first part of what you said, the numbers have gone up on the distrust issue after being pounded impounded in headlights for two months. that does not surprise me or you. you forgot to say the second part of what i said. she is still higher for trustworthiness and approval. than any republican running for president, despite the two months of pounding. secondly, let me also concede to you that appearances are

bothersome if you are an independent or republican, you do not know the clintons. let me be evenhanded. jeb bush is supposedly the subject of the next book by this person, peter schweizer. he has said that he sees a lot of problems with jeb bush. marco rubio has been accused of conflicts. let me say, i will be on this program defending marco rubio jeb bush, or anyone else as an honorable and decent person who should not be judged by appearances, and should rather be judged on facts. i do not believe the jeb bush ever did anything that he did not think was the right thing to do despite peter schweizer's innuendo that he did. i now read about marco rubio

with similar accusations. all smoke, no fire. i hope republicans as well as democrats will get past this appearance standard and look at what are the hard facts. i say we should not let innuendo be a surrogate for fax. host: mr. davis is referring to the book by peter schweizer "clinton cash." we had him on our show, and you can see that on c-span.org. i would like to get a response. you made some comments about a sale. here's what peter schweizer had to say. [video clip] >> all of this axis is accumulated, all of this money is flowing to the clinton foundation, and then the russian government arise. they say they want to buy

uranium because they have had a long interest in cornering the market. this is a personal goal of vladimir putin. in order for russia to acquire what amounts to 20% or 25% of all uranium assets in the united states, it requires federal government approval. there is a process that requires a number of government agencies, including the state department to sign off on this deal. they do sign off on the deal. what i think is troubling about hillary clinton in the midst of all this is that no other government agency that approves this is headed by somebody who has received $145 million to the foundation from nine individuals connected with this firm. the second thing that is troubling is that hillary clinton had a history of to this point of opposing precisely

these types of deals. in other words, where a foreign government wanted to buy a critical industry in the united states. both of those things i think raise a lot of questions about what her involvement was in this. host: lanny davis. guest: i will try to be less wordy that peter schweizer. not one fact. just suggestive associations. nine separate federal agencies, including the defense department, the treasury department, and the state department, whose representatives said that he never heard from hillary clinton. the nuclear regulatory commission approved this transaction. he never said that they are in on the take, that they influence mrs. clinton, who denies being involved. in other words, the facts trump

his innuendo and prove that she had nothing to do with the transaction. all he does is hold up this piece of paper and say this may be a pattern. i hope he does not do that to jeb bush. i promise, i will be back here to defend jeb bush. host: let's hear from springville, indiana, tony. caller: you know, you sound so desperate right now. you are talking about defending jeb bush. you're talking about innuendos. you're using all of these legal terms to confuse people. let me tell you something. the clintons are freaking crooks. that is the reason white obama won. that is why we won. he won the first time and again. bring someone else. they have too many problems. republicans are investigating it.

money. this thing and that thing. that is the reason we have all of these problems. it is about time they just disappeared. that is my comment. host: a skeptical viewer and springville. guest: i respect his emotion and his right to an opinion. his substitute for fax, hard facts that he cannot disagree on, cannot challenge me on. he says i'm being legalistic when i use the word fax. people have common sense. he substitutes truth and untruth with the expression "freaking cooks. go host: bill clinton said recently -- on the issue transparency -- he was quoted in "town & country" that their plan is to spend the whole year working on the foundation, which

is, by good long stretch, the most transparent of all the presidential foundations and more transparent than a lot of other major foundations and the country." guest: one of the rating companies on foundations -- i do not know if they have ranked the clinton foundation as the most transparent. let me at least -- we are running out of time -- please remember all the good works. though clinton has been on his hands and knees in the middle of africa. i listen to him spell down one night at a foundation dinner with y where he describing exhilarated when he was with an old woman farmer in africa planting seeds. this is a man who could be retired somewhere, relaxing, with a quintuple bypass and left

his presidency with a 75% approval rating. ronald reagan received a million-dollar speaking fee for speaking in japan. nothing wrong with that. bill clinton is working his tail off all over the glow, including in america for people and children in need. whatever the politics are, let's remember the good works that bill hillary, and chelsea clinton have done for people all over the globe. if i might end on a purple note here -- red and blue combining to be purple. this is something that everybody agrees with. the good works of the foundation. you would never know it from the headlines that are focusing on the smoke and innuendo, by would love to see the "new york times" and "washington post" -- my two favorite newspapers -- to do

in-depth research on what the clintons are doing in this country and all over the world. host: let's hear from marie in pennsylvania. caller: i would like to say, i am sick of the attacks on hillary clinton, who is an honorable politician who i support for president. i think voters need to see through those attacks and elected democratic congress that will cooperate with her. everyone can see that a president without the support of congress cannot get much done. hillary clinton and her campaign need to repeat over and over again that she needs to go into office with the support of a democratic congress. host: ok. here is collins, mississippi, james. caller: good morning. i just want to say this did give me a little bit time. it is a sad day in america when you see this country going down with isis and all these things.

now, they're going to attack ms. clinton. when the iraq war started out when 9/11 started out, all those investigations -- i did not hear the republican party talking about this kind of stuff. when president bush was reelected. the speaker of the house wrote a book and to get in front of congress, and as the speaker about the book on president bush, why did you write this book? did you know this was damaging to him? go back and look at it on c-span. c-span, you showed the man talk about what went on in president bush's administration. i am a republican. it is sad when you have a woman running for president -- all the laundry coming out.

just because their senators, let's look at all the contributions that they get and all the connections. there is a lot of hypocrites and going on with the mediua. it is a sad day. you know what, i put my trust in my lord and savior jesus christ and i know the truth will come out. host: we appreciate your input. guest: i would like to collect the earlier call. i certainly respect this man's sincerity, but the earlier caller -- the democratic female -- she urged people to over for over hillary for president and the democratic congress. my instinct tell me that we have a government that works best when it is bipartisan. i know hillary, when she was a u.s. senator, was close friends with the number of republicans and worked with a number of republicans.

she was called by senator bob are from west virginia, a workhorse, not a show hers horse. i know many others work with senator -- worked with senator clinton, despite having a difference of opinion. i think hillary clinton combo if she is president of the united states -- and the word is when. when she is president, you can be assured that if there is a republican congress, she will be a bipartisan -- and i use the word purple to indicate bipartisan -- president who will work for solutions driven by fax, not ideology. host: let's go to houston, texas to hear from mike on the republican line. caller: mr. davis, you seem like a very nice person. i can tell you, personally hillary clinton could not

possibly be less transparent. when governor christie took questions, he took questions until there were no more questions. hillary clinton has taken to questions in over one month. she is letting everybody like you take the questions and defending her. she runs around and navigates through lego jesus and -- like o.j. simpson with the football. the server. this is all about the server. i invite democrats to call and tell me about the transparency if hillary clinton were to release the server to a neutral party, as requested by republicans. this would set her free, validate her transparency -- you know, the thing is, you have washington d.c. run by the seven of the top 10 counties in the country. now, hillary is getting all this money for the foundation.

nothing is changing there. when the guy calls and says they are a bunch of crooks, he's getting at the point that there is too much underhand stuff going on. host: we would hear response. just a follow on his,, the state department did release a statement in terms of the use of the personal e-mail by hillary clinton which read in part, i think the message is loud and clear that that is not acceptable, in terms of the use of the personal server. mr. davis. guest: first of all, thank you for thinking i am a nice person. i would like to also be in your mind, a fair person. you are entitled to your opinion on whether hillary clinton has been transparent or not. i would ask you, as much as you have a strong point of view, and i respect that, to apply the same standard.

colin powell use the same device for both official and personal e-mails. he never revealed his personal e-mails nor actually explained why he mixed business with personal. yet, you did not mention general colin powell, an extremely honorable man. i'm saying, you used a double standard. let's talk about jeb bush who o i have described as honorable and respectable. you did not mention him. that may reflect your bias or double standard, or maybe you just forgot. he had half a million evils over eight years -- i believe that number is right -- on his own server. he separated out his own business and retain public business. he did not mention that.

his server personal business. no different than mrs. clinton. finally, let me suggest that you look at the law. the leading lawyer at the archives and administration, the one quoted in the first "new york times" story was asked on cnn, did hillary do anything illegal or violate any rules? did she do anything illegal or violate any rules? that lawyers said no. that is a fact. what she did was legal ethical and retaining personal private evils, the right to privacy every member of congress, every republican presidential candidate has personal e-mails that they do not disclose. in the case of governor bush, a server. he has a right to his privacy. host: this is from twitter. isn't it laudable that the

clintons have helped people around the world rather than amassing a fortune for themselves? this is from dedi, do at least half of the funds raised by the foundation go to support u.s. causes? guest: yes about one half. president bush 41 and president bush 43 have done immense good work all around the world, contributed to charities. if you are a partisan democrat do not go there. do not use innuendo against the bushes or other republicans, which is what we are being subjected to. stay on the facts and the fair. host: here is our democrats line, beverly. caller: i am so glad to see this german on tv telling the truth. guest: thank you. caller: dealing with facts. not opinions. i'm very c proud of hillary

clinton and her foundation. it helps people and it is open and transparent. if it wasn't, we would not be talking about the money that is in the foundation. however, with citizens united, we cannot say the same thing about congress. they have a lobbyists coming of varying giving the money to promote things that they want. nobody is saying anything about that. i have never seen congress come in -- they all leave out millionaires. we ever wonder about that? let's just stop about hillary. the republicans are afraid of her. they are afraid. you have a good day. host: thank you. she says the republicans are afraid, do you agree? guest: there is no question.

if they were afraid of hillary clinton running for president and actually winning the presidency, everything will republican candidate went to a conference here in washington. did one of them talk about their ideas for the country for defeating terrorism? actually being constructive and operating in a bipartisan fashion? no. what did they do? hillary clinton -- bash hillary clinton. someone called carly fiorina -- female bashing hillary clinton. i think the law because she is the only fema running and she thinks it is her role to bash hillary clinton. none of them tell us what they think. host: finding the role of the other clinton is the headline.

where is that role for bill clinton in or out of the campaign? guest: there is no question that this is a fact. he might be one of the most popular human beings it men or woman, in any profession on the planet. why? he could be relaxing and enjoying a post-presidency after quintuple bypass.

instead, he is all over the world, working his but off, especially in the united states and abroad to help people. secondly, did you notice the reporter -- a reporter that i actually respect because he went to yell, i will not mention his name. did you notice that he used the expression, "potential conflict of interest." may be, could be. smoke, innuendo. this is what we are up against when you're talking about the linz. host: do you think it is the reporter's job to point out the potential conflict of interest t? guest: reporters, they used to use the facts. if they want to talk about potential, they get a quote. most reporters with all due respect, do exactly what this reporter does. they use objective words.

they are not facts. let's look at what the word potential means. there is no fact there. it is all in the eye of the boulder. i see no conflict of interest, until you show me a fact that anything bill clinton has done has influenced his wife as secretary of state on policy. not one fact. peter schweizer admits that he does not have one. host: let's hear from bill in south carolina. good morning. caller: hello. you are making some very right statements, but what difference does it make? we just have four dead heroes for making their remarks of long with video. you have no problem with lying. thank you so much. guest: thank you. i've no idea what you just said. host: he was talking little bit about the stand down order on

benghazi. that is an entirely different issue. guest: thatt gentleman uses the word lying. that is a strong word. give me a fact. the fact is that every republican committee in the house of representatives denied what you just said. the stand down order was not hillary clinton's order. the standdown order was made in the context of not being able to deliver the department of defense -- the secretary of defense says this. we're not in a position to deliver people in time to rescue those poor people. when you use the word lying and everyone is watching, have a five behind lying because that is a strong word. you cannot name a fact. i just gave you fax from republicans that contradict your assertion. host: here is darwin on a

republicans line. caller: thank you. look, man. i am a democrat, i voted for barack. but, this is not right. she is not a good candidate. i'm going to go with republicans with benghazi. a couple of facts. she hid her server. you are telling us that bill clinton was speaking with a foreign leader in reference to security would not be discussed in the clinton household? she is not right for democrats.

if she wins the primary i will vote for her in the general. i cannot vote for a republican. guest: i respect your doubts. i respect your opinion. i hope hillary clinton, on the issues that you really care about, will fight for your issues. that is all she is talking about . to answer an earlier question, why do she not get more out there on the issue of e-mails and the clinton foundation, and potential conflicts. she could spend all her time on that, the innuendo. she is focusing on jobs national security. that is what i think you will end up supporting her about. if you have concerns about her behavior or conduct, i respect your opinion, i do also saying that if she is nominated, you will support her. host: new york city, this is

paul. caller: can you hear me? host: yes we can. caller: i think there's a big problem here. the problem is that ms. clinton is out of touch with the average americans. what was the last time she took public transportation or part to her own car? this example of extreme wealth -- extreme wealth -- that you mr. davis, the clinton, and the bushes, and all your friends have, compared to the rest of americans is extreme. : powell did not run for president, as i understand it. i do not know why you want to make the comparison with him. ms. out of touch extreme wealth -- this out of touch extreme wealth that you and your ilk make in washington is incredible. who else in america makes this kind of money?

it is outrageous, quite frankly. i think it is time that we have someone who actually drives their own car, maybe, buys their own groceries. somebody who has actually flown coach in the last 10 years. guest: i understand you are very angry and using the word "ilk," and "outrageous." i just have to respect your emotions. let me remind you to be fair. ronald reagan and other presidents had extreme wealth but had the common touch because they understood. john kennedy was accused of being too wealthy and out of touch. he went to west virginia, one of the poorest states in the country, and one the west virginia primary. hillary clinton and bill clinton came from -- hillary from a

middle-class background and bill clinton from a little less than that, but they worked hard all their lives. whatever wealth they have, the american people in every poll say that hillary clinton cares about issues that i care about and that they relate to her because of that. with all due respect, i respect your opinion. you are in a very small minority what you say that hillary clinton is out of touch. host: you mentioned the bushes a couple times. you served for george bush? guest: yes. full disclosure, we were in college together, fraternities together. i did not vote for him as president, but he is a very decent and honest man. i happen to know the present clinton loves -- almost like a second father -- president bush

41. host: a quick take on you as the pager at comes up for a vote where do you stand on that? guest: i support the nsa's mission to prevent another 9/11. i can give is an overall net that needs to be narrowed. the court's decision was not about the fourth amendment. let me say that again. the court's decision has never said what the nsa did in gathering this metadata just database on telephone calls is what was at issue. the court said that congress never intended the net to be so broad, congress needs to narrow the net. when there is an evil terrorist who contacts united states, they can follow the chain, and they can go to telephone companies

rather than the nsa. congress needs to fix it. let's repeat. with all of the snowden rhetoric about the fourth minute, the court never said that the patriot act was unconstitutional and inconsistent with the fourth amendment. that was not the decision. it is a matter of statutory mandate. host: two more quick calls. caller: hello c-span. i would like to thank you for creating an excellent format here. i think peter schweizer and lanny davis should both be commended for their anticipation. this is how democracy works well in this country. my biggest concern here -- and i could certainly be wrong -- we have the republican governor in jail over what seems to be circumstantial evidence. and a democratic senator being indicted over what seems to be circumstantial evidence.

if you could explain to me how what appears to be circumstantial evidence regarding the clinton foundation is any different. they seem to all be in the same ballpark to me. host: you are trying my governor mcdonnell from virginia, right ? caller: and senate am menendez. guest: if there are alternative facts that contradict it is no longer viable as a conclusion. in the case of the uranium mine and every other example in the book, the facts contradict that hillary clinton a bride. all of these independent

entities approving the sale of the mind to the russians contradict the inference that hillary clinton took a bride. in the case of governor mcdonnell and senator menendez, who is an innocent mian indictment is a ham sandwich. let's wait for the trial of senator menendez on the presumption of innocence. i have signed onto a brief suggesting that governor mcdonnell was indicted -- i say it is going way too broad criminalizing politics, not criminal intent. i respect the jury system. i disagree with the judge's instruction and joined other white house counsel in a brief suggesting that the judge's

instruction to the jury t was so broad that someone standing in line waiting to get a photograph with the presently united states, who happen to give a donation, could be indicted for a crime. host: this is our last caller on the democrats line. caller: how are you doing to go host: fine, thanks. caller: i was up on the record that i will buy the book and read it. i listen to him last friday -- listened to him last friday. i support her. i believe she will get the nomination. we have to worry because they are human beings. there is the potential -- host: ok. how does she address this were a? guest: thank you for being

worried. i can assure you that a few look at the current polls, the american people have allowed the innuendo and smoke to pass them by. only the pundits in washington are talking about how negative misses. do not be worried. people ultimately vote on the issues that they care about. the polls show that hillary clinton is right on those issues , in contrast to republicans who are wrong on most of those issues. they are seen as not caring about issues that most everyday americans care about. i honor and respect your worry but she will be our next president because the american people use common sense and know the difference between smoke and fire. innuendo and the truth. host: former white house special counsel, lanny davis, thanks for being with us. "washington journal" will continue momentarily. we'll cut the evangelical voters

in the 2060 elections. we will be joined by russell moore of these southern baptist convention. later on, tom martin, ceo of the american forest foundation on the resources needed to suppress forest fires in the u.s. last year, about $1.5 billion was spent on fighting forest fires in the u.s. ♪ >> remarkable partnerships iconic women. their stories in "first ladies" the book. >> she did save the portrait of

washington which was something that was endearing to her. >> she takes over a radio station and starts running get. how do you do that? she did it. >> she exerted enormous influence because she would move and move a melon to make sure her has there was protected. >> "first ladies" located inside the personal life of every first lady in history, based on original interviews from c-span's "first ladies" the series. learn about their lives, partnerships with their spouses. "first ladies" filled with lively stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house, sometimes at a great personal cost, often changing history. c-span's "first ladies" is an

illuminating and inspiring read, now available through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress. with color photos of every senator and house member, plus bio and contact information, and twitter handles. also, district maps, a full dot map of capitol hill, and a look at congressional committees, the presidential cabinet. order your copy today. it is $13 may five cents plus shipping and handling through the c-span store. >> "washington journal" continues. host: russell moore is joining us this point look at 2060 and what matters to evangelical voters. timely in that we get you on the

monday after your "wall street journal" editorial came out -- what will matter to evangelicals in 2060. what was your message? guest: in this editorial, it was the issue of immigration. people in america have different opinions on immigration and evangelicals have different opinions on what ought to be done about immigration. one thing that we should and three on -- should agree on is that immigrant bashing should be off the table. political candidates have used immigrants as a kind of piñata to win votes. it is morally wrong, and i also think it will not work. host: what inspired you to write the editorial? you grow in there that the house has yet taken any action on immigration. guest: the house has done nothing. there are many people who criticize the senate action.

many people criticize the president's executive action which i do as well. i think the president's executive action was reckless and action harmed immigration reform. the bigger issue is that right now there is a sense of fear of even addressing the issue. if someone iss opposed to the articulation of immigration reform that has come up so far, what is the alternative? let's come up with an alternative. there is really more consensus on this issue that we assume. everyone almost agrees that we need to secure the border, that we need to hold businesses accountable for not using and hiring people who are undocumented here, and nobody that i know of wants to deport 11,000,002 12 million people. it would rip up families and take the american economy. if we agree on all a of that

let's find a way forward. host: you are with these other back -- the southern baptist church, the largest denomination in the united states. what are the issues that people are talking to about? guest: the number one issue as religious liberty. in the past election cycles, religious liberty has not even come up in the debates, in the primary, or the general election. over the last six years, we have had one religious liberty skirmish after another. our people are concerned very much that we have candidates who understand what the first amendment guarantees when it comes to free exercise of religion, not just for us, but for everybody. that means having candidates who understand that, can articulate that and will defend it. host: we invite our viewers to join the conversation. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independent than all others, --

independence and all others, (202) 745-8002. back to the issue of religious liberty, that came up at liberty university. jeb bush, potential candidate spoke about it there. i want to get your reaction on what some of what he had to say. guest: i was very cheered by what he had to say. host: here is jeb bush. [video clip] jeb bush: the mistake is to confuse ideas of ideology with principles. this confusion casts americans as intolerable, running around trying to impose their views on everyone. the stories very year to year, but the storyline is getting familiar. the progressive political agenda is ready for its great forward, and religious people and churches are getting in the

way. our friends on the left like to view themselves as agents of reform and you and i are supposed to just get with the program. there are consequences when you do not reflect the dogmas. the dogmas have been hard to keep up with. you find officials in major cities where they asked pastors to copy over -- to hand over copies of their sermons. also imposing restrictions and rights that do not exist in become the jewish and. or an agency dictating to a catholic charity the little sisters of the poor, what have to go in their health plan. never mind objections of conscience. i do not know about you, live betting that when it comes to doing the right and good thing the little sisters of the poor no better than the regulators at the department of health and human services. [applause] host: by the way all of that

feed is available at c-span.org. what did you hear their? guest: i heard a very strong articulation of religious rita. that is an issue that used to be a consent consensus issue but has unfortunate a become a wedge issue in recent years. governor bush is exactly right. he have seen the sisters of the poor harassed by the department of health and human services. we have seen one incursion on religious liberty after another. the hobby lobby case last year -- who would have thought that we would have to go to the supreme court with a decision. i think he is exactly right in articulating this. host: we have callers waiting for dr. russell moore. let's start with stephanie and california. go ahead. caller: good morning mr. moore. i do not really see where there is a big issue in regards to liberty, violations of church.

i think there has been one issue hit up on in regards to the catholic church. and companies not wait to pay their employees for health care that involved abortion. i do not really see where there is a big issue. governor bush spoke on that, by do not agree with that. also, i do not really think that most americans agree with the immigration reform at all. i think we want the government to enforce the laws that are already on the books. if you really polled somebody, you would find that out. my only other point that would like to make is -- i do not know why evangelicals are on the side

of republicans because they do not believe in helping the poor like jesus christ did. i do not think that the united states can afford to have a republican president a republican house and senate again because we know what disasters happen when those three are in office. host: thank you. guest: you are exactly right jesus christ commennd us to cares for the poor. and that is why you see roman catholics and others caring for the poor out of the religious obligations. where is happening right now is there is a government that is coming in and trying to stop that. in too many cases, the little sisters of the poor are trying to care for and administered to people. you have catholic adoption agencies and evangelical adoption agencies trying to do the same thing who are being impeded and harmed by government action. we see a day when even the idea

of religious freedom is placed in quotes and headlines all of country. that is a dangerous situation to be in. not only dangerous for religious people like myself, but for everyone. if secular progressives cd first amendment whittled away for an issue like this, it will be bad news ultimately for them and all of us. we need to have the kind of open public begin common with our convictions, disagree, but do so with freedom. that is what our country argued about am i baptist ancestors stood up and said we need a government that is not a bureaucrat of the soul. host: william is up next from new jersey. caller: good morning, dr. moore. thank you for having me on c-span. i would just like to make a few

comments. it always astonishes me how some folks stand up and will say jesus would like the poor to be taken care of, but they should read the bible where it says he expects those who can work to work. in fact, it says, if you do not work you should not eat. i understand that some folks can't. let's be clear. let's read the whole bible and not just quote from your perspective. anyway, i wanted to know why some of the candidates have not stood up and endorsed some of the christian values, like ronald reagan did. in their speeches, they may say

you know, the united states is the city on a shining hill, and they may have christian values peppered throughout the speeches, but no one has said this is what i am for and to be clear. i do not want to vote for anyone who is not clear. i need to see someone that is clear. and not be afraid of the politicaly correct police and not say what they mean. host: his thought on some of the candidates. what do you think about them laying out there values? guest: i'm not for some sort of identity politics where the candidates try to see who would be the best sunday school teacher. i think what happens when that takes place, we have a bunch of people pretending to be sunday school teachers, and we do not really know where they are. i am not looking for someone who

knows all the words out of my hymn book, i'm looking for someone who knows about justice and the common good, even if i disagree with that person on religious themes. like a set, the time for generic civil religion that used god and country in ways that were very vague and mushy, i think those days are gone and good riddance to them. instead, what i want our candidates to step forward and say this is what i believe about mobility for the poor, this is my belief about liberty. i think we are beginning to see that and hear that. the campaign is just beginning right now. we have candidates who are talking. i think we have several really impressive candidates who have thought deeply about many of these issues. we ought to pay attention and listen. host: the headline about jeb

bush at liberty -- jeb bush courts evangelicals at liberty. as i feel like sometimes the candidates are according the southern baptists? guest: i think candidates want to talk to various groups of americans and say here is where we stand, take a look at us. i think some of candidates are doing that. i think among evangelicals, the field is wide open right now. in previous years, one could see one candidate who seem to be the evangelical candidate, and i do not think that is the case this year. when i talked to pastors and leaders across the country, they are looking at an entire specter of candidates. i think the field is wide open. host: here is willy in georgia. democrats line. caller: i keep hearing about religion being a tact. your faith is in your heart, not

a conscience. he is saying what other people said. human beings have to have their own faith, not follow man. a man cannot lead to nowhere but to trouble. you have to follow yourself, what is in your heart. all of these organizations, like the man you have on tv now they tell people what they should do and should believe. people are creating things that each human being has in their heart. go back and read what moses said. user two eyes, two years, and heart to see. conscience came from all people. host: ok, we appreciate your

comments. guest: i think this christian teaches very clearly that we have a conscience. paul writes that there is a lot written on the heart that belongs to all people. that is one of the reasons why christians believe we cannot coerce faith. we cannot impede on anyone's religious liberty, including people we disagree with because the heart has to respond personally to god through christ and the gospel. we've not coercive. also, we should not have a government that influences everyone pause conscience. we fight for religious liberty for all people. i think that is clear. the subtext here is very important which is the idea that the freedom of religion is simply the opinions that one has in their heart. that is not what free exercise of religion is. the founders of this country recognize that everyone has a natural right to not only hold opinions but carried a

convictions out in the way that we live. we need a government that hu understands that and allows for that freedom. host: you mentioned the idea of using god and country. there was a piece in the "washington post," an opinion piece, from a woman who was an atheist. it was pointing out that it would be very difficult to be a noted atheist to be elected. in a country that is religiously diverse, how does the southern baptist convention identify candidate that could also appeal to those people as well? you mention and some of your comments. guest: to an atheist? yes. i think there is a candidate that could say here is what i will do. i want to make sure that we have liberties of conscience for all people -- that could appeal to

people of various religions and no religion. i think what we probably won't be able to see is a sort of candidate that would appeal to a militant atheist who wants to secularize every vestige of religion in this country. that sort of candidate would not be able to achieve consensus. host: let's hear from john in pennsylvania. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes. as a republican and a veteran, i have a few comments that would like to make. first, concerning the immigration issue, it seems like mr. moore is saying exactly what president obama is saying. president obama is saying that if you do not like what i propose, then do something about it. the house, as mr. moore has stated, have done nothing on that and they should have.

concerning political parties -- the last political party to oppose a religion was the republican party. their platform was very consistent in opposing mormonism. their opposition to mormonism was not about the 50 wise that brigham young have, it was the age of the wives. concerning religious liberty -- if you go back even before the founding of our country to the french and indian war, i come from a state that was founded by quakers. we were really the example for the united states and religious liberty. the way they handle that -- the quakers had a crazy idea that for words in the bible

"thou shall not kill," meant exactly that. quakers were never forced to take a gun and go out and shoot someone. they were taxed to kill people throughout all of the wars. from the french and indian war all the way to the current wars in iraq and afghanistan. the quakers are host: let's go there. several issues. caller: the primary -- guest: the primary issue that he is raising is one of religious conviction. it means the same thing that we have with the speed of -- freedom of speech, of press. the government has to show a compelling reason why it is violating those natural freedoms and those natural right.

when it comes to for instance the issue of polygamy, it is something that is harmful to public order and the common good. so the government shows why that is the case and passes those sorts of laws. there are people that object to them but it is a compelling government interest to do that. religious liberty does not mean that somehow everyone is free from any law or responsibility. what we have moved to right now is a sense in which religious liberty is missed altogether by the government and by too many sectors in media and culture. host: the house will take on a bill they tried passing earlier on abortion and restricting a woman's ability to get an abortion. guest: we believe very strongly that a human being's dignity and worth is not found in his usefulness but in the image of god. the dignity that is inherent

within the image of god so we work very actively for the pro-life cause across the spectrum. we worked with the legislation that the house has failed to pass. also culturally in terms of speaking with people and persuading people about why human life is worth protecting and administering to people, women in unwanted pregnancies in order to help them find alternatives to abortion. supporting adoption, widow care. we have been very active in that as well. ministering to those women and men who have been harmed by abortion, those who regret the abortions that they have had were paid for. to minister holistically across the spectrum. host: good morning to betty, in boca raton on the democrats' line.

caller: i have always believed that the law of the land comes first. we do not want people being stoned to death, which is burned. it is interesting because i think our health care system is the law. and one way it is kind of scary is because if they want changes, only have to do is make a law and then the law of the land comes first. guest: certainly, you do not believe that the law trumps everything else in the law is the highest value that we have? the declaration of independence tells us otherwise. the constitution tells us otherwise, that there is a higher accountability that we have. there are unjust laws. if martin luther king jr. had taken the position that you have articulated then he simply would've said, jim crow is the

law of the land, let's accommodate and learn to live with it. part of what it means to be free people and free citizens is to say that these laws are unjust. host: betty, do you want to comment? caller: there is a lot of people that might not feel that way. we do not even know if the majority of people feel like the law of the land should be first. i would be -- we would have to be very careful that they do not pass laws that will be really negative. but i think in order to have order in a country we need the law of the land first. like i said, we do not want people doing things because god told them to do it. we have incidents where it is not good. guest: if we had held to that understanding, that law is the final authority and the most important thing, even over human rights and over the human

conscience then we would not have a united states of america right now because people would have said, king george is ruler we will submit to what he says even if it is unjust and not right. the majority does not simply pave over the consciences of everyone else. that is why we have a constitutional system that says that we do not have mob rule, we do not have a majority simply being able to whittle into power simply by the force of numbers what is right and wrong. we respect conscience, we respect dissent. host: on the issue of laws or possibly changing laws, the washington post has a graphic of the changing landscape of same-sex marriage. for the benefit of our folks listening on radio, a large number of states where the law is changing. same-sex marriage has largely been allowed on the west and the east coast and many states in

the south and central plains that do not allow same-sex marriage. i wanted to play some of the reaction after that argument from the attorneys involved. >> today was a fantastic day. these basic issues of equality and family are before the united states print court. -- united states supreme court. there are so many people who helped create this day, but certainly the legal teams, political teams, people in every state who have tried to stand up for equal dignity of gay people because they are part of our common humanity and citizenship in this country as well. the court asked tough questions today. that is their job. we are very happy to be here and very grateful to everybody for having had this opportunity today. last but not least, i need to

say the real heart of this issue is real people who have committed to one another, who simply want to make that commitment a legal one and take responsibility for one another and have that support. that is where we certainly hope this will all end up in the end. >> i think the three key justices that made comments are justice kennedy, number one. he said this is the marriage definition we have had for a millennia. how can we decide better than everyone in the history of the world? number two, justice breyer. he said, why is it that the nine of us get to decide? and you have chief justice roberts who says, if we decide this question it will cut off the debates that people normally have during the democratic process. host: dr. russell moore what are you hoping to hear from the supreme court when they rule in june? guest: i hope that the supreme

court does not decide it will cut off debate on the marriage issue and impose a redefinition of marriage on all 50 states. i think we are dealing with a situation where the real question is, what is marriage? i think marriage is not created by government, it is not created by the courts. it is something that the government recognizes. justice kennedy, in his question , he is exactly right. this is a definition of the union of a man and a woman that has existed for millennia. we have not had the sort of redefinition of marriage anywhere in the world until 2001. is it really wise for nine people to simply come in and redefine that institution, and really 2-d institutionalize marriage in many ways without learning what the consequences will be? host: rural hall, north

carolina. luther on the democrats line. caller: how are you all doing? host: good, thank you. caller: i have a few questions. it seems that your coalition is not the republicans. both as a religious entity, it seems to me that you would be looking forward -- looking toward helping those who are trying to raise the poor and needy in our country. they are trying to take away basically the health care now where people who were not covered can now get help. they are trying to take away -- the cost of education is rising and they are not trying to stop any of these things. they are raising childcare so people at low income cannot really afford to go out and get a job or try to get an education

to get a better job, to move their selves up. it is the top percent. the last thing i would like to say is this -- people's personal relationship with god is their personal relationship. there are some things in the law that you cannot stand but you are constantly criticizing those who are pro-choice. you are criticizing those who go against your religious beliefs. a woman that is pregnant decides she does not want to have a child. if she is killing a child, that is between her and god. host: luther, we have to respond. guest: we are not advocating for republicans, democrats, or independent, we are advocating for principles that we believe a rise out of scripture.

that means sometimes we work with republicans and sometimes with democrats. we are willing to work with anyone who cares about the issues that we want to talk about. we are not weighted to one political party and we believe the politicians will always disappoint us. our ultimate allegiance is not to any political party but to king jesus. i just do not think that is accurate. when it comes to the question of the light issue, it is not imposing my religious believes on someone else to say that we ought to respect the dignity and personhood of an unborn child in the same way that it is not imposing my religious beliefs on someone else when i say that we ought not to be engaged in sex trafficking were we ought not to be involved in torture. it means we are recognizing human dignity. when it comes to the abortion question the ultimate issue is how many people are involved?

if there is only one person involved, you are right. that is the personal conscience of that person. if there are two people involved, we need to stand for the defenseless child who has no voice of her own in order to say that there is a dignity we need to respect, and also for the woman who is involved. in many cases, those of us who have been involved in ministering to women who are post abortive, you have women who are being pressured by predatory men by economic pressures in their lives, and we have to be the ones to help in the minister. host: next is clearwater, minnesota, carol. caller: i came on wanting to say i'm a grandmother of five. i tried to get through. but i did not get through. being a grandmother of five, i

am very concerned about the message that is being told through our government, our leaders who were -- who we are instructed to pray for in the bible. and our church leaders, we are supposed to pray for them every day. how do you pray for people who get up and say that it is ok to steal, it is ok to lie, it is ok to murder? we put people in jail for doing all that. also churches, how did you let abortion people get through to begin with? isn't it true that most of the black people that call in and say that they are not, the democrats are for it -- i am not for a democrat or republican, i am for a person who is honest. i want a person who is honest in office and high morals. i want to get back to the way we thought it used to be.

i do not want our kids home schooled the public schools tell the truth. we pay taxes. i do not want people killed through abortion. there is nothing wrong with that and i do not think you should put people in office who say it is ok to do that. i do not believe in same-sex marriage because it is a lie to say that same-sex marriage, that people should be married as man and man, women and women. host: you said it is hard to pray for somebody who you completely opposed to. guest: jesus instructs us to pray for our enemies, much less those who disagree with us. when you look at what the scripture teaches, the apostle peter was one of the closest to jesus, wrote to the churches and said honor everyone, show kindness to everyone, show respect to everyone, and pray for all of those in authority. the apostle paul says the same thing.

we do not pick and choose, do i like this person, do i agree with this person? we pray for all of those who are leaders. we pray for wisdom, discernment. if we cannot do that we are not being obedient to christ. host: herndon virginia. here is john. caller: i just want to ask guest , as a religious person you need to speak the truth whether the democrats or republicans if they like or not. i, as a muslim, i agree a lot of things about christians. one of them is abortion. one of them is how to control my budget. there are so many things that we can agree with. the reality is we have told

people today to have become an insult in america. when you look at the budget that republicans passed, as a religious person you will not tolerate that some people, we will cut these people whatever they got. health care, for instance. this is insane. i think the christians can do better. i travel to several states. alabama, north carolina, west virginia, people who are the poorest of the poor. host: we will hear from dr. moore. guest: as a christian, i believe we have to care and minister to the poor. the scripture says minister to the poor. the apostle says remember the poor. where we have some disagreements is what should the role of government be in ministering and caring for the poor? christians will have honest, prudential disagreements about whether or not a particular government program actually cares for the

poor or whether it has unintended consequences to hurt. that means we have those disagreements, those arguments. host: you bring up the issue of poverty in your opinion piece more to the point of baltimore and the civil unrest. you write that there is no question that baltimore needs order and restraint, baltimore needs an investigation into the untimely death of freddie gray. government civil society law enforcement, and community organizations must confront all of these. but i would argue that the primary need baltimore has is for the church. what would that look like? guest: one of the things we have seen over the past year is that we often have white people and black people seeing the same situation with radically different interpretations of that. i think one of the reasons for that is because we are not

together, we do not know one another. as a christian i believe the primary place for shaping and forming conscience is in the local church. if you have local churches were you have people reconciled to god and one another, that means they will understand one another and stand up for one another. to understand why the other person sees things in a different way. for instance, i have a good friend who said to me several years ago, every time that i walk into a store have people who follow me around the entire time because they assume i will be shoplifting. i have never had that happen to me. that is never happen to one of my children but that is an experience he has all the time. i would not know that if we were not brothers in christ, if we were not fellowship in together around the table of christ. rather than being divided up by skin color or economic status then you will start seeing that

cohesion and witness that we need. host: one more call from springfield, massachusetts kurt. caller: how are you doing, mr. moore question mark i have several problems with your point of view. i think you are disingenuous. morley, how can you be antiabortion, and the effect that you -- the fact that you want to affect secular law -- your church property should have skin in the game like you want for people to have by paying taxes. you will find a way to rationalize it but jesus did not say kill and he also said, it is easier for a camel to get through the iv needles than for a rich man to get to heaven. guest: i think the caller just wanted to express his anger over who knows what sorts of issues.

when it comes to the questions of the death penalty, christians disagree about the death penalty as it is carried out in this country right now but we would all agree that there is a distinction between the execution of a guilty person and the execution of an innocent person and unborn child has done nothing to warrant execution. the government needs to protect those who are defenseless and innocent. host: do you have a candidate so far that you like in the 2016 race? guest: i do not endorse candidates. i meet with them and talk about the things that we support and that we care about that evangelicals are concerned about. host: thank you being on "washington journal." host: we will bring you -- we will hear from tom martin, the ceo of the american forest foundation on the financial resources and material resources

needed to suppress forest fires across the country. more coming up on "washington journal. " ♪ >> tonight, on the communicators, at this year's consumer electronics show we met up with peter nowak who says we are in a new phase of human development through robots and other technology. >> robots is an especially interesting one because in 2014 i think was the year of robot and asked. i do not know a day went by when i did not see some kind of story about how robots are stealing jobs by humans and we will all and up out of work. you hear stories here is a robot that is a better bartender than humans.

the thing that i find, the point that i think is missed a lot is that every prior revolution or advance in automation has actually resulted in better jobs for humans. we were really worried about the robots taking our jobs and are having a hard time imagining what we will be doing not just 200 years from now but just 10 years from now. i think history has shown that we will figure out a way to combine with the robots to create new jobs again, that were previously unimaginable. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. >> here are a few of the book festivals we will be covering this spring on booktv. this weekend, we will visit maryland for live coverage of the gaithersburg book festival. former senior adviser to president obama david axelrod will be there.

book expo america in new york city, where the publishing industry showcases their upcoming books. on the first week in june, we are there for the chicago tribune. that is this spring on c-span2's booktv. >> "washington journal continues. host: some parts of the country overnight -- guest: we are looking at how your federal tax doctors -- host: he is ceo of the america's forest fire association. we'll talk about the federal efforts and suppressing and fighting fires across the west and all over the country. what does the outlook for 2015, what have you heard so far? guest: the outlook is not very promising.

we have already the stories about how little snowpack there is in the west, we have read about the droughts in california. all of that puts our forest fires at great risk for catastrophic fire. the modeling that the u.s. forest service does that is typically pretty good at protecting, is telling us we will have a tough year. host: let's look at some of the resources that the forest service and other agency spent last year. the total number of fires was about 63,000. the number of acres, 3.5 million. in the forest service and interior department cost together, one at a half billion dollars. when you look back in history, is that a lot comparatively? guest: it has been growing a lot. that did not set a record last year but it was a rather modest year in 2014. over the last decade, the amount

that has been put aside to fight fires has grown enormously. host: your organization is the american forest foundation. what is your principal mission? guest: we work with private land owners to protect america's forests. the biggest ownership chunk is family land owners. it is not these federal agencies. it is families, 22 million people that own about 270 million acres. host: our guest is here to talk about the 2014 fire season and the resources used in preventing and fighting those fires. we are setting aside the lines a little differently. eastern and central time zones should be 202-748-8000. mountain and pacific should be 202-748-8001.

we will look for your comments on twitter as well. back to the issue of private land owners, the largest chunk of forest in the country owned by private land owners. when there is a major forest fighter that may start -- a forest fire that may start in a national park but leaps into private territory, who takes care of that, who does that? guest: it is a joint response. america's forests are a checkerboard. you might have a federal agency that owns forest land with a state agency that owns forest land and individual owners interspersed in between. they will have folks working jointly with state and local firefighters as well. they try to coordinate the response because of the checkerboard nature of the forest. host: is the private landover -- land owner ever liable?

guest: it depends on the state law, what culpability they have good for the most part, these people's -- these people pay their taxes and are contributing toward fire prevention and fire suppression. host: to show you some of the comments of thomas tidwell a member of the forest service that testified in congress about the outcome in fires season -- fire season. >> we are predicting -- there is a 90% chance that we will not have enough money and will have to look at transferring funds. it is really past time and i know some of you are tired of listening to me talk about this but it is past time for us to find a solution and be able to move on and stop this destructive practice of shutting down operations in the fall to be able to transfer money. i think that it is no question that when percent, this concept

of 1% of our fires should be considered natural disasters. last year, the 10 largest fires most costly fires equaled over $320 million, which really tracks what we have been talking about. host: he is talking there about transferring funds. what is going on? guest: it is how we pay for fires on federal land. our fires on federal lands are dealt with by the department of interior or the forest service. congress appropriate some dollars to help fight those fires. most years, those dollars are insufficient to actually fight those fires. you want to protect people's lives and homes, if you can. the forest service or doi if they have exhausted their appropriations authority, they borrow it from other programs to make sure that they can continue

to fight the fires. sadly, since 2002, eight years they have had to borrow from other programs, stopping those programs in their tracks so that they can protect people's homes and lives as they should. we have got to reform that system. host: wall street journal opinion piece by kyle dickman agrees with you. he is a firefighter who fought fires in the west and wrote " congress can start by passing a bill already introduced that would increase the forest service's firefighting budget and require that for each dollar spent for fighting fires $.50 be saved for venting fires. fire borrowing annually cuts into the management of forest fires." guest: i think the philosophy

and approach makes a lot of sense. you take money out of these programs to prevent fires, to put out today's fire and all you are doing is ensuring that the buildup continues and it is more likely to have a catastrophic fire in the future. what happens now, you take it out of those things. this has an impact for a fire in california. you feel the impact in maine. were you are working with the federal government to reduce fire risk their they borrow the money, and it goes to california so it is a national problem. even if it is a single fire in a big state out west, it affects all of us. host: several calls waiting 202-748-8000 eastern and central. we go first to reno, nevada with mark. caller: i was basically

wondering why we were not investing more money in the prevention side of things. it seems that one of the challenges are the various governmental associations that on this land and i do not see strong cooperation between them. guest: refer to -- we started fire depression -- suppression and work very closely together. take a look at the forest service and the impact that this kind of budgeting has had 10 years ago, the fire budget was $600 million. by 2013, that became $1.6 billion so the increasing amount allocated to fire has enough other programs. at one point, it was 13%. look at the early 1990's, 13% is now 50% of the fire service budget.

their ability to respond has been decreased as they spend more and more on suppression and have fewer dollars left to treat landscapes to make sure that they were more resilient against fire. host: gabriel is in durham, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to address one thing that i thought was really important. not all wire -- not all wildfires are caused as a result of human interaction but i really think that a huge issue to look at and consider is the massive amount of additional things and factors that must be considered when you look at the human population in these areas. it contributes to the fires themselves. there is whether constraints and other things but what things are being done at this point to limit things like smoking or people's fire pits or certain things that they do within their

area that would exacerbate a forest fire in the first place? guest: thankfully, smokey bear has been around since the 1950's and has been one of the most successful campaigns in dealing with fire issues. more importantly is we think about reducing fire risk. it is talking to land owners, whether they are public or private, about what they can do on their land to ensure that if we have a fire it is not a catastrophic one. it is not one that puts homes and lives at risk. one of our biggest issues frankly is the amount of people that want to live in a forest. it is beautiful, great views but it puts you at real risk to wildfire. that has made fighting fires more expensive and more critical. we have got to your outweighs to ensure -- we have got to figure

out ways to ensure that family land owners manage their land in such a way to reduce fire risk overall. i am happy to say there are some great efforts going on right now. we are working in oregon with the nature conservancy, talking to public and private land owners about what they can do on their land to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. i think it is efforts like that that one sure that even if somebody does drop a cigarette by mistake or a fire gets away from folks, that we have the ability to have control of the fire, have the fire happened in a way that it does not do lasting damage. host: you mentioned the number of homes that are moving into areas that are more fire prone. the headline in the minnesota host a billion-dollar wildfire season looms with new home sprouting in its path. guest: i do not know the exact

amount of folks. one way is to take a look at private land owners. they often are in that space between urban and suburban areas and big federal forests. if you take a look at how risky is what they are facing, and you look at over one third of those folks who are at risk for cap as far -- catastrophic fire. in that mixed zone between urban and suburban areas and the backcountry, more and more risk to homes, families, and the health of the forest. host: here is philip in newport news virginia. caller: hey, tom martin. i just have a question. you said that there is 22 million people that own that 270 million acres. i'm trying to understand why we have to actually come out of pocket with our expenses when there is 22 million people that own those 270 million acres.

i'm pretty sure they are part of the 1% or's. why are we coming out federally when we already have to pay for medicare and social security, etc.? that does not make any sense to me at all. i am pretty sure they can afford it. what do you think? guest: i think that is a great question. the good news is the federal government pays to fight fires on federal lands. the state and local folks respond locally so we are not paying as federal taxpayers, for fighting fires on private land. we are paying for fighting it on public land. sometimes, those public land fires jumped over onto private land. they start on a public land and go there. i think all of us have a ship -- mistake in ensuring -- a stake in ensuring that if that happens

we ought to step up and help prevent further damage. i think your point is well taken. the federal government should take care of itself. sadly, it is not doing that. it is under appropriating dollars and then when they find out it is not enough, they are taking from the programs that prevent huger fires. -- future fires. i think your point is well taken. host: they cut smokey the bear's budget? guest: no question. host: jodi says, just keep your matches in your pocket california. there is no water to put out the fires. guest: the bigger problem is the lack of thinning that is going on in many landscapes. there are ways to ensure that when there is a fire it is not a catastrophic one, and a lot of

that is removing excess fuel that happens to be in a fire zone. that is the kind of work that the forest service and other land managers public and private, both want to do on their land. unfortunately, the public land managers have a hard time doing it when the fire budget blows through its cap and the dollars come from these projects that would actually fit in the forest and reduce risk. host: bob in st. paul minnesota. caller: this is bob for minnesota. i finally achieved my dream as a retired zookeeper that actually never retired, and got an 80 acre spread north of the twin cities where people could come and see a living zoo, meaning no bars. after a few fires sort of threatened my 80 acres holy cow, i do not know what i will

do because the fire department was quite a distance away and quite small. i'm sure they would try but i ended up chickening out, getting out of there and now i just go around and give programs for kids at schools. host: bob answers the question. is this mostly a west coast concern? guest: it is not a west coast concern. the 60,000 fires that happen are all over the country. for a guy like bob, my family owns 200 acres just over the border in wisconsin northeast of st. paul. so bob, i understand your risk. there are programs that can help folks manage their land to reduce fire risk and meet other goals. there's a program called the american dream farm system -- tree farm system.

80,000 folks in america and 80,000 acres that give land owners information to be better stewards of the land. i would not wait for the fire to start to call the fire department. i would start thinking about it when things are good, thinking about what you can do in your forest now to reduce the impact of a fire, should it happen, to make your forest more resilient against fire. host: lynn is in the high desert in bishop, california. caller: i have a business in the middle of the international forest. they do not manage land like they used to. they have taken away grazing. they have taken away a lot of timber harvest rights. if you fly over the great national of you 70, there is so much dead timber in their -- in there.

when you talk about all the different people that keep you from doing anything, there is a lot of environmental groups out there that do not want the grazing or the timber harvesting so it is a whole problem with land management. they are just waiting until catastrophic things happen instead of managing the land to prevent it. when there is a forest fire, it costs billions of dollars because every single agency within 200 miles shows up. you have sheriffs from whatever neighboring county lines there are, you have the epa come in to test the air quality -- which is completely ridiculous because a couple years ago there was a massive fire and we lived in smoke for about a month. there is nothing the epa is going to do. the way that all these different agencies put their name on these fires to fight these fires, it costs billions of dollars and

the ability to manage the land, to harvest the timber is going away. host: thank you for your perspective. guest: lynn, i agree that we absolutely have to figure out ways to look collectively to help prevent forest fires, to help reduce the risk. we are seeing conservation groups step up and help lead some of that stuff so for instance, in the denver watershed, it is the upper south platte river which is the biggest part of the drinking water supply for denver. i have had some horrific fires there. it has really played havoc with their treatment system. they said instead of fighting a big fire and having that enormous cost, let's work collectively with private and public land managers to treat the forest now and hopefully make the forest more resilient against future fire.

that is being led by denver water, by the nature conservancy, the national resource confirmation service and we at the americas -- american forest foundation are helping do that here at you say confluence of interest between groups public land managers and the companies that have joined them. i think it is that kind of partnership that will give us home -- success in the future. host: how successful have burn management programs been question mar? guest: they have been pretty successful, much in the southeast. we restore the landscape to the lower intensity fires that create habitat for threatened and endangered species, even as they reduce catastrophic fire risk. we see fire use as a tool to

prevent catastrophic fire. there are those kinds of low intensity, prescribed burns that make a difference. unfortunately, when the borrowing habits in budgets like what happened in the fourth service when the suppression budget takes money away from other things, the joint activities between the federal state, and local officials falls off the table as the money is diverted to fight fires. host: let's hear from david in conway, massachusetts. hello there. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think we can all agree that stewardship of the land is very important. also, there is a lot of biodiversity out there that can be used for fuel. we have seen corn being turned into ethanol, and it is a pretty big lobby that made that happen in the 1970's. methanol was an accepted fuel.

we have all of that biomass out there. by thinning the forests we could prevent fires and sell the methanol. i would like to know what you think about getting methanol back on the list of acceptable fuels. the omissions and exhaust are exactly the same as ethanol and this is a big for-profit item. host: clearly if we are going to treat these forest and make the more resilient, it is a lot better for the taxpayer if there is a market for the wood that you take out. in new england, think of all those wood stoves that are out there. incredibly efficient, and you see more and more communities and homes moving towards palletized what. this kind of fitting that we are talking about can provide would for that market -- wood for that market.

not only do they use fossil fuels. some people in new england use bunker oil. the carbon profile of using a renewable resource like trees to burn so much better because you take the tree out, the other trees grow faster. they take up more carbon. where you open a space, new trees come up in its place. host: about 15 minutes left with tom market, the ceo of the american forest foundation. resources used to fight fires, join the conversation at 202- 748-8000 were in them -- were 20 -- or 202-748-8001 for the mound and pacific time zone.

last week the forest service had this to say. >> i disagree with the notion that we simply should move 30% of those anticipated cost off budget because it is convenient or because it creates additional flexibility for pre-spending under the statutory budget caps, paying for one disaster while furthering our current fiscal disaster does not make sense. we need to be realistic about what we can do. we need to deal with the house as well and be realistic about what we can budget for and what we cannot. there is a solution to be found on the issue. i believe it involves flexibility but only after 100% of those anticipated bowl suppression costs have been spent. host: the bottom line, are you looking for these bad wildfires to be treated like a hurricane or tornado?

guest: absolutely. it strikes me 99% of the fires are relatively anticipated in terms of the costs. that's build that into the forest service budget. let's take a 10 year average and put that in the forest service budget. but the catastrophic ones like chief kidwell was talking about the catastrophic ones ought to be dealt with the same way we do hurricanes, tornadoes, and the like. there is a disaster relief fund part of the budget system. for whatever reason, hurricanes are in an fires are not. take the 70%, take that into consideration, and then take the other 30%, put it into the disaster relief fund, use those dollars which are in budget. it is not an off budget expense.

it does not increase overall spending. host: are those under fema's budget? guest: it is about a $12 million to $13 million apiece. fema gets an appropriation out of that. last year it was about $6.2 billion. the rest of it is money that is not allocated yet we can as you do not know whether it will be a hurricane, tornado, or earthquake. we take 30% of the anticipated fire cost and allow the forest service those biggest buyers to take the money out of that. you set a cap. you would not change forest service strategy on fighting fires so you would not create new budget momentum. you would say, fires are a lot like earthquakes, treat them the same. host: let's hear from new mexico chris. good morning. caller: thanks, tom.

i have been sitting here trying to organize my thoughts so i can articulate my point as best i can in the limited time. here in new mexico, we have been in drought for some time. this year is not too bad but in another county just last year, i think the county commissioner took the initiative and took people, private individuals, and stepped onto national forest land and did their job, started thinning. i have been following the issues and it is not resolved yet because the lawyers have gotten involved because the forest service for some reason prefers litigation over cooperation. there are people who wept decided to use their own personal funds and time and resources to go in and do the proper things, then the forest. yet, because their property borders national forest land and to try to prevent a catastrophic

fire they have taken this initiative with the help of the county commissioner. this is still in litigation. can you comment? guest: i can. i would say there is a better model that is out there. i agree on the collaboration coming together to look at a landscape as we make the landscape more resilient against catastrophic fire. i think that is the right way to think about things. i think the right way to work it through is, federal land belongs to all of us and that means thinking together in a collaborative kind of way. you see in many places throughout the west folks that are working together, conservation groups, private land owners that think about how do we have a landscape forest here that gives us all the benefits we want of clean water, wildlife habitat, without the risk of catastrophic fire? that is a very important point. the forest service does not

choose litigation as its first, second or third alternative. it is more likely to be sued by somebody. by somebody who wants to do no cutting or too much cutting for the force. host: next up is richard, in the bronx, new york city. caller: i live in an urban area and when i hear about environmental issues such as forest fires, it seems very distant from me. i find that people in these urban settings are more focused on economic issues, and social justice issues. i feel like sometimes if we were focused on environmental issues we -- our many bickering's would sort of update. i would like to ask you to explain how does something like a forest fire away from an urban

city actually have an impact on people who do not, who live far away? i am assuming it does have an impact. guest: a terrific question. let's think about new york city. let's think about its water supply. new york city brought conservation easements in the catskills to protect your water supply. it is filtered naturally through that forest of landscape that seems far away. but if fires go through like what has happened in denver, in flagstaff, the water utilities suddenly have increased cost because of the sedimentation and pollution that runs off into the collection area for it. that connection is very direct to new york, very clear. host: they just had a big fire in the adirondacks.

guest: exactly. host: harris thomas, next up in aurora, illinois. caller: good morning everybody. tom, first i wanted you to understand that i have been to many, many national forest camping over the fourth of july for the past 10 years. i used to go to the rainbow gathering, and we would do a different forest in a different state, a national forest every year. i used to go out and spent 10 days in the forest and i love that forest. the point i want to make is that forensically speaking, everything is relative. the blessings of quality rain on the forest is crucial, which california and other places are proving. and the abuse that we, and kind, allow the corporations to dump

chemicals into our water systems does affect what goes around comes around, the spiritual reality that god does not give up the blessings of a quality rain. there are natural laws but there are also spiritual laws. what goes around comes around. when we abuse water and allow bp and other corporations to dump mercury and other stuff into our rivers and streams and oceans, god does not give us the blessings. that is a forensic reality. host: thank you for your comment. guest: pretty interesting. he reflects how many of us think about our national forests places to hike camp. when this budget borrowing

happens, where does that money come from? in the last couple years it has come away from environmental cleanup in some of these forests. it has come away from our ability to hike or drive on the roads and experience these things because maintenance cannot be done, trails cannot be made safe. there is a real impact on all americans' ability to enjoy the forest because the budget cap gets blown through. we have to protect those places. we take the money that was appropriated, thoughtfully planned for, and get it somewhere else. host: chief tidwell speaking about the fires throughout the forecast indicates there is a 90% chance that this year's fire suppression costs will be between 794 million and 1.65 7 billion, with the median estimate of 1.22 5 billion. potentially seeing the diversion of other vital programs to

prevent suppression. irish eyes says "it is not the grazing or tree cutting environmentalists oppose. they oppose the destruction of creatures or ecosystems caused by those." another individual, "but didn't national monuments like grant escalante removed the roads into wilderness." "do we currently or should be conditioned forest service timber permits on helping to clear undergrowth and at risk areas? " caller: ♪ the worst ♪guest: the worst thing that can happen to a forest is a catastrophic fire. if we care about the environment, care about the ecosystem we have got to care about trying to deal with this

fire borrowing problem. that is why you get the national rifle association and the cr club both saying the same thing fixed this fire borrowing program -- problem. it is getting in the way of us being able to protect the forest. host: here is a call from 10 in california. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have spent plenty of time of in the whites and i notice that you get the most -- in the woods and you get the most brush growth where the sun hits through the canopy of the floors. the brush will not grow really robustly unless it gets light. this whole idea of thinning, isn't that sort of counterproductive? it seems to exacerbate. when you move into much and get

light and the forest, you cause more brush growth and it is the brush that actually feeds the fires. isn't that true or am i off base? guest: you are partly right. brush can start the fire but the real danger comes when it moves up a fire ladder. it starts low, moves up the brush, then it hits smaller trees, bedside trees, and gets into the crown and canopy of the forest itself is when that happens, quite often you have the worst kind of catastrophic fire that kills the trees, scorches the soil itself, and makes the ability of that forest to recover really difficult. just removing the brush is not going to solve the problem but removing the brush smaller weaker trees in some cases, that kind of mixed approach is the one that is going to provide both the habitat that we want as well as make it more resilient against catastrophic fire. host: tom martin is ceo of the

american forest foundation. you can read more about their efforts. i appreciate you coming by. guest: thank you. host: that will do it for this morning's "washington journal." have a great day. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> some news from the hill. secretary of state john kerry heading to russia for talks with russian president vladimir putin and the foreign