later, we will talk about the release of two videos of planned parenthood officials and the reaction it has had on capitol hill. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. host: the senate is back in today at 9:00 a.m. eastern time for more work on the highway bill. they might be in this weekend as well. funding runs out july 31. they have one more week before their august recess. the president, and route to kenya, with members of congress tagging along, and the national governors association is meeting in west virginia. we will talk to the incoming chair of the national governors association in about 20 minutes. for what is on your mind this morning public policy wise --

202-748-8000 for democrats 202-7 48-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. you can also send an e-mail. first story is from "the hill," "boehner short-term bill likely to shut down -- to avoid shutdown." "lawmakers are expected to leave washington midweek for the month-long august recess, will not return until the tuesday after labor day. that leaves a limited number of days for congress to avoid a government shutdown on october 1. it is clear given the number of days we will have in september that we are going to have to do a continuing resolution of some

sort, but no decision has been made about that. we will deal with it in september when we come back. said speaker boehner, in the house, lawmakers have passed six out of 12 annual funding measures, and considering the remaining bill is currently stalled due to controversy over display of the confederate flag." that is in "the hill." the front page of "the washington times," "the house voted thursday to punish sanctuary cities that shield illegal immigrants from deportation, moving swiftly to crack down on san francisco after 32-year-old catherine steinle's killing this month saying victims deserved justice

and so that victims -- overcoming objections who defended sanctuary policies as good policing who accuse and accuse republicans of exploiting tragedy. the white house vowed to veto the bill. the bill is the brainchild of duncan hunter, california republican, and it was -- it will withhold federal grant money for jurisdictions that refuse to abide by the federal law that requires them to provide information to immigration agents." that is from "the washington times. " republican and democratic leaders in the house have come to a rare agreement. the senate highway bill is looking to be a nonstarter in the lower chamber. house lawmakers in both parties had their shares of gripes with the senate bill thursday, both in terms of content and how it came together, and with days

left before funding for highway projects runs dry, they upped the pressure in the senate to take a house passed short term extension and continue the debate after the august recess. nancy pelosi pushed the senate to pass the five-month extension of highway funding, arguing that the chamber pots efforts to push through a six-year bill are running out of time. with a week left until the deadline, lawmakers are looking at a dwindling set of options. there is a slim likelihood the house takes up the senate bill two chambers could work out a shorter compromise perhaps until the end of september, to buy time for a longer fix after the august recess, or the senate could take up the house bill with a chance it will allow reauthorization of the export bank. a little bit on the highway bill. the first call is lawrence in st. paul minnesota, on our

independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. always enjoy hearing you. there was another tragedy in louisiana yesterday, and typically what people jump toward is more legislation to ban guns. i recall a show that ted koppel did that talked about the illegal gun trade, or the gun trade globally, where 80% of the gun trade in the world is illegal. rather than calling for a band, i would like to see people come up with something innovative such as in middle schools or high schools, partnering with law enforcement agencies, the nra, to educate people on gun safety, the legal requirements for owning a gun. for those who want to learn about using guns, to go to gun ranges. strictly voluntary, because i think we need to recognize the fact that banning things is not

working. but preparing people, taking away the a lower -- taking away the allure may be beneficial to our society. host: are you a gun owner? caller: yes, i and. -- yes i am. i went through concealed carry training. host: why is it important to you to be concealed carry? caller: i think in part for personal/family protection. i have family members who were part of the military where guns are just part of a family tradition, just something, a tradition passed on from grandfather to a goal to myself and to my family. host: beverly is a republican in montana.

beverly, you are on "the washington journal." caller: hi. i want to say about the sanctuary cities -- the federal government already gives them tons of money to work with them and hold the illegal status of convicted violent offenders. if they are not doing it, i do not think they should get the money. the people that want to vote for sanctuary cities, let them support the illegal violent criminals they are letting out of jail. why should the rest of america have to pay and then worry about getting robbed or shot or something? it is horrible that you have to worry now about walking down the street. me and my husband do not even go out after dark. host: beverly, thank you for calling in. josh is in seaside california, on our democrats line.

caller: good morning. the reason i am calling is donald trump was really, really after president obama about his birth certificate. you have ted cruz, we know who was not born here in the united states. why isn't as much hell being raised about him as there was about president obama? host: all right, we will leave that question and go to lena in kentucky, on our democrats line. caller: good morning. the reason i am calling this morning is about the epa. when all the arguments was going on about the carbon in the air and what is causing the global warming, when they was making their arguments, they left two subject out.

one, the rocket ships causing the holes in the ozone layer and two, the airplanes mixing it -- making it toxic in the air like that. thank you. host: lena, are you connected in any way with the coal industry? caller: yes, i am in the heart of coal country. my children have lost both of their jobs because of the epa. host: thank you, ma'am. front page of "the wall street journal," "turkey agreed to allow the u.s. to use airbases to launch strikes against islamic state forces in neighboring syria, a major shift long-sought by washington hours

before a deadly crap -- a deadly lash -- stephen is an independent in ohio. what is on your mind? caller: i think the president should send a message. i think he should send a stiff message to vladimir putin. host: what is that stiff message, stephen? caller: because we are too close to the border, i think it is time for us to do a flyby over st. petersburg. host: eric is in cedartown, georgia, on our democrats line. caller: i feel like the top story this week is african-americans pushing back.

the gays have gotten things, which i have nothing against. the immigrants have pushed and have gotten things. we have to support these issues otherwise they would not have these issues. all this comes back -- all this comes on the back of the civil rights act, which was put in place to protect blacks from what is still going on today. we are terrorized during this time by the same people. i want to finish this about john mccain. people are so quick to jump to the rescue of john mccain. but john mccain voted against martin luther king's birthday as a holiday. we are always talking about freedom fighters, but these were the true freedom fighters in the united states. african-americans fought for our freedom. the united states does not want to recognize this. we were fighting directly against them, and the laws of

the united states. thank you. host: front page, lead story, "new york times," "a broad division over race in u.s. is found in poll."

host: that is "the new york times" lead story this morning. jason from texas, what is on your mind? republican line. caller: just a few comments about the cities and in legislation. those of us that have lived in or near cities such as houston, texas, those of you who have not

been in or near a city like this nearby, the news stories about violent crimes are almost a daily thing. i think mr. trump is speaking on an issue that people living near the cities are familiar with. texas alone in the last year or so, since president obama took office 600,000 or so people who were convicted of a crime were released into the general public, on the street and victimizing people. host: where is marlon, texas? do you see an increase in immigration in your area? caller: just in general in texas, yes. it is a daily thing on the news about drunk driving especially,

and other crimes, and studying how they do not want to mention that they use the politically correct terms like "illegal aliens," when violence is flooding the border. host: keith, what kind of work do you do in marlon? caller: i would rather not say, if you do not mind. host: that is fine. the center for immigration studies has put out a map of so-called sanctuary cities and counties. the counties are marked in yellow, and the cities are marked in red. houston is not marked, which is something we put out -- which is something we discussed this morning. houston is not officially a sanctuary city, but there is a push for it. you can see a lot of iowa counties and a lot of oregon counties consider themselves to be sanctuary areas. a couple cities on the eastern

seaboard. this is an issue we will talk about with greg chen of the american immigration association later on the show. steve in lafayette, where the shooting took place yesterday. republican line. caller: i have spoken to you before in the past, and i will up this morning with the issue in our city. i am very against them going. i know right now in this country , the people are in danger. maybe they do not realize it, but they are. the reason i say that is because we have the economy -- 90% of

the economy is based on oil. what i know from overseas, the oil is going to fluctuate and people will lose their jobs quite a bit. it happened in 1982. the city went bankrupt, and everybody had to leave the city. all these people that lose their job, they lose everything. they lose their kids, everything, and they have nothing to live for. so they have a tendency to pick up the gun, and they go to public places and shoot and kill people. regardless of race -- i am not saying black or white or whatever -- right now maybe the movie theaters, it happened in

colorado and it happened over here, too. it is not only movie theaters. they had malls. the places where people gather the people do not realize. host: steve, what would you like to see done, if anything have to -- if anything? caller: i would like to see something done about the danger going on in this country with isis and all that. the white people can be as dangerous or more dangerous than muslim people. if the people can carry guns in

a restaurant, they can protect them. because a person who wants to do terror is not going to come with a machine gun. the machine gun can shoot 50 people in no time. i do not want to come to the day with a restaurant, somebody comes walking in with a machine gun and kills people. that can happen very easily. host: we will go on to willie, from michigan, independent line. caller: good morning to you. i want to talk about searches thing -- i want to talk about certain things such as discipline. that is the problem in america and maybe around the world. there is a lack of personal discipline and objectives discipline. we have soldiers who are disciplined. that is what they go through. i heard earlier this week

soldiers calling in saying that these guys at these recruitment centers did not need guns because they might go shooting. those guys are disciplined. that is why they are soldiers. they are disciplined. i went to -- i was not in there but i visited a medical facility on a military base. it would not make sense for doctors and nurses to have weapons. but those guys are supposed to be disciplined in how they handle or carry weapons, the same as policemen. i think the military people go through more discipline than a police officer, because a police officer goes through discipline for training. military guys go through

discipline for training, but it is continuously, continuously. why do we have to do these things over and over again? it is not just for punishment, it is for discipline. host: are you a gun owner today echo caller:? caller: no, i am not. but i am not against gun ownership. i am tempted a lot of times to go get one because of certain things that happen in this country. but i am disciplined in terms of restricting myself from doing that, but i think people who create or do things, i am one of those people that do not believe in this people -- i mean, if you

go get a gun, that is a thing that is not believed in personal -- this guy that when in a theater down -- that went in a theater down there and jumped up and started shooting if you are disciplined you would not do those things. host: this is jeff on twitter. "people keep asking why these mass killings keep happening. three words -- guns, guns, guns." and gwb says, "repeal the second amendment, stop the mass killings in america." jason, independent, good morning. caller: i would just like to talk about things that we agree on, and the one thing i would like to talk about, for example

is immigration. i have lived in mexico, arizona and california, and one of my sons i is up mexico, and i speak spanish. one of the biggest problems that we have that we all can agree on is how you people become citizens. we have had so many friends that it has taken them 12, 13, 14, 15 years to become citizens. it should not take that long. it should be the same for everybody to do a through d, you become a citizen unit how long it takes, how much money it takes. you need to get a green card to be able to work. let's work together and do the things that we know how to do and we agree on instead of

nitpicking on this or that, instead of coming together as a country, letting this country turn around again. the economy is turning people. the labor participation rate is the worst it has been since the great depression. it is absolutely ludicrous. but there are so many things with energy, oil, natural gas. we can get people here or from mexico or thailand or vietnam or wherever to work together. but it is just so sad. i talked to a friend today, and she has been trying to become a citizen for 11 years. three or four years ago there was an offensive lineman from our pro football team here who got his citizenship in three months. that is just not fair.

it is not right. host: jason, we have to leave it there bank. thank you for sharing your own experience with us. we will return to open funds and you will have a chance to voice your opinion. at the end of the show, we will have another segment of top news stories and open funds. over in west virginia is the greenbrier resort, and that is where the nation's governors are meeting. gary herbert is the governor of utah and is the incoming chair of the national governors association. he joins us from west virginia. governor herbert, what is the point of all the governors getting together? what are you going to learn? gary: it is the opportunity for

others in the association to network, to share best actresses. the concert -- to share best practices. some of the challenges that we face in learning from each other and seeing if we cannot collectively come up with better ideas and solve some of the problems for the people and make their lives better. host: one of the issues being debated in washington is the highway bill. how does that affect utah? what would you like to see done? guest: well, the transportation reauthorization is in fact an issue that is high on the list for the national governors association since the eisenhower days. we have had a federal component in part for our interstates and highways across this great country, and that seems to be kind of hung up right now. i think most states would like

flexibility with the money that comes back so they have the ability to do with fewer strings and less process, red tape, to get their transportation issues taking care of. clearly the infrastructure of america is in need of maintenance. if not expansion for capacity, as we have growth in our country . i know in utah we are about the third fastest-growing state in america, and having a transportation system that works and functions without having a lot of gridlock is significantly important to our economy as well as our quality of life. we hope that washington can get that worked out and we can give back to capacity and maintaining the existing that we have with maximum flexibility to the states. host: when you see the house passing a five-month extension and the sense -- and the senate working on a six-year bill, do you have a preference? guest: it would be nice to have

some long-term stability and predictability. we put in -- we put in, in utah, a five year transportation plan in place. if funds run out in six months, it is hard to have long-term planning. we do a lot of transportation expansion and maintenance with existing dollars. the federal component is a smaller part. we all put in our gasoline tax money, and then there is a portion back out to the states that will help us in long-term planning. we have to think five years out in advance to make sure that we have the transportation capacity we need to have, in particularly a fast-growing state like utah. host: numbers are on the screen, and we have divided them by our usual political affiliation, but we set aside a fourth line this morning for utah residents -- 202-748-8003.

another issue that has played out for several years now, the affordable care act. what has utah done, and how has that affected you at the state level? guest: the affordable care act unfortunately, has divided the country in a significant way. certainly those who are champions of the affordable care act and those who are detractors. for governors and for myself we have to the cards we have been dealt. however, we got to this place as imperfect as it may have been, we have laws on the books. what we are trying to do is to deal with those laws and find a responsible way for our taxpayers of utah to deal with the affordable care act, particularly the medicaid expansion portion of it. that because of the supreme court ruling is an optional part, and get the taxes we have to pay to fund it are not optional. they are mandatory. for utah, that means we send

$800 million a year back to washington d.c. the question is, how do we take that money back and expand opportunities for access to do good -- too good quality health care? we have an alternative proposal we are working on between myself and the executive branch and our house and senate to see if we can in fact have something even better than the alternative -- excuse me -- the medicaid expansion with an alternative. one that is responsible for ongoing costs. there is a sustainability concerned with medicaid that is a growing part of our budgets. for many states, medicaid has been a budget buster going forward, and we do not want that to happen where it just accelerated problem. we are looking for an alternative to medicaid expansion. we have a couple of proposals. over the next couple of weeks we will have a proposal to present to the department of health.

it is an opportunity to create a new model as an alternative to medicaid expansion. host: governor herbert, for years when we talk to governors from the nga, we have heard about the unfunded mandate. is that a topic that still rings true for governors today? guest: yes, there is always the concern about unfunded or funded mandates. the problem is a mandate. the states are pretty smart, and understanding the challenges of the unique states and the unique regions that they represent. unfortunately, the mentality of washington d.c., tends to be a one-size-fits-all solution depending on the information of the day. there are significant differences. you talked about the affordable care act. i come from the youngest state in america. our meeting ages 29.2 years of age.

my next on neighbor is arizona which has a lot of retirees and senior citizens. the different health care needs for their population in arizona are significantly different than the health care needs of utah. so we need to have programs which are tailor-made for our political cultures, for our unique situations because of our age differentials, and whether it is energy development or transportation or health care, health and human services. there is uniqueness that comes with the state. the states ought to begin a flexibility. when you extract taxpayer money from us as a state, to give it back to us in a block grant form with maximum flexibility, so we can address those weaknesses. we are the innovators, the creators of solutions, uniquely so in all the 50 states and our five territories. host: mike is calling in from springfield, virginia, on our independent line.

you're on with utah governor gary herbert. caller: thank you for giving us the time with the governor in question. the peace talks with iran -- i would like to know if he supports it. is it good for this country to suspend all the peace talks? i think it will bring great peace to the middle east. israel opposed all the peace talks. i would love for them to have their own state and capital, the palestinians. host: governor gary herbert, is

that anything you would like to address? guest: the international aspects of our relationships are dressed -- are addressed by the cabinet of the president of the united states and by congress as well. i appreciate the challenges that they face over there. when i was in israel, i understand the phrase that they said, prime minister benjamin netanyahu, that we live in a very dangerous neighborhood. i think israel is a stabilizing force there. certainly the people involved from a utah perspective are very concerned about the iranian deal . but it is not something the national governors really address. it is a federal issue. we are involved in international trade. we have significant growth taking place in international trade as an economic opportunity for businesses located in our

states, and for opportunities to find mutually beneficial international trade in exchange with countries around the world. frankly, i think that is a good thing. it is tough to deal with your enemy when it comes to economic exchange. but as we deal with people and open up markets out there, we become sensitive to cultures. we understand some of the differences between our cultures in america and others around the world, and we have become friendly. that will help diffuse some of the tensions around the world as we trade economically with other countries. that is the area were governors are stepping forward, is international trade. host: randy, columbia missouri, good morning. democrats line. caller: i have a question. you all are talking about the highways and stuff like that and immigration, illegals coming into this country.

the news media is giving donald trump a lot of problems about his remarks on the illegals coming in. i was a road trucker who drove 30 years over the road. the truck drivers go into these states -- california, utah, all across the west coast to texas and stuff like that. when we go in and have to get the trucks unloaded, and a lot of them are illegal aliens doing the work. and we are having to pay them to do it because these companies are hiring these illegals to work. and everything. host: let's get a response from governor herbert. guest: immigration has been an issue for a number of years and

it is unfortunate we cannot seem to come to a resolution with it. certainly the national governors association would call upon the congress to set aside some of the differences, and sometimes we are too ideological on this issue, and consequently we have gridlock and get nothing done. it is not just a matter of securing the borders. that is part of what we ought to be able to do, secure the borders for a lot of reasons. security of our citizens is the top of mind. but it is not just having a tall fence, it is having a wide gate. we have the majority who would like to come into our country to work, then would like to go back home and are afraid to because they feel like visas will not let them get back into the country. i agree that we ought to have rules that everybody has to

abide by, and certainly the rule of law has to be at the top of our list of things to do. having people cut -- having people cut in line is not fair to those waiting in line. i do not think it is healthy politically for the republicans to not have some kind of a solution and i think as they go into the presidential election, in spite of donald trump and some of his comments, there is the need for republicans to come together with democrats and resolve this issue and make a positive step forward. now is the time. host: house votes to punish sanctuary cities. how do you feel about that, governor? guest: i am not a fan of sanctuary cities. i think when people come here illegally there is a consequence to pay, and the fact that they can go to a safe haven and say i

do not care what the law says and flaunt the laws being directed to them as not healthy for us as a society. everybody in america ought to be playing by the rule of law and whatever that will of law is ought to be applicable. there is blame to go around with the mess that we have found ourselves, the lack of addressing this issue. that is why i say we have got to set aside some of the ideology and see if we cannot come together in enforcing the border, making a gate, a common sense illegal immigration program, that brings pathway to the legal status is not a pathway to citizenship.

host: stacy is in parkersburg west virginia, on our independent line. you are on with utah governor gary herbert. caller: good morning. my question has to do with social security. i am a woman who gets disability . again sf i sns d. i had two back surgeries, and in the process found out i have a mass. i have not noticed anyone, politician wise for president mentioning anything about social security at all. but my question is, is there going to be any changes revolving around the income part of it?

now that wages have gone up for regular -- let's say regular mcdonald's workers? host: i think we got the point of what we are -- of what you're trying to ask. governor herbert? guest: it is good to see that the economy is turning around in a positive way. it has been a long time coming. it is longest recession we have had since the great depression. it is good to see things getting better. my state is really having great success with programs and policies we put in place to help expand the economic opportunity. the economy is going along very helpfully in utah -- very healthily in utah. we balance our budget and live within our means. we do not have unnecessary debt. that is not the model we see in

washington d.c., and it creates significant angst in the marketplace with the lack of pretty stability and the lack of certainty that is causing a lot of capital and entrepreneurs to sit on the sidelines, which means the economy is more sluggish than it needs to be. we have an $18 trillion debt that is growing. right now we have a very low interest rate. we have another significant problem when it comes to balancing the budget. the entitlement programs whether it be social security, medicaid, or medicare, are the biggest and most troublesome parts of the economy as we look at the federal government. we have got to have fiscal responsibility and it is interesting to note, from a state perspective -- and i hearken to the words of james madison -- he said do not worry

about the centralized federal government because the powers given to them by the constitution are few and defined. the powers given to the states are many and indefinite. the budget just proposed by the president to the congress is $3.99 trillion. somewhere along the way we have this thing upside down. we are spending so much more money, many times ineffectively and inefficiently in washington, when the money ought to be kept home for the states to decide what programs their people need to have. this imbalance is part of the problem of your concern with the social security. everybody knows there needs to be some overhaul and reform when it comes to social security.

as a republican, i agree with the safety net issues. we need to help the most vulnerable amongst us and the government needs to have a role. we have so much waste and inefficiency. host: trudy, summerville, south carolina, a democrat. caller: good morning, governor herbert. i am a democrat, but you sound like a very sensible person to me. i believe that what we need to do is to make these hard-working mexican immigrants a part of our society so that they can pay for my social security because i am not getting any younger. thank you. guest: thank you.

again, the undocumented alien challenge, our immigration issue, is not just mexicans. certainly a lot of south of the border, central and south american population is part of it. but we have people coming through the north too, the canadian border, and other parts of the world. there is a right way to come into the country and a wrong way. we ought to reward good behavior and not reward bad behavior. we all know that from raising our children and seeing what took place in our own lives. you do get a spanking if you do not do it right, and you get a reward if you do it correctly. the same thing is true when it comes to the immigration issue. we have got to have leadership in washington, d.c., on this issue. that's also problem based on the rule of law, and that everybody plays based on the same set of rules. if we do that, we will have an

immigration policy that will work. social security needs reform. maybe it needs testing, an increase in the age of retirement. it is not -- it has not changed since fdr. immigration is a challenge, but we hope that congress will come together themselves and work with the president and find a solution to the immigration issue. now is the time. host: jim buck asks, "will marijuana laws be discussed in the meeting of governors?" guest: it has been discussed already, the legalization of marijuana. it has been talked about from a recreational standpoint. there is not a lot of support among the collective governors. some states have that, and they have told us be careful, watch what happens in our state.

do not jump out. one of the concepts in the laboratory of democracy is to learn from each other. we will see how it works in california and colorado, we will decide if it is good or bad and something we want to react to it in our own states. we do not have a one-size-fits-all approach, and we can learn about what happens in these respective states and they experiment in these pilot programs. the idea of medical marijuana is something being explored, something we talk about in my state as a medicinal help for those who can get relief from chronic pain, using marijuana as a medicine. i think the discussion is ongoing. host: robert is in vail arizona. we have just a few minutes left. caller: good morning, governor. i have lived in utah, the place

that i worked -- i have two names. the plant was closed down, and then i asked myself, why did this happen? i looked at your brother, romney, and he got very rich closing down entire industries. it is a colonizing mentality of all republicans. it has been with them for about 350 years. they get very rich, it makes up over very much poorer -- it makes the poorer very much poorer. my plan is near where you are from. what happened, they never rebuilt any of the plant and the corporation got that planned for $.10 on the dollar when it was built on account of -- host: what was the plan?

-- what was the plant? caller: the u.s. steel plant on geneva road, called geneva works. they did not want to abide by the epa rules. i manufactured epa equipment. they did not want to maintain the equipment because it would take time off to be able to do some of the work that was hindering the health of people. the whole thing goes to the idea of what you might say in the first phrase of the constitution, the preamble, it says "to promote the general welfare you guys republicans what you promote is your personal welfare. host: governor herbert? guest: i am very familiar with

geneva steel. i was involved as a county commissioner at the time. the people who took over u.s. steel works spent hundreds of millions of dollars on cleaning up the steel mill based on epa standards. they did it voluntarily without being taken to court. they were not dragged kicking and screaming like some plants around the country, so they were willing to abide by the law. the problem we had was dumping of steel from foreign countries that were being subsidized by the government, and it made it difficult for our steel mill to compete, and eventually it did close, but not because of anything other than subsidized deal -- subsidized steel coming on the market. and because of the cost of meeting the epa requirements. i have a different view on the

free market capitalism system we have. there has never been a better system in the world, where people have been benefited, not only economically but with the quality of life. the best quality of services has been through free market competition. we have people who do get wealthy. that is the american dream, the ability to come in and get started on the bottom rung of the latter and move up that ladder. mitt romney and venture capitalists have been out there find the companies that need venture capital. otherwise they collapse, and everybody lose their jobs, not just some, but everybody loses their jobs. it is good to have entrepreneurs out there. there are fine opportunities in the marketplace, and free market competition, which reads wealth which in terms -- which creates wealth which in turn creates jobs.

it creates upward mobility in america, which is why people want to come here. it is why we are having a discussion about immigration because people want to come to america, where the freedom and ability to be the best you can be still exists. host: another washington issue -- reauthorization of the x or-import bank. -- of the export-import bank. is that something that affects you as the governor of a western state? guest: it is hotly debated. our chamber of commerce is supporting it. folks from selling airlines -- froze -- folks from boeing airlines are for it, folks from delta are not. it is a divisive issue. it seems like the few large companies get the benefit by

subsidizing and propping up and guaranteeing loans in foreign countries for foreign lands. it is not about controversy. we have had it around for 60 or 70 years, and it needs to be reauthorized by those who supported. others think it needs to the done away with, that it is just corporate welfare. i have people on both sides in utah. it is not something that the nga, the national governors association, has taken on as a position because it is so divisive. host: gary herbert is the incoming chair of the national governors association. the current chair is john hickenlooper of colorado. governor, thanks for being with us. guest: thank you. it is an honor to be here. just know that the states are

getting it done. look to your states for solutions. it is better than looking at washington. host: coming up on the "washington journal," later we will talk about the planned parenthood issued, the video and response from members of congress. we will talk about sanctuary cities next with greg chen, of the american immigration lawyers association. this week there was a hearing by the house and senate judiciary committees and jim steinle spoke there, the father of kate steinle, the young woman killed in san francisco by an illegal immigrant. here is a little bit of his testimony. >> everywhere kate went throughout the world, she shined the light of a good citizen of the united states of america. unfortunately, due to disjointed laws and basic incompetence on many levels, the u.s. has suffered a self-inflicted wound

in the murder of our daughter by the hand of a person that should never have been on the streets of this country here and i say this because the alleged murder is an undocumented immigrant who has been convicted of seven felonies in the u.s. and already deported five times. yet in march of this year he was released from jail to stay here freely because of legal loopholes. it is unbelievable to see so many innocent americans have been killed by undocumented immigrant felons in recent years. in fact, we recently can across a statistic that says between 2010 and 2014, criminal aliens who had an active deportation case were subsequently charged with related offenses. think about that.

121 times over four years, an illegal immigrant, a violent illegal immigrant with prior criminal convictions that later went on to be charged with murder when they should have been deported. that is one every 12 days. our family realizes the complexities of immigration laws. however, we feel strongly that some legislation should be discussed, and acted -- should be discussed enacted, or changed to take these undocumented illegal felons off the streets for good. we will be proud to see kate's name associated with some of these legislations. if case law -- if kate's law prevents one death, it will not be in vain.

host: what is your reaction? guest: thank you for having me here today. it is good to be on the program. hearing jim steinle's voice now reminds me of his testimony a few days ago before congress about the tragic incident of the shooting of his daughter. as a father of two children, i think anybody who has family really the american nation is grieving over a terrible tragedy, what happened. i think everybody rightly so wants to do everything we can to make sure our communities are as safe as they can be. we know law enforcement officials, congress has paid a great deal of attention to this issue with two hearings in the past week and one last week. everyone was to make sure our communities are safe. you mentioned sanctuary cities. one of the challenges of acting on what has happened -- and

there have been other incidents where people have been victims of terrible crimes -- one of the challenges is responding to bank quickly -- responding too quickly without covers having the time to think about what is the appropriate response. the house yesterday passed a bill that would effectively take money away from cities that are being labeled as sanctuary cities, and the challenge with these kinds of proposals, like hr-3009, may have unintended consequences that hurt public safety. that is the difficult question and we can support that that we can discuss that more. -- we can discuss that more. it will take away police salaries, equipment that they need. i am not sure that is the right

solution. host: greg chen is the advocacy director of the american immigration lawyers association. so-called sanctuary cities -- did that income from? do these cities call themselves sanctuary cities? host: that is a good question -- guest: that is a good question. the concept has been -- it is important to state up front that i do not think any of these cities or mayors or the law-enforcement officials who have these policies in place are in any way harboring dangerous criminals. the policies that we talk about the ordinances, policies issued by the police or the sheriffs, are intended to ensure that there is trust between all the communities in a city or locality. some of these are counties that we're talking about.

in the past few days, i have seen sheriffs association's, chiefs of police, mayors, saying our goal here first and foremost is to protect all about community residents. to do that, we need to do effective community policing, which in today's criminal justice world means making sure that you are on the streets as police one thing that came up during the testimony in the senate, the senate had a hearing on tuesday is a domestic violence advocate from washington state. she is an expert who has been working in this community supporting actual victims of domestic violence. she said, this doesn't make sense. to have cities -- city residents be afraid of reporting crime. she actually gave an example of a young girl who was living in colorado at the time at the age

of five. she had been sexually abused at the age of five. her parents were undocumented and people in the community told her, hey, don't go to the police. don't report this crime. unfortunately a year later that same person assaulted someone else. finally after that incident her parents decided to have her report that crime. the perpetrator was later arrested for it. this points out what happens when communities are afraid to go to the police and to explain what happened as a victim. police, law enforcement officials have really come out and say, don't do things like hr 3009. don't punish cities for trying to be sure they have a trust in the community. host: two tweets that are semi-related. the numbers are at the bottom of the screen in case you want to participate. marie says that the department of justice is sleeping at the wheel.

we need criminal illegal aliens deported and held in prison in their own country. and jim says, well greg, if the funds is into doing their job, taking away their money seems fair. guest: so, i hear a couple of issues come up in those questions. one, there are so many unanswered questions. particularly in this recent shooting of miss steinle in san francisco. this individual, the allegedly perpetrator, was reported several times. our laws are extremely strict with respect to individuals who have violent criminal backgrounds. those people, under our laws should be deported. in fact, he was deported several times. each time he came back. apparently he was picked back -- picked back up and we prosecuted. questions remain as to why he was released from custody a few years ago and happened to be on the streets of san francisco.

i understand that members of congress have issued letters to federal authorities asking for more information about what happened. i think we deserve an answer to that as the american people. law enforcement officials around the country want to know, was there something that happened that was a mistake. clearly that individual should not have been walking around on the streets of san francisco. are these -- host: are the so-called century cities breaking the law? guest: i certainly can't speak to every case that has been labeled as such. what i can say is that there are hundreds of cities that have stick -- taken steps to issue policy or local ordinances that say we are going to be very careful about when we share information, or whether we detain somebody who has an immigration background. because we want to make sure

that as law -- local law enforcement, we are not compromising our most important primary mission of protecting all of the residents of our community. the chief of montgomery county maryland was here testifying in washington, and he made statements that were very much along this line. saying, look, if you accept the role of immigration too much with law enforcement -- local law enforcement, that will compromise and have the unintended consequence of hurting our communities because people do not want to report crimes. i don't think he is saying he is not going to do any of that work at all. in fact, maryland's montgomery county does cooperate quite a bit with the department of homeland security. but he is saying there has to be balance. it is achieving that careful balance that local law enforcement officials really have a tough task. host: greg chen, what does the american immigration lawyers

association advocate when it comes to immigration and immigrant rights? guest: the american immigration lawyers association is a private association of about 14,000 immigration lawyers. we work with just about every aspect of immigration reform and law as it comes up. there are families who wants to bring their loved ones here, people getting married. there are businesses that need workers in just about every possible field. and also people who are seeking asylum here. it's every possible gamut. our role is usually not in the criminal world at all, that it is with respect to what is good immigration policy. the most important legislative national policy that we would like to see changed is reform of our immigration laws in a way that is broad and copperheads of. we have -- and comprehensive. ever since the lawyers

association has been in existence we have worked for reform. most recently in 2013 we worked on the senate side to get a bill passed. it was not a perfect bill by any means, that we supported the bill because it dealt with each aspect. the business aspect, the family aspect, enforcement aspect, asylum and humanitarian aspects. addressing the immigration laws broadly is really the only way now that we can make sure that reform gets done. there are so many different elements of this. people will advocate for building a higher fence, that has been called for. there are reforms that need to be done in that regard, at building a higher fence will not necessarily remove the problem that we have, that is the need for more visas here in the united states. families want to bring their families and. that is what aila supports.

americans in poll after poll have shown they want to have immigration law were formed. it's like the tax code. it has not been reformed in years. it has really been about two decades since there has been a major reform. americans understand that the system does not work as well as it could and it keeps people waiting. we have a large unauthorized population, and americans support, by about two thirds -- even more than that, 70%. we need to have some sort of legal status for this population. americans recognize that most of the unauthorized population that are here are living and working in our productive members of our society. we want to make sure that they are legalized in our country. that they are registered, and people know that they are here. host: we have set aside our fourth line this morning if you are an illegal immigrant, and on. -- and undocumented alien. (202) 748-8003.

let's begin taking some calls. joe was in los angeles. joe is a republican. caller: this is on the list of sanctuary cities, los angeles. i can tell you the first thing we should think about is american citizens, and not illegal alien rights. what is happening is that the sanctuary cities are arresting illegal aliens on low crime misdemeanors. it could be anything. just take the example of shoplifting or car theft. something that is a misdemeanor, not a felony. property crimes. then homeland security cleans out on these people. what the city of los angeles does, is that these people can be let go into the streets. they can be brought back into society. what needs to happen is we should basically draw the line and say look, we don't care if

it's a heinous murder or if it's a property crime. you should be treated equally. if homeland security put the detainer, whether you are a shoplifter or a felon, it does not matter. you are just deported. host: joe, thank you. let's leave it there. guest: that's a very thoughtful question that the caller raised. i would respectfully disagree that there should be the same of punishment, or the same consequence for somebody who has a low line offense, like shoplifting, or something very serious, like murder. the principle of our criminal justice system is that punishment should be proportional to the crime. if law enforcement were to impose the same kind of punishment on somebody who had committed shoplifting, it just would not make sense as for murder. an example that i will give here

is, there already are very strict laws that pretty much are you from being able to stay in the united states if you have committed a very serious crime. we have a term called aggravated felony, which is from the law books in congress. it was passed in 1996 and it continued to be added to. that definition actually encompasses many misdemeanor offenses. in that regard it means that our immigration laws are already very strict in respect to people who have committed any kind of offense. that should give cut -- some context for what we are talking about here. host: jack is in north providence, on our democrats line. caller: i just wanted to say that my ancestors settled in upstate new york. a were from germany. they can't -- they came here from germany.

they came here as tool designers. then some of them moved on further into the iowa. , and then some -- some of them moved into iraq, -- into iowa and then further into texas. my point is, it doesn't matter to them. immigrants, legal or not. because of cheap labor cost. top 10 credo mentioned this and he is absolutely correct. the elites in new york and los angeles wants this because they can get cheap labor. this ultimately depresses wages. one final point. i would like to ask the gentleman of question. what is mexico's policy on immigration? if you want to go into that country? what is china's policy, mainland china? what is their policy concerning

immigration? for example, the korean peninsula, if someone wanted to go into china? what is their policy? host: thank you. a lot on the table there. guest: there were a couple of questions that the caller raised. i actually don't know what china -- you mentioned several countries, i don't know what their policies are. it is fairly safe to say that the united states has one of the best immigration policies to begin with. it is a very open policy, i don't mean open borders, but it is a very strong policy and we welcome immigrants. we are a nation of immigrants. i think that is something of pride to american people. with respect to the second question that he mentioned, he raised concerns about what happens with labor and depressing of wages, there have

been many studies done about the impact on wages for immigration reform. the most recent study that i am aware of was done in 2013. the impact on the economy of the senate reform bill that passed in june of 2013. in fact there has not been evidence showing that nationally, the wages of american workers would be depressed by an immigration reform bill. across industries or localities, there might be variations. but in a general sense that is not completely accurate. across the board in the economy, immigration reform is told -- shown to have an incredibly positive impact of growing the economy at the order of billions of dollars added to the gdp. that overall health our economy grow and health workers and helps americans. host: lauren tweets and, that

both misdemeanor and felony are irrelevant. a are here illegally and must go. kathy, montgomery texas, good morning. caller: sanctuary cities are breaking the law. they are here -- protecting people who are here illegally to begin with. the leaders should be jailed. i mean the mayors, the chief of police. whoever it is who is helping isis. they need to go to jail. the other thing is could you please tell our president barack obama, if he could call this timely family -- the steinle family and apologize for his failed policies? you sound ridiculous. guest: so the first question that the caller raised is the

issue of sanctuary cities. i think she said that they do break the law. i think what we are seeing happening here with these cities that have policies that are designed to build trust with the communities, they are trying their best to balance. first of all, their primary goal, of trying to ensure that all residents are safe. that is really the primary goal of local law enforcement. one policy or program that the department of domestic security began many years ago is called secure communities. that was a program that first of all, requires the gathering of information by localities and the sharing of that information electronically, with the department of homeland security. they can basically check on anybody who is booked into a city or a local jail to see what their immigration status is. another component of that secure communities program is 70 who is

of interest to the federal government, immigration authorities, is they can put something called a detainer. that is a request to the local government that they hold that individual. one challenge to communities is courts across the country. many courts have said, asking localities to hold somebody and deprive them of their liberty without a judges weren't, -- warrant is unconstitutional. it violates the fourth amendment. i think americans can understand that the constitution, and basic liberties, are something we want to be very careful about. we don't want to take that away from anyone living in our communities. cities are wanting to make sure that they do not break the law and violate the constitution when they engage in activities that are related to immigration. that is one real legal question that is found in our constitution.

cities and states are very careful of that right now. host: sandy beach tweets and. mr. chen, explain why it is acting to quickly enforcing cities like san francisco into federal compliance with laws their breaking? guest: the question that the person who wrote in is asking, first of all, i think it is important right now -- i'm actually from san francisco and i worked in san francisco representing children. most of them were immigrants. my heart goes out to everybody who is a san francisco resident that is just reeling from the incident there. i think nationally it makes sense that we are asking this question. we should demand urgent action. but we should be demanding response and answers to what happened in this tragic incident . i think the difficulty of the thing right now, that the city of san francisco or any other city should be mandated to do x

y or z, is really rooted in some of the statements that the chief association -- the law enforcement task force that many sheriffs are part of, that works on him -- immigration. many cities have submitted statements about it. they are saying look, we think that talking to federal immigration authorities makes a great deal of sense. but we have to do it within the boundaries of the law, and we also have to make sure that we are doing it in a way that protects our communities and does not have unintended consequences of actually hurting community safety. as i mentioned before, hr 3009 that the house passed yesterday would take away funding from cities like san francisco that the law would deem to be not in compliance with federal immigration law.

it has provisions i could talk more about. the problem with that bill that passed is that it would take away funding for police salaries . it would take away funding for things like proof best. -- bullet-proof vest. that does not help anybody when it comes to protecting our communities. host: lauren is calling in from left, florida. she is calling on our illegal immigrants line. good morning. what's your story. caller: i'm sorry. i don't have a story. i did not know this was the illegal immigrants line. i have a point, i would like to make two. right now it seems like illegal aliens are being vilified. my point is, they are here or they are coming here because a beacon is held in front of them

-- jobs. why isn't the spotlight put on companies. construction companies landscapers, the agricultural community that are more than willing to employ these people. low wages. sometimes no wages at all. they have no protection under the law as far as how they are treated in the workplace. if they become hurt they have no protection. one other thing, i feel so very sorry what happened in san francisco, but we have mass murders taking place. charleston, just lately in louisiana. whether it is a citizen or -- of the united states or an illegal immigrant, when you are

shot or killed you are just as dead. my question is, why aren't companies about are so willing to employ these illegals, why isn't the spotlight shone upon them? who are they? host: all right laura, thank you very much. guest: i heard it too kind of questions there. first about dealing with the tragedy in san francisco, and also about companies that are engaging in -- it sounds i caller is conference earned -- concerned that they are engaging in abusive practices. first of all there are things being done by the federal government to make sure that abusive labor practices are stopped. they do conduct audit. they do investigate companies. but is absolutely something that needs to be vigorously enforce. with respect to laws that would address this issue, it is important to note that many of

the workers that the caller referenced are currently unauthorized in many divisions. there is about 11 million estimated unauthorized illegals living in the united states. many of those are working. by making sure that those individuals are legalized, that it comes to the attention, are registered with the federal government, those people will not be afraid to come forward and report data or abusive labor practices. that is one really important thing about individuals who are currently unauthorized. letting the legalized and take that step. the second set of issues that the caller raised, she talked about -- she did not use this word, but it brings to mind the concern about -- any community where there is a real violent

crime like this. there is a focus here on protecting all of our communities. what is public safety? what is the correct answer as we try to make sure that all of our communities are safe. there are people who have called for very severe punishments for people who are immigrants. aila thinks that people who have committed violent crimes, those individuals should have strong confidences to their behavior. but let's not apply that kind of punitive, extreme response to everyone who is here. host: greg chen, that seems to have struck a vein. -- donald trump seems to have struck a vein. guest: he has made numerous comments about immigration. i think that the proposals he has suggested, the comments he has made, we need to be very careful as we look at what has happened in the aftermath of this incident not to target any particular community.

local law-enforcement officials have said, they want to make sure that they are protecting all of our communities. it is just a very dangerous thing when we start trying to address a tragic incident in a way that damages one community or individual. host: johnny is calling in from albany, georgia. a democrat. go ahead. caller: i would like to address some issues. like yesterday, donald trump goes down to the southern border and is talking about how high the fence should be and how wide it should be and who should pay for it. well it seems like we've got all kinds of immigration laws. it seems that the canadians are not required to do with the mexicans are required to do. we don't have no fence. donald trump don't go up there looking. it just don't make sense.

if we are going to have a law and offense, we should have it on both north and south ends of america. only difference i can see is that at the northern border we've got cocaine jens, -- caucasians, and that the southern border we got brown skinned people. that's a problem for me. i just so happen to be a man with an african-american mother and a cherokee father. all my ancestors on my father's side were cherokee indian. they had a right to be here more than anybody else. we've got to start making laws for immigrants, we should have the same laws throughout the world. i thank you for listening to me. host: mr. chen? guest: i appreciate the caller's comment. when i heard him saying was that there is a disparity between the fence and supportive policies in

canada as opposed to mexico. that's true. there is about 700 miles or more of fencing along the mexican border. there really is not any border along canada. there has been more attention paid to canadian ports of entry, and i think many members of congress are calling for a greater resource for people coming across as ports of entry. one reason for that disparity is that there are in fact, any more mexicans who are coming across the united's -- to the united states without proper authorization as compared to canadians. that's the means -- reason for the disparity. generally, does it make sense to increase the building of borders fencing at all? we have seen a much greater expenditure of funds in border

enforcement. border protection has had dramatic increases in their funding in the past decade, more so than in any previous decade. one thing that has been shown is that well he can decrease and have some impact on illegal immigration, in the end if we don't address other aspect of our illegal immigration system, building a higher fence and putting more border control on the fence. now we have over 21,000 border controls patrolling the southern border. that is not going to address the nation's need with respect to immigration reform. host: as you are tweets, illegal aliens accounted for nearly 37% of federal offenses -- sentences last year. have you heard similar figures? guest: i'm not sure exactly what the caller is referring to. maybe just one statistical reference that i can provide is

that the number of prosecutions for -- there are two federal crimes. most crimes are at the state level. people who are convicted for crimes at the state level, but there are also federal crimes. there are two federal crimes for a legally or illegally reentering the country. what has happened is that prosecutions for those offenses have risen dramatically. a report that came out from the pew center about a year or two ago said that the most dramatic increase in federal criminal prosecution is in these two categories. and in fact, the south southwest border u.s. attorneys who prosecute these crimes really have their tasks cut out for them. we are doing most of the prosecution. i don't know exactly what the caller was referring to, but that is one way to reference. it shows that prosecution for

illegal entry has been very aggressive. host: from south carolina on our independent line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. as americans i think we are just tired of the laws being ignored when it comes to immigration. the constitution does not bring it up. you have someone like donald trump who does, he becomes the villain and everybody goes out against him. i'm not really for donald trump but the issues need to be raised and the laws need to be upheld. that's my comments. thank you very much. guest: i can certainly agree with you, your comments about the need for laws to be upheld and also our laws to be reforms. americans generally, in poll after poll, look, immigration law is not working which should.

we need to really take a good look at it to make sure our laws are reformed so that it serves the interests of our economy. helps businesses, helps families helps our communities. that is a frustration of mine personally, because i have worked with many different members of congress in. in 2013 the senate passed the bill that would have overhauled our immigration law, but that was not taken up the house. we really need to see our laws be reforms. that is something that aila very much support. host: greg chen is with the american immigration lawyers association. we appreciate him being on the washington journal this warning. guest: thank you for having me. host: the organization planned parenthood receives money every

year from the federal government. as you well know, there is some controversy regarding a video that was shot sort to -- shot surreptitiously of one of their directors. congress is looking into this. we are going to look at this next with sarah ferris of "the hill" newspaper. >> it's almost as if they were matter or antimatter. >> freedom breeds in equality. >> he is to the right and almost always in the wrong. >> anything complicated confuses him. >> filmmakers robert gordon and morgan neville talk about their documentary, "best of enemies."

about the 1960 a debate between berkeley and corbett all -- gore but all -- gore vidal. it was very unlike today. >> today i believe there is someone saying, the numbers are dwindling. talk about hot topics. hot salacious topic number two. then a i don't think that was the norm in tv at that time, and i don't think these guys needed that. >> and he mentioned, the moderator, a distinguished news man. i think he was really embarrassed by this. he was moderating, but he does appear as for five or more minutes at a time. today you would not have a moderator not jumping in every 30 seconds. i really think everybody at abc just stood back and let the fire burn. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern

and pacific. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house congressional hearings, and news conferences. bringing you events that shape public policy. and every morning, "washington journal" is live with elected officials, policymakers, and journalists. and your comments by phone, facebook and twitter. c-span, created by american cable companies. "washington journal" continues. host: sarah ferris is a health care reporter with "the hill" newspaper. how much planned parenthood does -- money does planned parenthood get from the government every year? guest: about $12 million.

they do receive money from other foundations as well. host: where does that 500 million from the federal government go? guest: it goes to services, contraceptive services. it cannot go towards abortion. that is the big hot button issue there. there have been a lot of cases to make sure that is the case. democrats and supporters of planned parenthood are very quick to talk about the services that planned parenthood does provide. they want to stress that it's -- it does several cancer screening, mammograms. day-to-day women's health. host: how can they prove that that money is not used for abortion procedures? guest: it's very difficult. that's a lot of money. there are hundreds of clinics across the country. but each clinic is instructed not to use these funds for abortion.

for as long as that stream of money has existed there have been republicans who say they are not using it correctly or that there is no way to prove that it is not going towards abortions. this is one of the reasons that this issue has never faded from capitol hill. it is very difficult to prove that. host: because of the video, we're going to show you a little bit of that in just a second -- but because of that video that was shot, is that federal funding of planned parenthood in danger? guest: there is a lot of debate on that. there are certainly republicans who want to put it in danger. there are dozens of republicans in both the house and senate now that are pushing to defund planned parenthood of all its federal funding. we could see both on that as early as next week as part of a highway bill. we could see that on the senate appropriations bill this fall. there is definitely going to be a new fight over planned

parenthood because of these videos. host: let's watch some of this center for medical progress's video. [video clip] >> if i were to throw a number out, i would say it is probably anywhere from $30 to $100. >> that's per specimen that we are talking about, right? >> how much difference but it actually make if you know kind of what is expected? >> it makes a huge difference. for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance.

most of the other stuff can come out intact. host: sarah ferris, you've seen this video. is this a pr disaster for planned parenthood? guest: it is. these videos are highly damaging regardless of whether they are highly edited. that is that planned parenthood is saying. they're saying there was more than an hour of the meeting that was condensed into about an eight minute video that purports to show that they are profiting and are haggling for prices over fetal parts. such as liver, heart, lungs. this is something that, while it is very legal to have fetal tissue donations, it is not something that the general public or congress want to talk about. this is something that whenever this comes up, it is going to

raise really uncomfortable questions from people who may identify as pro-life pro-choice. this is something that people do not want to talk about. there are videos that show planned parenthood officials buried candidly discussing these graphic procedures. it is not good for planned parenthood. they have tried to respond very strongly. they are putting out a new statement every day saying this video was deceptively edited. there are pieces missing from the conversation. but you see one of planned parenthood's top official here discussing their gravity indeed -- in detail, over a lunch meeting. many of us see it as a disturbing conversation. host: is it legal to sell -- you talk about fetal tissue, to sell body parts in a sense? can they sell them at whatever the market will bear? guest: it is not legal to do

what the group is alleging, which is that planned parenthood is profiting from fetal tissue donations. this video is a meeting between the planned parenthood official and actors who are posing as a medical research buyers. they are saying, how much would it cost us to obtain these fetal tissue parts. she is answering at the cost of the procedure, what with the reimbursement the, which is then taken to be how much would -- should we pay you for these? if that was the case, that there was a transfer of money, that would be against the public health service act. that is where the investigations are focusing right now. is planned parenthood profiting from the transfer of fetal tissue which is legal, except

any organization doing it is not allowed to make a profit. host: here is the founder of from her head, -- planned parenthood, one of her responses. http://twitter.com/cspanwj[video clip] >> recently, a group that opposes legal abortions released a video that makes accusations that are not true. over our 100 year history we have continually engaged leading medical experts to shape our practice, policy, and high standards. our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. in this video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. this is unacceptable, and i personally apologize for the

staff member's tone and statements. who was that staff member -- host: who was that staff member? guest: her name is sarah new controller. she is licensed to perform abortions. she has been reprimanded. she has not gone into details about what that means, but from what we can see she remains in her position that she has definitely been at the target of a lot of the firestorm. host: that video was shot in a way? -- in l.a.? guest: it was. host: who is the center for medical progress? guest: that is actually a name that a lot of people know. although david is only 26, he

hasn't been involved in a lot of controversies involving planned parenthood. back in 2011 he was involved in another video. he has worked for a long time to advance this caused which is to defund land parenthood. it is to expose what they see as wrongdoing, which again planned parenthood denies. he has been -- he is featured in the first video. we can't see his face but he is one of the people in the meeting. he says he has thousands more hours of footage. host: did i say his name right? dalieden? guest: i believe so. host: smitty in atlanta, on our republican line, is our first call. caller: c-span, i am a little

bit ashamed of you because you have not done your homework. there are now two videos out not one. and it shows the same callousness to life as the first one did. this one says that planned parenthood does mammograms. planned parenthood was shown years ago not to do any mammograms. their main industry is abortions. now all of a sudden they had to admit that they get fetal tissues, they get hearts they get livers, they get lungs. anything else that you would find. this one woman that you are sitting -- seeing in the video she is sitting there callously talking about killing infants in the whim. -- in the womb. because they are infants in the womb. this is what you saw in it nazi

germany. they had people they thought were not worth keeping around. we have had abortions in this country of what are viable babies in the womb. these are babies in the whim. host: are you active in the antiabortion movement? caller: i've been active to the point of donating a fair amount of money to organizations that are not antiabortion, they are pro-life. they left the call them anti-abortion. they are pro-life. they don't want to kill these babies in the womb. these people at planned parenthood have no problem with killing infants. they have no problem killing babies just days before they are supposed to be born. it's alive, viable baby when they crush the skull and suck the brains out. whatever these pastors do.

excuse my language. host: sarah ferris? guest: as the color point out, there are two videos now. this is really damaging for planned parenthood's reputation. if you are watching this and you are following the claims from these groups, again it shows high-level planned parenthood officials discussing the cost. she jokingly refers to, you know, i'd like a lamborghini. these things are very damaging to planned parenthood's reputation. it has prompted another set of apologies from planned parenthood. host: i think i read yesterday

that planned parenthood does 300,000 or more abortions and year about one third of all the abortions in the u.s.. guest: that's a number that i would need to look into a little bit more. there are so many statistics going around, depending on what you are looking at. this is a very difficult issue to track, and the government data is not readily available. host: has there been any bill introduced, any action in congress at this point has of these videos? guest: there has been a bill read -- reintroduced by diane blackwell, a republican from tennessee. she has been one of the leaders of the congressional pro-life caucus. she introduced her bill on tuesday. it now has a companion bill in the senate from a republican from oklahoma. they are working together to get a vote as soon as possible on this bill, which would impose an immediate more -- for a tory and on planned parenthood for

one year. they are hoping the federal government will investigate. the future for those bells is not exec the clear however because speaker boehner said yesterday he wants to see a full investigation before pursuing. it's not clear trajectory. host: from brass creaks, michigan, a democrat. thanks for holding on. caller: i've got two quick questions. one, do you have any more information on the organization that did this year? are they registered as a nonprofit? how many employees today have? when with a founded? where do they get their money? is this just like a guy doing videos? the other thing is, is there any crime or any violation? she was talking i thought in general terms about organ donation and the possible had

you say, -- how do you say coverage of cost for shipping. but is there any alleged crime? is there any crime that has been committed? is there any evidence or crime? host: thank you ralph. guest: there is not that much information publicly available about the center for medical progress, which is the group behind these videos. they have several prominent antiabortion activists including david delayed in -- deleiden who is again at the one asking questions in a hidden camera meeting. they are registered as a nonprofit in california, and they have been name called by democrat from california and across the country to investigate that status. that would again, make them

tax-exempt in that state. as for the other question, whether there is an alleged crime by planned parenthood republicans and antiabortion activists who watch these videos say that there is enough evidence to show that planned parenthood is making money from fetal tissue donation. but again, planned parenthood and its defenders have come out and said these are selectively edited videos and the money that they are talking about is just compensation for the procedures that would then go to benefit medical research. planned parenthood president seceded -- cecile richards have said it is a life-saving procedure. she says the women who opt to donate feel tissue from their abortion donate to a life-saving issue. the evidence, it's a murky situation. there are planned parenthood officials reportedly saying these things, again the videos have been edited.

you can see the full hour plus footage online, and you can see that they are edited. the department of justice has said that it will investigate all information that is available. it is unclear whether that will lead to a full investigation. host: have you watch the full video, sarah ferris? guest: i have watched a good amount of the hour-long video of the center for medical progress put out in a response to planned parenthood. they came out and said this has been deceptively edited. it we want you to release the full footage. within a day that was out there. host: does it change the tenor of the video when you watch the full video? guest: it does. there is important context that is left out of the video. you can hear the officials saying, we are not profiting from this. this is not going to be, they are not talking about leftover funds going to benefit the

organization. for the second video, the one released on tuesday, one of the actors from -- posing as medical buyers, actually offers $1600 for a fetal part. the organization turned it down and says that is an unprecedented number. that is an important detail. they are not jumping at the opportunities to take this exorbitant amount of money to receive this fetal tissue. host: what is the current federal law when it comes to using federal funds for abortion services? guest: federal funds cannot be used for abortion services at all. that is stipulated under the hide amendment which is attached to the budget process every year and has been for decades. republicans and democrats have

always argued about this. democrats say that as republicans are continually trying to apply the hyde amendment to more situations. we have seen some important legislation on the hill recently. if you're ever earlier, in january, the senate attempted to pass a humid -- and anti-human trafficking bill. the indications for the hide -- hyde amendment was very significant. these are decade old issues. these planned parenthood videos are really threatening to bring that back into the spotlight. host: these issues were raised by both speaker boehner and his democratic leader pelosi at their weekly news conference of yesterday. [video clip] >> i've seen these two videos. they are gruesome and i think

they are awful. that is why they are doing an investigation. i expect that we will have hearings, and the more we learn the more it will educate our decisions in the future. >> planned parenthood has said that they have done nothing illegal, they have not ever been charged. they have only used, only had the frayed -- defrayed the cost of mailing it to someone, which is not breaking the law. i support what my colleagues are doing. everybody is calling for an investigation. let's have an investigation of those people who were trying to ensnare planned parenthood in the controversy that does not exist. just look at the disparity which is some of our members have here completely between the actual filming and the edited versions

of -- that these other people have put out. host: sarah ferris? guest: i think that both of these briefings yesterday -- attended both of these briefings yesterday. it is very clear, especially from speaker pelosi's remark that she is intending to bring politics into his issue. it is very damaging for democrats to talk about these issues. regardless of how they are edited. leader pelosi is very clearly bringing this right back to the repeated attacks by republicans against planned parenthood. she is saying later on in everything, she says her publicans would rather defund the government then plan -- fund planned parenthood. she says their are manufacturing a crisis but she says does not exist. she is very clearly trying to paint the issue as a political issue, not as people who have been -- who say at the human

rights issue. she is trying to turn it back to the abortion debate. host: mark from st. paul, minnesota. on our independent line. caller: thank you for your time. the first thing i would like to talk about is dr. mary gather -- gatter who was the person on the second video. who is she, i would like to know? she refers directly to planned parenthood knowing about what is going on. i may have been taking it out of context. also i have not seen the full, unedited video. also, i think we definitely need to go into heavy probes instead of just saying let's defund them out right. we need an exhaustive investigation in my opinion. also ms. pelosi seems very dismissive in that last video. i think it would be a bad thing

not to look at every single person involved, both sides. i would just like to hear your thoughts on the matter. thank you very much. guest: so to address your first question, dr. mary gatter is a high-ranking planned parenthood official. i don't know her exact title but as you can see she is taking meetings with medical buyers to discuss fetal tissue. obviously she is high up in the organization and is facing a lot offla flak right now for her comments. just as the first video, they are disturbingly candid for a lunch conversation. going after the issue of investigations, there are two right now in the house. the house commerce committee has already opened an investigation. they are asking to bring these planned parenthood officials to testify, or to at least have briefings with their staff. right now planned parenthood has said it will not offer those

employees to come to congress. they are offering other officials from the organization to meet with staffers on the hill, but those investigations are ongoing. there are even more calls for the federal government to do an investigation. we just heard nancy pelosi asking for the department of justice to investigate the center for medical progress. there has been, at this point, more than 100 republicans were calling for an investigation also by the doj, but into planned parenthood. again we are not there yet if that will be a full investigation, but they are reviewing the information. if you listen to leader pelosi's remarks, she does defend planned parenthood. she does dismiss these claims. she brings up the quality of the videos, the editing of the videos, and says that they have been very selectively edited. she interviewed points from planned parenthood.

as her staff and many others on the hill have likely been briefed by planned parenthood. a lot of their offices have been in touch with the groups. host: francis is calling it from munro, new york, on our republican line. you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. i have a couple of questions but my main concern is now that obamacare has been forced down our throats and we are paying for all these health services anyway why are our tax dollars also going to a private organization who consider and say we want to crush a child so i can get a lamborghini? the second woman in the first case is sitting there, sitting -- sipping her chardonnay and eating her salad saying that she likes the fact that she can now wait until they are 17 weeks old so she can get the body parts. with all the medical research

that has gone on, the sonograms now show that the fingers are there, they are rubbing their nose. their heart is beating. this is what they want our tax dollars to go for. i just don't understand how callous they can be. then to turn it around and say it it was felt by filmmakers. whether they added that -- edited their film or not, what these two people have said is disgusting, immoral. my last point is, nancy pelosi -- i wish the catholic church would ask -- at -- excommunicate this woman. how can she possibly call herself a catholic and kill god's creations? we want to vilify the filmmakers? she said that they were reprimanded the woman in the first one. what does that mean?

when they reprimand people in the government, they usually get a pay raise, a host: we are going to leave it there and get a response from our guest. guest: comments that we just heard from this caller really represent what a lot of people across the country have felt watching this video. planned parenthood has a knowledge that the tone and statements of their officials they do not represent the mission of the organization. that is part of what the president said in her statement. immediately following the release of this video, they are concerned about the tone. as the caller mentioned, some of the details about this meeting sit with wine, bites of salad between the conversation, it does look very disturbing and bad for planned parenthood. this is raising a lot of concerns.

that is why so many people across the country are aware of this and are paying attention and demanding answers. there's a lot of calls coming into capitol hill about this issue. host: how prevalent are the lobbying efforts on capitol hill by planned parenthood and by the antiabortion people? guest: these are two of the most entrenched camps that exist on capitol hill. these have been decades in the making. the antiabortion groups, they are frequently lobbying the hill. there is a lot of work done every year to organize the right for life, organize a lot of the bills that are coming up to ban late-term abortion. these groups are very active. they are in conversations constantly with the republican-democratic counterparts. we are seeing that attention really ramp up.

groups think the momentum is here to pass the legislation that they really wanted, and land parenthood is out there talking to democratic offices as well trying to explain these videos and help some of the democrats who have supported them in the past, help them be able to explain the videos. host: robert, colton california independent line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to bring up a couple of points. i am pro-choice because i had a sister -- i have a sister who had lupus and pregnancy could kill her. anytime you have an industry like this that is dealing with something, as your guest is saying, that involves a lot of complexity, your average public will be very emotionally charged. when you are in that industry, it does not really help you do your job to be emotionally charged about it every day. it kind of goes back to when

there was body stealing from universities back in the 1800s and stuff. people were very upset about it but at the end of the day, we needed that as a nation to advance our scientific research. we cannot just not do research because your average citizen is going to be emotionally charged about the issue. a soldier is going to talk about shooting somebody between the eyes and we are not going to, he is not going to be upset about it. it is kind of the same deal where, to do the job you are required to do you need to have an even keel and do it kind of matter of fact. guest: as the caller is pointing out, this is obviously very emotionally charged. this is something that is very uncomfortable to talk about. fetal tissues is not a dinnertable conversation and not

a conversation that members of congress want to talk about even if they are in the -- congressional pro-choice caucus. some parts of science and medical research are uncomfortable. they are not comfortable to talk about, but these are potentially life-saving procedures. they are leading to cures across the country as planned parenthood has said, and as major medical groups has said, it is important to have this fetal tissue available. it does bring up a very uncomfortable issue, and these videos, the tone, it is damaging for the group. host: ladylike tweets in "will democrats saying these videos are illegal also pursue action against the person who secretly taped romney's 47% speech?"

caller: i am just calling to say i support planned parenthood because a lot of people call in this morning saying it is all wrong. i think war is wrong. i think eating animals is wrong. so to me, i find it totally hypocritical. you are going to have a problem -- you do not have a problem eating that steak or pig. if you are going to be pro-life, be pro-life pictures. a woman cannot consider herself totally free if she cannot control her own body. i listen to these callers telling me it is all wrong. i am pro-choice and i think whatever woman -- whatever a woman does to her body is her business. nobody is going to take care of the baby. you do not know what anyone's

financial situation is. the people who put the video out are just dishonest. i realized people who put out these video was totally dishonest and they wanted to make planned parenthood go down. they have been doing extremely good things for women so that is my comment for this morning. guest: the comments that we just heard, specifically about the caller going in and looking up the group kind of video after watching it, that is what a lot of people who support planned parenthood have to do because when you first watch these videos, it is appalling, some of the statements that are made. when you watch the full video, there is other important context that can be brought up so there are a lot of people who are urging the public, the american public to go and watch the whole version of this video. we are hearing comments said from planned parenthood supporters across capitol hill

that this is an important public health -- public health institution. there community health centers run by planned parenthood across the country and they do provide services such as mammograms. there is still robust support for planned parenthood in light of some of these more damaging videos. host: floyd is in jonesville, virginia, on our republican line. caller: good morning, peter, sarah. i heard the guy call in a while ago and he said there were 70 million debt -- 70 million babies. it is premeditated murder to me. the way to ban it, to stop it is to ban the democrats. they are talking about the guns, look at how many babies is being killed? you go out and vote. mike huckabee, the best one against abortion.

he is wanting to put term limits on the supreme court, term limits on congress. let's put a stop to all of this stuff. if they would go to the polls and then the democrats, a lot of this stuff would stop. this is murder, premeditated murder. i do not see how anybody who claims to be a christian could vote for a democrat. host: any comment for floyd? guest: what we are just hearing from the caller, talking about the 2016 election, and this has definitely waded into that. we are seeing two senators running for president, ted cruz and rand paul are both immediately coming out and saying we need to defund this group. ben carson will be leading a rally on capitol hill next week joined by some of the republicans in congress who are very vocal on this issue.

nearly every republican running in 2016 has come out and said that these videos demand investigations or defunding of the group. this is definitely becoming an issue. host: i know you cover health care and not necessarily politics. the fact that senator boehner did not dismiss funding right out, did that say anything? guest: he showed it has -- and it showed he has a more cautious approach to this issue. speaker boehner himself said -- but we did not hear that same tone when he described funding the group. he said we need "the facts first." he is not hesitant to talk about the issue. he answered two questions yesterday but he is not immediately saying, we are going to have a vote next week and make as part of the appropriations process.

it is clear that he is ready for more information on this and he knows this could be damaging for republicans. host: chris in bama tweets in "the video's only crime is they described a perceived or in a callous way that offends the sensibilities of many." jenny, you are on the "washington journal with sarah ferris. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a comment. i would just like to tell a little story. i have a daughter who became pregnant about eight years ago in very bad circumstances. no money, no job, no husband. she could have had an abortion but she did not. instead, she had a baby, a little boy.

and now i have a beautiful smart, funny happy, precious little grandson. i would just like to say that i think god every day that his body was not turned into parts for sale. and that is all i have to say. thank you. host: this is an indelicate question, but who owns the fetus once an abortion happens? is it the mother? guest: that is a difficult question. a lot of these procedures, they raise important ethical questions that could be answered differently depending on the woman, depending on the doctor, depending on where she has lived, where she has been raised, what her personal views are.

this is something that the government is regulating. it is not something that under law there are these answers. the controversy is really drawing the attention of so many people because these are not easily answered questions. you talk about this in the realm of science and research, but then there are also very deeply held beliefs on this which make it difficult to really talk about what is next from here and what should be the case under law. host: beth, evanston, illinois, democrat. caller: i would first like to comment that some of the reasons are missed information and not understanding the issue is showing short snippets of even a shortened video. the video you showed today, i think it can be kind of damaging to planned parenthood because i think the version went on to say

that money was used for packaging and sending the fetal tissue. but i wanted to ask, has there been other controversy in the history of using fetal tissue before as a moral issue in past years? i wanted to know if the reporter you have on knows anything about that. guest: the issue of fetal tissue donation, that is something that is not commonly discussed by either the pro-choice movement or the pro-life movement. definitely because this is such an uncomfortable topic to discuss. this has been the center of the video that has just been released, and there have been plenty more of these undercover videos that have been targeting planned parenthood before. this is something we are definitely seeing.

it is not something that congress has talked about, held hearings about in recent memory. this is a pretty new issue which is why you will see a lot of democrats struggling to talk about it and struggling to find a way to say, we support that this is legal but we do not want to hear these officials describing it in this way. you mentioned video that would -- that was shown. it is important to see some of the remarks made by planned parenthood officials because you can see how it has been riling a lot of the viewers that have seen it. if you watch the full video, or is important context that is shown in the rest of the footage here. host: yolanda, dance field, ohio, republican line. caller: it makes me

uncomfortable how she keeps saying the film. you do not see the rest of it. we see enough. these words shock to me i wish she would talk about the history of the founders of planned parenthood. tell people about margaret singer, how they were too many immigrants and blacks having babies. that is where it really started, and they are babies. it makes me so uncomfortable. it is an uncomfortable topic because they are babies. do not call them "it" all the time. i have sorry my country has come to this. host: that is yolanda. guest: what we are hearing from the caller is really representational of what a lot of people are thinking about this issue. there are very upset by the way democrats and others who support abortion rights are describing this issue. it reflects these deeply held

views that have been in place even before roe v wade, before the founding of planned parenthood. it shows how difficult it is for politicians to make any progress on making sure that groups like planned parenthood are following the law because every time these issues are raised, it really drives -- it is a political discussion about whether this should be legal, what people believe in their core. it takes away from some of the questions about, how do we make sure that these groups are following legal practices? host: sarah ferris, what is going to happen next with regard -- you talked about potential hearings, or speaker boehner referenced potential hearings. when do you expect those to happen? guest: we are running out of time for those to happen before the august recess so it is more likely that september is when we will start hearing about this again. that is when the budget will be

front and center so i think we can expect planned parenthood to become part of that funding fight, and we are going to hear republicans try to defund planned parenthood. john boehner yesterday said that he expects, he does not think the president will veto this massive budget, even if it does contain cuts to planned parenthood because it is just such a big and important no. they are already seeing openings to get some of their long-sought attacks against planned parenthood into the budget. we are definitely going to see this in the fall. host: is the mood from some members strong enough that this could lead to a potential government shutdown over funding planned parenthood? guest: a lot of republicans have dismissed the idea that this could lead to that saying it is silly that republicans believe so strongly that they have the upper hand.

i think the mood on capitol hill is definitely, you talk to members about this and democrats will immediately say they think the video is edited and does not show what planned parenthood is actually doing. but republicans are clearly riled by this and will not be letting it go anytime soon. a lot of them are demanding more action from speaker boehner. host: talking about this issue is a minefield at all times, isn't it? guest: it really is. this is one of those issues that you are rarely in the middle. for people who believe one way they likely grew up that way. these are positions they have held for a long time. a lot of times it involves their religion, so people are not this is not one of those compromise kind of issues. social issues are always very difficult and abortion is one of the, you can see it on the

campaign trail every time this is brought up. it does bring voters to the polls but that is because people feel so strongly about it. host: sarah ferriss "the hill" newspaper." host: we have discussed a lot of issues. we have been talking about the abortion issue immigration sanctuary cities, the affordable care act, the highway bill, iran, the president's trip to kenya, lots of public policy issues are out there. we are going to go through the papers and we are also going to take your calls. we want to hear from you on some of these issues. (202) 748-8000 for democrats (202) 748-8001 four republicans (202) 748-8001 four independents. coming up on our newsmakers program this weekend is hal

rogers, the chair of the appropriations committee of the house. he will be our guest on sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. here is a preview. >> i do not want a long-term cr lapsing the rest of the year. that would mean if we did that that all of the work that the appropriations subcommittees have done so far on perfecting these bills, all of that work would go out the window. and all of the writers and changes in spending that are in those new bills that modernize current spending, all of that would be thrown out in a cr. i do not want to see a long-term cr. however, it looks like the probability is we are going to have to do at least a short-term cr, a couple of months or so, in order to allow us time to perfect the amount of spending.

however, the difference this time is we have the sequestration caps in place. and it is probably going to be impossible to get an agreement on an omnibus spending bill with the white house and both bodies on the hill. in order to make that happen. so it is going to have to take probably some relief from sequestration. that means we're going to have offsets, and those could come from either the ways and means committee or maybe even the energy and commerce committee, on entitlement. hopefully we would see some offsets gained from those two places in order to offset the spending increases to get away

from severe caps on sequestration. >> "washington journal" continues. host: senators, i plan to renew iran sanctions. even as lawmakers decide whether to endorse the obama administration's landmark nuclear deal. the administration is calling the move premature. senator bob menendez said removing sanctions will act as a bull worked for a run to achieve -- cheat on the deal. he had several back-and-forth with secretary of state kerry yesterday at the iran hearing. here is one of them. >> is president obama willing to make a clear and unequivocal statement, not that all options are on the table because iran

does not believe that there is a credible military threat, that iran under no circumstances will be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon? >> absolutely, he has said that. >> he has said all options are on the table. >> he has had that she has said very clearly under no circumstances will they be able to get a nuclear weapon, and ask carter reiterated very publicly -- ashton carter reiterated very publicly. >> i have limited time. host: that was yesterday up on a hill, secretary of state kerry and bob menendez having an exchange. "usa today," gas tax has been a topic, "stop the nonsense and raise the gas tax already." they go on to say that with inflation it should be up to about $.30 a gallon rather than the current 18.4 cents a gallon.

dave mcintosh, former republican representative of indiana and president of the club for growth says it is a bad idea. he says, here is a better idea, instead of charging motorists more let's fix the system. step one is to push politicians and washington to the side of the highway funding road. they will spend billions for non-highway projects and will run at a deficit of more than $10 billion. the primary focus of congress -- as it has been for years -- is on finding new ways to fund that deficit, instead of looking for ways to stop the spending that causes the deficit. let's stop the nonsense of raising the gas tax. congress should leave the money and responsibility for road construction and repairs when they belong -- back at the state and local levels.

one good proposal to do that already exist. if the transportation empowerment act, sponsored by senator mike lee and representative don desantis. " that is "usa today" editorial. felix on the democrats line. caller: good morning, how are you all? host: how are you sir? caller: i would like to say to all those who protect and serve this great country of ours, and to you and your family, god speed on all your endeavors. what i would like to say, you just had a young lady talking about the planned parenthood situation. about editing of the film. it appears that the republicans love freedom but they only have to approve the freedom before everyone else can have it. the situation about that, the

editing of the film. i will give you a quick example. you can pull up the film and verify this. during the 1990's when they were going after hillary clinton on all these things, there was a gentleman named david bossi. they had arrested a man named hobble who worked in the height -- in the white house. he says, you want me to say that hillary did all these accusations but she did not, but when it actually came out on the actual document on the hearing it said that hillary clinton had done a, b, c, and d. the best point about all of this editing of the film, and what this is causing is just a lynch mob attitude. if the republicans are against abortion so much, why don't they increase the help for the woman

that they want to force to be baby factories? they are making it look like the 1970's decree in romania where they are forcing the women to have kids to replenish the population. have a great day. host: that is felix in north carolina, and this is cliff from galloway ohio on the independent line. caller: people need to understand the real true definition of abortion. now this country was founded by abortion, from what the europeans put on boats that landed in the south. therefore, we are americans. if it was not for them being aborted and making it over here, that is aborted. the lady in mansfield, people always have to use black and white and this and that.

i am a true ohio and, an original ohio and, a god-given ohioan. we freed slaves. the lady that is a republican they are not going to free slaves. that is an example of an abortion, brainwashed for votes. now we are a republican state. we never used to be a republican. now we are a republican state. it is all, just like texas is against women having abortions it is because they want to -- want the kids not to be wanted or loved, therefore they can fill the state or something is doing something for them. and it is all a part of brainwashing. that is my testimony to the lord. everybody have a blessed morning. they need to understand, you can abort someone but what if they live their whole life and do not

know the meaning of god or the truth that this country has ? host: thank you for that, and we will leave it there and go to a dell in memphis, tennessee democrat. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: how are you, man? caller: i'm good. i am a registered democrat but i also will be changing to independent. host: why? caller: that is because i do not agree with either party. i wish we had a third-party that we could choose from because i would really like to challenge fellow americans to stop thinking in terms of democrats and republicans. i have voted republican on the issues. i vote on the issues. host: what is an issue that

matters to you? caller: what matters to me right now that has got me kind of upset, i do not think that as a whole we are paying attention to the sessions that they hold when they take the vote. yesterday they were voting on gmo's in our food and the republicans were pretty much attention to the sessions that theyunanimous for wanting us not to know, taking away our rights to know what is in our food. that is so basic. i want to know what it is in that food. do not take that away from me. he talked about your rights and state rights, but on that personal level, human rights, it is not a human right as much is giving me a choice on whether i want to have an abortion or not. i want to know whether my food.

the people that do not care, do not care what they eat. i am not rich but i care what i eat. my health is poor and part of it is environmental i am told. i am watching for that and they are taking that ability from me to know what is in my food. i challenge my fellow americans to listen at what the policymakers are saying. forget about parties. rights are being stripped little by little every day. host: i dell in memphis, thank you for calling in. the issue she was talking about the house passed a bill which blocked states from requiring gmo labels on food. you can read it on the hill.com if you are interested. the anti-immigrant binge congress is in danger of taking

utmost cursive of america political disagreements, the debate over illegal american -- illegal immigration and dragging it toward insanity. bills are being rushed to the floor in response to a woman's senseless killing by an unauthorized immigrant. that has energized hard-line republicans who have long held the false argument that all illegal immigrants are a criminal menace and the best way to erase their threat is by new layers of inflexible policing. there is room, the new york times writes, for saying, sound policy. immigration officials need to find ways to avoid the bureaucratic mishandling while protecting civil liberties. cities and states should not be penalized for refusing to take on the expense and public safety consequences of turning their officers into enforcers of civil immigration law.

congress should support the department of homeland security's efforts to focus its limited resources on dangerous criminals and national security threat. it should allow the vast majority of immigrants who pose no threat, to pass background checks, pay fines and back taxes, and live and work in this country openly. that is the new york times' lead editorial. as you have probably seen numerous times, donald trump was in laredo, texas, and held a news conference about the issue of immigration. >> i am a republican, i'm a conservative, i am running, i am in first place by a lot it seems. i want to run as a republican. i think i will get the nomination. the best way to win is for me to get the nomination and run probably against hillary. hillary is the worst easily the

worst secretary of state in the history of our country. she is going to be beaten and i am the one to beat her. i will take jobs back. the reason i won with the hispanic vote, they know i will take jobs back from china and other countries that are taking our jobs. hispanics will love trump and they already do. host: darrell is in birmingham, alabama, public in line. caller: i want to go back to sarah ferriss, your previous guest from the hill who was talking about a month other things, the planned parenthood video. she was all up to speed and i guess the host was as well on the talking point of planned parenthood, and that is to talk about the tone of the video. the tone of the video wasn't noxious but the controversy -- was obnoxious but the

controversy was not because of the tone but because of the substance. the substance is not comfortable for pro-choicers, i guess the host and the person from the hill are because they did not explore this, it's that crushing is needed. the reason crushing is needed is because what is being dealt with is you can call it a fetus -- which i can always count on this host to call it a fetus -- the fetus is alive and the reason crushing is needed is first, to kill the living child in such a way that the body parts can be harvested. the living child is not wanted but the parts to be sold are wanted. and so that should have been pointed out. tone, tone, no substance. i also noticed that when you read the tweet about the video of romney that was so

controversial, the tweet was about why was there not -- why was the person who made the film and the legality of that not the issue there? that is because c-span and others were happy to have that video out. this has information that whips the veil back over planned parenthood on what abortion really is. so therefore, rather than talk about the substance of the crunching of the living child let's focus on the video. when you read that tweet there was no discussion about it because that is uncomfortable for the bias of c-span. host: finished? that was darrell in birmingham, alabama, calling on the republican my. next is artemis in kansas city.

caller: i would like to talk about the abortion issue and the selling of fetal parts. i think a lot of people are upset about this because they say that the fetus is alive. what they fail to understand is that microorganisms and bacteria are alive, for instance. other animals are alive. tissue cells in culture are alive. but that does not make them century it humans -- sentient humans and at this stage, a fetus is not a sentient creature . it does not have the brain development to think or feel pain or lots of other issues

that we think about as being human. so it is no more -- it is really no different from say skin cells or heart cells in tissue culture. also, i would like to point out that the reason that donald trump is gaining so much headway is because americans are tired of our country being invaded and our congress and a lot of other people giving this country a way to foreigners. that is treason, and people are tired of treason at the highest level of government. host: thank you. howard in kentucky republican. caller: thank you so much for c-span. i'm retired so i watch primarily every morning from 7:00 until

10:00 anyway. my comment this morning is on your last guest, the discussion of your last guest. i am kind of against late-term abortion. your previous caller talked about cells and so forth, and i'm not a doctor so i do not quite understand all of that. my question primarily is, what is wrong with these people that become pregnant and do not want to be, taking the morning after pill? i would have liked to have asked that question and i would like for that to be discussed, and maybe i am wrong on that. i do not understand that either. but for late-term abortions, i do think that is a viable human being in the womb,. to each his own, that is

something they have to live with. host: what is your religion? caller: i am a southern baptist. host: do you care about the issue of abortion from the pulpit? caller: my minister, i have been attending this church for the last three years religiously and at this point he has not discussed that. it probably might the a discussion this sunday. i am not sure of that. host: does the issue of politics come up in your church very often, and what do you think about it when it does? caller: yes, it does come up and the latest thing was discussed was gay rights in marriage. host: and what was the church's position and what is your position? caller: my position is that i love all people. i understand people that are

gay. to love each other and want to live with each other, but i think that marriage is a religious oriented institution and i think that is where it should be held. there should be some legislation to allow the tax benefits, the survival benefits of same-sex couples to be caught if i'd -- codified, but i do not think it should be called a marriage. host: from what are you retired? caller: military. host: how long were you in the military? caller: 29 and a half years. host: where is bardstown, kentucky? caller: it is south of louisville, if you know where louisville is. about 20 miles. host: you are getting down there

close to georgetown where they build toyotas? caller: that is correct. host: howard, thank you for your time. look forward to hearing from you again. maryland is in columbus, ohio, democrat. caller: good morning, i wanted to speak on abortion, and first i would like to say that i am not your abortion. i would prefer that all babies live, but life is not black or white. there is a lot of gray areas and you cannot totally shut the door. what you would be doing by doing away with abortion is declaring deeming every american woman during her childbearing years every baby girl born in america during her childbearing years will have no control over her own life. and that would mean the father,

too. let me tell my story to that lady that credit about loving her grandson -- that cried about loving her grandson. i had a friend who did not get married until she was 42, and she was so excited and wanted to have a baby. soon after her marriage she found out she had cervical cancer. the doctor told her, if you decide to have this baby we will have to stop all treatments because it would damage the baby even more. he said, and with you being pregnant and your hormones raging the way they are, your cancer will be accelerated. so she and her husband decided to have the baby. she was dead within does it's. -- dead within two months. i do not know if anyone has ever watched a dying pregnant woman

not knowing who will die first the baby or the mother. all you republican men, suppose that was your wife, your daughter, and you are running around the hospital saying do something to save her, and they are saying, i cannot touch her or i will be sued. you are taking away choices from women and the fathers. host: marilyn, do you want to put a bow on this? caller: i wish i could speak forever. democrats, please vote this time. host: that is marilyn in columbus, ohio. the lead editorial in the washington times is about the iran deal. facing the devil in the details is the headline on their editorial. just a little bit from this "releasing them from economic sanctions will release a flood

of trade capital, and technology to flow through tehran. the situation will be completely transformed with an amount -- a matter of months. snapback restoration of sanctions will be impossible, even if there is a well to attend to restore them. counting on anything to snapback is a fantasy of fools. mr. obama's reliance on the u.n. is nonsensical. it is an insult to americans and their representatives." that is a little bit from the washington times editorial but secretary of state kerry was up on the hill yesterday testifying on this issue, on the iran deal. he got applauded by a group that usually gets escorted out of a hearing, and that is your code pink group. you can see code pink. you usually see them at a hearing getting escorted out for

protesting, so we thought that was kind of unusual. by the way, the founder of code pink, medea benjamin, will be book tv's guest on august 2 from noon until 3:00. she is the author of several books. she will -- we will be talking with her and she will be taking your calls on her books and her political views, and on code pink. that is sunday, august 2. tune in if you are a code pink fan or if not. james in morganton, north carolina, independent line. caller: yes sir. host: we are listening. caller: my comment, first of all i would like to say that while i have great compassion for the last democratic lady that spoke

god bless that family. i can only imagine what they went through. but this topic here that i want to speak to on abortion, there are certain things i know that america at large, they do not take the word of god as being infallible. and absolute truth. but there are some of us that do. in proverbs chapter six, verse 16 says that there are six things that god hates, and one of them is the shedding of innocent blood. from what i understand, i am not a doctor or an expert, i am pretty sure that there is blood flowing in the fetus, or the baby in the mother's womb.

jeremiah, god spoke to him and jeremiah chapter one, verse five it says "before i formed you," this is before you were even in the womb. before i formed to be in the belly, i knew you. before that ok miss forth out of the world i have sanctified the. and i ordained the a profit into the nation's. and i want to speak this morning for all of the innocent blood that is being shed in our nation. god hates the shedding of innocent blood. and it is also, sir, and abomination for a man to be with a man and a woman to be with a woman. our nation has so far removed itself from the god that founded

established the earth on the axis on which it turns today. he hung it on nothing and we have turned our backs on him to the point that the only thing that i can think of, and i am praying for revival, that god would shake this -- shake our country to the very core, the foundation. i pray that we turn to him with all of our hearts. we have to turn to him with all of our hearts and repent from our wicked ways. he is not calling for the, for our nation to repent. he is calling for the church to repent from our wicked ways, and hopefully one day the world will see jesus in us.

let's be the church. let's be jesus. let's be the light of the world. let's take a stand for god because i am afraid, brother, that we have turned our backs and that he is going to turn us into hell -- host: are you a minister? caller: yes, sir i am an ordained pastor in the international pentecostal church. i ended up i am not a pastor anymore, no, i am not. host: is that by choice? caller: no, it is not by choice. i have dealt with things in my own life that i had to remove myself from this, that, and the other.

i am not perfect by any means but christians are not perfect. like i said, it is going to take repentance on the church's part and for the church to be the church, and not to be fake and hypocritical. if we are going to stand on one part of the bible, have to stand on it all. for two meant to be married is wrong, but for a man to cheat on his wife is wrong. fornication is wrong. when a man sins, he sends outside the body. when he commits fornication it is against the body. not all sin is equal and there are some things that god hates. host: james in morganton, north carolina, what are you doing today if you are not a minister? caller: i have sitting on my couch with a broke leg. i ended up wrecking my motorcycle last year on june 20,

have not been able to take the first step for a year. god spared me. i landed 108 yards for my motorcycle. they said had i had my heart not stop i would have bled to death. i am sitting here on my couch praying and hoping that one day soon i will be able to go back to work to help my precious wife that is outworking overtime to keep our lights on. i have not had to beg for one meal. god is providing for me, but i am doing nothing, just sitting here reading my bible, trying to seek the lord. host: james in morganton, north carolina. let's go to west nyack new york -- west nyack, new york, brian, a democrat. caller: i would like to comment

on your assertion earlier with the lady from the hill newspaper who owns the fetus, the aborted fetus. to look at it in terms of ownership, we would have to look at it also in terms of product. is it really an individual that has been aborted, a human being or is it a piece of property? if we look at it in terms of a piece of property, we will go back to the dred scott decision prior to the civil war that asserted that slaves were property. if we think about it in those regards as being property, then it would belong to the woman that supported the fetus. however, we had fought a civil war. the subsequent -- subsequent to the civil war, the 14th

amendment was passed on the states. the first words are "all persons born in the united states are citizens of the united states." if you look at the words "all persons born," are we a person in a wiomb or do we become a person when we are born, draw our first breath? we could look at it in terms of dna, every living mammal or tree has a dna sequence. is that individual sequence, dna sequence, of the fetus individual to itself or is it also product? is it a person or is it a human being. is it a being? there is a lot of questions we can ask ourselves and reason and apply reason to this.

host: brian, you seem to have put some thought into this. what is your background, what do you do? caller: i work in business and i have thought about this, ever since i was a teenager, which was a long time ago. i also look at it in terms of reason. we came from our respective mothers and we were born and raised by our parents, whether they were birth relatives or adopted. we did descend from them and we have individual dna. the question is -- or another way to look at it, if we were able to draw the blood from the fetus and look at its dna, we would know that would be an individual person. but doing a blind study if you took that blood and put it to the side and ask a forensic

investigator to look at it, a would say, yes, this is the dna of a human being. it is human dna. when do we become a person? when do we become an individual? when which all our first breath? take that forward to the end of life, if we get injured and are sick and end up on a ventilator, and because of the laws of the country, now we have to wait until another part of our body gives out and we pass on to another world. host: brian, i'm going to have to leave it there. we are almost out of time but i appreciate your questions and thoughts. i want to let you know about something else that is going on in this country today. c-span is down in austin texas today and tomorrow for the advanced placement annual conference. there are 3500 teachers and

administrators from schools across the country and we are down there to share how they can use c-span's programs and some of the free resources that can be incorporated into their social studies curriculum. now if you know someone, or you are interested in some of these teaching resources that we have, and other educator opportunities at c-span, visit c-span classroom.org. you can see the website there. there's all sorts of videos and services and goodies on that site, especially for teachers social studies, history, etc. c-span classroom.org is that website. cornelia in cottonwood ohio -- idaho, i think you might be the last caller. republican. caller: thank you so much.

i just wanted to say a few things. the previous callers have had some things i had in mind also. i apologize, i think it was a republican caller who kind of accused you and c-span of bias, and i think you are totally fair and i think that was really not correct -- a correct statement that he was making about bias as far as you and c-span. my main concern here is it seems like the main issue is these videos, is to expose planned parenthood for what they really are, is a business. they have become an industry abortion industry. that figure is correct, over 300,000 abortions every year that they preform, and they are building new clinics all the time. i understand a huge one is going

up right in washington d.c. planned parenthood was one of the founders, margaret sanger, she hated black people and minorities and thought we needed to get rid of them, that we had to bring many of them in our country. she was a horrible, horrible person that founded planned parenthood. i want to know what the salaries of these women that were on the video are. what kind of money are the head officials of planned parenthood making? that money, if you really look into it, they do very few were almost no mammograms. their only health service is passing out contraceptives. and abortion, and that is about it really for the most part. they have simply become a huge business. it is appalling --

host: cornelia, we are out of town -- out of time. thank you for calling in this morning on "the "washington journal." we are every morning we have a public policy discussion with y'all. we are here every single day taking your calls and listening to your views. we appreciate you being with us. on the weekend we have two other channels. c-span2 turns into booktv on c-span2. every weekend on c-span3 american history tv. 48 hours of american history. you can tune in to those two channels. you can call your cable