pierluigi. and, how the american south drives the low-wage economy. host: good morning everyone. lawmakers on capitol hill struck a deal on highway funding. both chambers will now give another short-term task to the trust fund before leaving town for the month of august. meanwhile, secretary of state john kerry will once again testify in the iran deal. this hearing gets underway a little before 10:00 a.m.. we will begin the conversation here this morning on gun control in this country after the recent shootings in louisiana

chattanooga, and charleston. we want to get your check -- thoughts on background checks. should they be strengthened? if you support the idea, (202) 748-8000, oppose it, (202) 748-8001, and a third line for gun owners, (202) 748-8002. you can also check in on twitter and facebook. senator joe manchin, a democrat from west virginia who has worked on this issue of background checks, with pennsylvania's senator pat toomey. the hill newspaper reports that under federal law, licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check either online or by phone using the national instant criminal background check system. in every state, the system searches for criminal convictions.

but the system only scanned mental health records in 30 states because it is not required under federal law. take a look -- a listen. [video clip] >> is there any federal solution to what we are talking about here? >> i need my friends on the republican side of the aisle to help with the most reasonable, sensible path forward. basically, it is not gun control . it is just saying that listen, if you go to a gun shop, we need to know who you are and if you have had a problem before. either criminal or a mental problem. if you go on the internet, those are too airy as -- areas where we have a lot of problems. we did not interfere with anything. but people are scared. they say i don't trust the government.

it's a shame to be in a position where you don't trust anybody, but we are not going to let that happen. we are going to protect your second amendment rights, but we have to have a system with the fbi background check. we have to make sure it works. host: senator joe manchin on abc's face the nation on sunday, talking about this issue of background checks. what do you think? should they be enhanced to? support, oppose, a third line for gun owners. louisiana governor bobby jindal was also on the sunday show, face the nation. here's what he had to say about that shooting in the movie theater in his state. [video clip] >> never shut it happened. we actually passed tougher laws a few years ago. if someone has been committed here in louisiana, we would have reported that to the national background check system. he would not have been able to my gun. he would not have been able to go and upon shop and buy that gun which he did in another state. look every time it happens it

seems like the present has a history of mental illness. we need to make sure the systems we have in place actually work. like i said, in louisiana we toughened our laws a couple of years ago. if he had been involuntarily committed here he would not have been able to do that. host: louisiana governor on sunday, talking about how the shooter in the movie theater in louisiana was able to get his gun. he was never involuntarily committed. that is the headline from the " washington post." he purchased a 40 caliber semi automatic handgun at a pawn shop in alabama last year. the -- gun control advocates say the case exposes a gap in the nations firearm laws. in trying to strike a balance between protecting the public and protecting the rights of people with mental illness federal lawmakers specifies that people merely taken for psychiatric it back -- a valuation as hauser was should retain their right to buy guns.

dean livingston, -- dean in livingston, texas. a republican and a gun owner. caller: we really have enough information available to law enforcement or whoever regulatory bodies, to find out anything about anybody. i think we've got enough stuff. they outline your whole life on a stream of data. nine times out of 10 it is probably wrong, but they do the best they can. we've got enough stuff out there about anybody that they can stop us from buying a gun. we don't need anymore. it's just ridiculous. host: ok. well take a look at what the

justice department put together about this national instant criminal background check system, how it works. here is why they would deny somebody a gun. convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year, fugitive from justice. misdemeanor crime of domestic violence conviction. unlawful user or a controlled substance. restraining order for domestic violence. under indictment. mental health and judy kate at. illegal or unlawful alien. federally denied persons file. dishonorable discharge or even renounced u.s. citizenship. total from 1998, you are looking at 1.2 million denials through this background check system. so we are asking all of you, should it be enhanced, what

should be done? congress has talked about it in the past. there has been legislation put forth. kevin cirilli is joining us on the phone now to talk more about action in congress. kevin cirilli, let's begin there. what is congress thinking, if anything, on background checks? guest: thank you for having me. i don't see that congress will be taking up any sort of gun reform package clearly not this week or in the fall. i think that the appetite for congress to take up this type of legislation just is not there. this is a republican-controlled congress, senator pat toomey introduced their gun reform proposal after the new -- and it failed. that was a different time. democrats have controlled the senate. this time i think if it fails

then, there is really no chance that it would pass in a republican-controlled congress. host: what did their legislation to? guest: what it would do is they would essentially they say close the gun show loophole. this is something we hear about quite frequently during the newtown tragedy. essentially, it would make it more difficult for folks during gun shows to sell guns during gun shows. during a gun show, for example there are a lot of folks that go . people and families will have done heirlooms -- gun heirlooms. they will be making their own private sales in parking lots where these gun shows are. it's very difficult fight

frankly, -- quite frankly to regulate this stuff. but when i think, and he will looted to this earlier, -- you a looted to this earlier, there are a lot of things on -- regulations on the books. only 33 states are fully compliant with this system. i think the argument from some lawmakers on capitol hill is -- why aren't they are forcing the current regulations that we have in place? i think that that is, look. the political reality of today no matter where you stand on this issue, is that lawmakers are not going to take us up. but, a conversation that perhaps is worth having, is why not

enforce the laws that are already on the books? host: kevin cirilli, we've also heard from the president on this. that this is one of his biggest frustrations, that he has not been able to do anything on gun control. up on capitol hill, is he pushing for something like he has seen his administration do for the iran deal, or for trade? guest: that's a great question. he was after newtown. we all rubber his speech that he gave -- we all member his speech that he gave following the terrible tragedy of sandy hook elementary school. i think quite honestly that was perhaps the biggest window, if you will, for lawmakers to pass this type of reform. but he failed. this time he is not doing that. they have to get a transportation funding bill. there is the iran deal.

lawmakers are heading into august recess. again, he is not making that push at all. there is really no comparison in terms of what happened after sandy hook and what happened in louisiana. both are tragic, mind you. but no, he is not making that same push. host: kevin cirilli with "the hill" we appreciate your time. guest: have a good one. host: let's turn to viewers here linda in texas, a democrat and a gun owner. caller: i think you should have stronger background checks. i also think they ought to make mandatory liability insurance. host: so you are a gun owner. caller: yes i am. i also have a concealed carry license and i also carry insurance. host: did you have to go through a background check? what was the process like? caller: it was very simple.

i just answered some questions on a form and they did a background check. then i was able to purchase my weapon. host: how long did it take? caller: all of 15 minutes. host: so 15 minutes. because there is some movement here is senator tim kaine from virginia, who tweeted out -- i am calling on firearm dealers to halt sales until background checks are completed. he said in a press release also, he has 12 senate colleagues signed on. he says if the process takes longer than 72 hours, gun dealers can complete sales even though there is a risk that the register is dangerous. the fbi takes longer than 72 hours, the sales can go through. do you agree with him saying that they should halt all sales? caller: yeah.

i think they should do that. one of the things they could do to strengthen that is to make you show proof of liability insurance before you are able to get your license. host: how much disproof of liability insurance costs? caller: it's a negligible cost. it's not expensive at all. it's no different than having a vehicle. your vehicle is a dangerous weapon. so is a gun. host: what does your policy cover? caller: it covers accidents primarily, they will represent you in court. host: up to how much money? caller: i don't know the particulars on that, i don't remember. host: how long have you been a gun under? -- gun owner? caller: years. host: why? caller: i was in the military.

i like to target practice. i don't like to hunt. host: why the concealed carry? caller: texas requires it. host: are you one of those people that believe, if you are in a movie theater or somewhere else where there is a gunman shooting, if you had your gun you would be a lot of protect others in the theater? caller: no. i think it is more dangerous. i really oppose that our governor, we have this law now that you can have open carry. i think it is a big mistake. host: why do you think it is more dangerous? caller: i think you've got a lot had -- a lot of hotheaded people. tetris -- tensions are great with unemployment, all kinds of issues. they put a lot of pressure on people. they get hot tempered, if you have the gun easily accessible people are going to use it. host: ok, that is linda, a gun owner.

gary, he supports the idea of enhanced ground checks. caller: i do. first of all i want to commend that lady from texas. that's a very reasonable point of view. i applaud her. first, background checks. i see guns as a public safety issue. the problem is they are so ingrained in the american psyche that it will take generations to change people's thinking on guns. i would like to see even stronger things and lamented -- implemented besides the background checks. like to see a panel of experts and you would have to go before them and convince them you are fit to own a gun. certainly more like a japan type of gun control and gun restriction. host: what about this. the new york times notes this, about 40% of all gun sales are

exempt from background checks because the seller is a private party, often operating online or at a gun show. caller: that's a problem. i used to have a gun, i bought it from a friend of mine. no background check, no nothing. i sold it to someone else. i wish that that would change. it is very hard to make that change. you really need some tight control you need like regular checks to see were not gun went. it would be difficult to track. i think it would have to be done . host: bill, stone mountain georgia. gun owner. caller: good morning. question, i agree that there should be enforcement of the existing gun laws, but white --

why aren't we requiring the same type of back rent checks for people who drive cars? they kill a lot more people than guns have. in the last week or so there have been a number of people killed with knives. are we getting it to the point that we have to register knives? just a little food for thought. host: bill, you are a gun owner? what do you own? caller: i own a 3030 rifle. host: why? caller: i got it at a premium for purchasing a set of tools. i am also ex military, so i know how to handle a gun. right now i am kind of using it for self protection around the house. host: you feel that if there was some sort of intruder, that's what you want to protect yourself? caller: i wanted because i have it. -- i want it because i have it. it's not something i'm going to go out and buy even though i am

considering a handgun. in the airy i live in -- area i live in, police response is something like 20 or 30 minutes. i would like to have a pistol to give myself a little self-satisfaction -- not self-satisfaction, but a feeling of security. host: all right bill. now it's andrew in virginia, go ahead. caller: good morning. i am a gun owner. i own a slew of firearms, a couple pistols, shotgun at one point. every single one of those firearms that i own, i went under a background check for. interestingly enough, i timed some of the background checks at some of the bookstores and pawnshops. outside of filling out a form, the longest one i have had two minutes and 48 seconds.

they called a line in see if i had a criminal history. the issue that i see with the system as it is currently, is not that it is too restrictive or something rather the information to the databases is not wide enough. there are a number of restrictions that we have now not all that information is uploaded to a central database, so that some person like the individual in louisiana, can't just cross a state order and acquire a gun legally and then come across the border again. there is also the historical example of the woman who bought a 22 pistol legally and try to assassinate a state representative a few years ago. thankfully for us, her gun jammed. what she but that legally despite the fact that she was on a prohibited person's list because she had been for solidly -- forcibly put in a mental facility.

host: what does this person do about the mentally ill aspect of this, because the new york times reports that the background check system, in operation since 1998, has prevented more than 2.4 million sales. it still has major gaps. it also has an narrow definition of who is considered to mentally ill to own a gun. caller: i worked for the military. it is a tough enough issue trying to convince people to come forward because of issues like ptsd. not all circumstances where someone has had psychological care should lead to them being barred. there is any number of people that need help because of an emotional matter or a psychological matter, but that can be handled in a way, biomedical professional or by counseling, that they would be irresponsible gun owner. they would not have to have that second amendment right to self

protection, or the right to bear arms. the difficulty is making determinations of what we want to do. whether that is exclusively individuals that are adjudicated by a judge and put in a facility , or whether it is individuals that have certain disabilities if we don't think they would be able to make that decision between right and wrong. allow medical professionals to share that information with the database. there are already exemptions for certain types of law enforcement and national security investigations. there is a precedent for potentially expanding those exemptions to allow medical professionals to share that information that they believe would help adjudicated an individual. host: kevin, explain for those who don't know.

in virginia you are allowed to have guns. in washington dc you are not. what you make of that? caller: after the supreme court decision a few years ago, there was an allowance of even pistols in washington dc. i am actually allowed to have a firearm in both locales, outside of specifically federal buildings. i am a federal -- a special case. however when i go into washington dc i just don't carry . largely i'm going to a facility where it would be barred regardless of other activities. it's annoying, and at times it is a concern because if you are a normal person and you have the proper documentation for firearms and you have to cross through the jurisdiction of d.c., you are concerned about getting pulled over for speeding issue are traffic issue and then having to explain why you are

also carrying a firearm. there was an issue with a local soldier assigned to an airy around here, he was transporting a gun and got into a whole host of issues. it can be an administrative hassle. it is something that the localities -- the municipalities around washington dc should work out together, rather than civilly fan there is a whole -- simply saying there is a wholesale band of firearms. host: all right. take a look at what gun owners of america are saying on this. background checks are not stopping mass shootings, the concealed carriers are. the communication director for gun owners of america wrote an opposing view in usa today yesterday, where he said the fact is the entire background checks system is flawed. not only is it unconstitutional

and disarming many law-abiding citizens, it is failing to keep guns out of criminal hands. john, from washington, a gun owner. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. my concern is that the background checks are a mental health issue -- as a mental health issue could backfire. it could actually create more gun crimes just by virtue of driving people away from seeking help for fear that they could lose their gun license. even if the law is written very much with that concern in mind, so that there is not actually much of a risk of that, you can't expect the general public to be aware of the details of the law such that they would trust it. i think most people would just connect, oh gee, if i get

health care this could threaten my rights. host: kevin, in colorado. do you support the idea of enhanced background checks? tell us why. caller: i think is a good idea. i think if you have an involuntary admission to a mental health facility you should probably be barred. i am a member of the nra, so i'm going against the policy of nra but i think there are too many people falling through the cracks who are able to get guns. the last mass shooting probably had a mental problem. i think there are just too many people that have probably involuntary lockups that get them, and it's just bad.

there are a lot of things that you can do for background checks. host: jessica in florida. you also support the idea of strength and background checks. caller: hi. my name is jessica and i respect everyone's point of view, number one. simply what i need to share, i personally, my personal experience is that i have mental health issues. i had a mother commit suicide with a gun, and her father was a sheriff. again, i do support that. my brother is in colorado and they had. they can maintain the gun. so with people who know -- and i have friends that have been through, or i have personally -- so again, i respect people's

point of view. but for protection, for self protection, what has been going on. what i am seeing of the world. i feel that with the mental health and me being also, having a felony for being a drinker and alcoholic. i can't have a handgun. i respect the law. i personally feel that the mental health in the background checks, people like me should not have a gun. i'm not a person who is vicious to go out and shoot everyone up, but i feel that people who are properly -- that are capable to maintain the gun, i am a bit conflicted. although i would have to say i support that people who have mental health issues should have a background check before they

are licensed the gun. host: that was jessica and spring hill florida. david is next, in kennesaw georgia. you support the idea. good morning. caller: let me answer that as question earlier, or your question earlier about genia and washington dc. why folks are in virginia, black folks are in d.c.. that is why it is like that. why folks are always going to be allowed to have guns in this country because it gives them a sense of power. -- white folks. if you look on the internet, they have this test where they get a black guy and ar-15 and a white guy and ar-15, and they film it. it's on youtube. the black guy is on the ground. the white guys walking around arguing with anyone who talks back to him.

there was something on tv a while back about the crusades and how it started. it started because i think it was pope gregory. the military was there -- host: ok david. i don't want to go too far down this road. chris in powder springs georgia. what do you think? caller: i agree with the mental health focus and i think that is where they need to drill down if you look at all these killings. that has been a major issue. there needs to be a developing system where those people are eliminated from having guns. i think the previous caller maybe one of them. my wife is a realtor and she carries. she has a concealed carry and i do too. i think it is very important that people realize, people that

have concealed carry guns are protecting them as well as himself. host: chris, can i ask you about gun free zones? west you think about them. jerry moran, a republican from kansas, is introducing legislation that would eliminate them. it would eliminate military recruitment center's. it would allow active service members to carry weapons to defend themselves should they choose to do so. caller: i completely agree with them. it is a travesty that our military cannot protect itself on our own land. it is absolutely insane. -- obscene. i love the fact that concealed carry gun owners are there protecting them. that is what guns are for, along

with hunting and target shooting and so forth. host: ok chris. we are going to keep getting your thoughts here this morning. what do you think of background checks, should they be enhanced echo support, oppose and also a third line for gun owners. i do want to share some other news with you. a motion was filed yesterday by congressman mark meadows to remove speaker john boehner from his post. esther meadows, a north carolina republican followed a motion to vacate the chair with a no-confidence vote. he accused the speaker of limiting debate, pushing legislation to the brink, and moving to punish members who vote according to their conscience instead of how he wants. inside the washington times, they noticed this about mr. meadows efforts. the maneuver attempted by mr. meadows is extremely difficult to pull off and would require

geordie support in both chambers, including democrats, to succeed. the motion was also filed as a non-privileged resolution, sending it to the house community -- committee on rules which could choose to take it up or not the case with all legislation that comes before the committee. it is a committee that largely does with the speaker wanted to do. boehner is supported in the house. he remains confident that he would survive as eager. as we told you at the top, the senate has agreed to take up a short, three-month patch for the highway funding. that is what the plan is before both chambers leave for the summer recess. we will see how that all plays out. this latest extension would go until october 29. it will not include reauthorization of the export import bank. chamber of commerce taking to

the paper today, a full-page ad in the wall street journal. what do you call congress's failure to renew the export import bank? the chinese government calls it a good thing for china. that is in the papers this morning. then also, this happening up on capitol hill yesterday. pope francis is scheduled to appear before congress and a joint meeting on september 24. here is what congress did yesterday. the house on tuesday passed a rule of food can attend the contents -- pontiff's speech. unlike other major addresses like the state of the union former members did not make the cut. current members of house and senate, president obama, supreme court justices and cabinet secretaries are under those -- on the list of those guaranteed admittance. have a best friend in congress? current member is have one ticket east -- each to invite a friend. or, the rules big -- stipulates

that other persons designated by the speaker may attend. but some folks are wishing he had been nicer to john boehner. and orrin hatch resigned -- is taking to the paper to write about the quorum of the senate. senators ted cruz and majority leader mitch mcconnell, he writes tough talk roils the quorum -- the decorum of the senate. he argues that the koran is essential. -- decorum. an atmosphere of thoughtful disagreement, deliberation without decorum is not deliberation at all. it is bickering. bickering is beneath this body. back to your calls, anthony in west virginia.

you oppose enhanced background checks. tell us why. caller: first i want to say hi, how are you doing. i watch the program from time to time. a couple collars have pointed out something very important one of them was, when taking into consideration health issues for mental health -- or mental health issues, people would be more afraid to get help in fear that their constitutional right would be removed. another caller reminded everyone of the fact, i'm going to rephrase. there have been no rewriting of the second amendment, which makes all these laws is legal. -- all these laws illegal.

what i want everybody to take a look at is one of the biggest problems we face, not just with gun laws, but all signs -- kinds of things in this country. we never look at the why. we always wants to examine the how and the act itself, but nobody wants to focus on the why these things happen. host: anthony in charleston west virginia. rob in kansas city, missouri. caller: good morning. not only do i support the idea of enhanced background checks, i think we are doing a very poor job of educating people on gun safety and the hazards of owning a gun. it is not just about the second amendment. studies have shown that if you own a gun, chances are that your household will be injured as

opposed to an intruder. those stats have been buried by the nra lobby so that americans are not aware of it. there are 6% more guns and a has americans than when obama took office. the idea that there are no guns, are no bullets available out there is a live eventuated by the nra. a person with a mental problem has an easier time getting a gun than getting into a mental health institution. on that note, please educate yourself on guns before you go and buy one. it is about choices. host: let's listen to thomas, who is in texas. a gun owner. caller: well -- host: you are on the air. caller: i feel it is more a situation of the people who touched on fear of losing gun

rights. through seeking mental health. that is kind of one of the largest issues you have. i'm a hunter, i'm a concealed carry license owner. i'm a military veteran. i am a law-abiding citizen. i go to buy firearms, i do my background check. on certain firearm items you buy, also being a class three weapons license carrier, on certain items you buy there is even up to a 30 day wait. i think that the problem is more -- if someone wants to commit an act of hatred and violence,

they are going to find a way to do it whether they have a gun, whether they have a rock. whether they have a knife. it doesn't matter. host: so thomas, as a gun owner does that mean for you, you agree with the argument that if there are concealed carry people around someone who is intent on doing that, that that is the best lucian? that is the way to stabilize? caller: not always. some people who get a concealed carry get it with great intent, but then they misuse that power. you could potentially cause more harm. it just depends. it depends more on the person then the situation. it depends on how it's done. host: host: let's listen to roger, also in forney, texas. roger, what do you think? caller: i think 72 hours is a reasonable standard.

they should be able to do a background check in 72 hours. if you make this change, either through the sheer incompetence of government employees or an administration that is anti-gun, they can flow down the background checks to the point where it might take months, or you might never get an answer. i don't trust the government to do a good job. host: roger is referring to some of -- senator tim kaine's tweet that we shared with you earlier calling on firearm dealers to halt sales until background checks are completed. right now the fbi has opened the two hours. if it takes more than that, the dovetail can go through. senator tim kaine, along with 12 of his colleagues, signed a letter calling on firearm dealers to wait until that background check has gone through. we have about five minutes left in this conversation. in other news this morning, usa

today front page, louisiana is still paying for hurricane katrina. it has been 10 years. katrina made landfall more than 10 years ago killing -- leaving 80% of new orleans underwater. the federal government spends tens of billions of dollars rebuilding the communities along the coast but it is far from over. louisiana is still uncovering damages that will take years and hundreds of millions of dollars to repair. it goes onto say that one expert suggested it could take another 10 years for repair as and reconstruction in louisiana, because of hurricane katrina. and also this morning on the front page, there is the story a couple politics stories. one page of the new york times a story about donald trump. the new york times expense some time going through deposition records of lawsuits that donald trump has been a part of. either he was suing or he was being sued. the new york times went through them.

under oath, trump shows his rough side. under deposition, when a lawyer asked for a medical break, mr. trump and his lawyer objected. mrs. miss act said it was urgent. she needed to pump breast milk for her three-month-old daughter. your disgusting, mr. trump told ms. back. he then walked out of the room, ending the testimony for the day. in another deposition the new york times notes that mr. trump compared his own inclination towards blurring the fact to a strategy he learned from america's electoral officials. i'm no different from a politician running for office he said. you always wants to put the best foot forward. then there is this from the papers this morning about hillary clinton, outlining current energy agenda if she were to become president. the new york times says pipelines. the fact that she would not say

if she supports or opposes the keystone xl pipeline is stalling clinton's environmental monument -- momentum. she was in new hampshire and she was asked by a person at the town hall yes or no. do you support the xl pipeline? she said she would not say. she would not do it when later pressed by cnn. that is in the papers this morning. obama's climate change plan, a deadline is expected on that. it could come as early as monday. the president outlining his climate change plan. then politics in the washington post. the eba is giving states more time on carbon cutting plans. that in the papers as well as this, from the new york times. united states officials said

that jonathan pollard, shown here in 1998, will be released on november 20. joey in passing, missouri. a gun owner. what do you think about background checks? caller: good morning. i work for a license to gun dealer. when we perform a background check through the system, if you have not heard within 72 hours you will not get a response. host: ok. caller: it just says pending or open. host: so the gun owner that you are working for does not go ahead and do the sale? caller: the gun owner is allowed to make the sale at that time. host: do they, the place that you work? caller: yes. host: what steve think about? caller: you will not receive a response after that time. you will not receive a response. host: so then the fbi just does

not tell you one way or the other? caller: correct. host: sean in sunnyvale california. you support this idea. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i like what that last i said about the 72 hours, they just don't check. i guess of what you're talking about, it is not just letting it go like that. my point is, i don't think it's just like everyone has been pointing out. i don't think it's that. i'm from sunnyvale, i'm from hayward, california, actually. just a day ago, a cop was shot and killed by a 21-year-old from oakland. this 21-year-old was not

mentally insane. he was just a thug. it's kind of hard to tell where do you draw the line from being clinically insane to just being you know, whatever. to do something like that. host: ok. let's go to john in san antonio texas. you oppose. good morning. caller: yes ma'am. it boils down to the government can never be allowed to know who does or does not own guns. that goes to the very heart of the second amendment. so many people have no idea why there is a second amendment even though the founding fathers were very clear on that. to give it a good example, the bill of rights were being ratified, and the philadelphia

federal gazette on june 18, 1789, summed it up. to quote them, our civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, they attempt to tyrannize. as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country might prefer to their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. if you give the government an opportunity to know who does or does not own guns, they can sweep the second amendment away. host: that's john in san antonio, texas. that does it for that conversation. switching gears coming up, we're going to talk about florida republican ted yoho, a member of the foreign affairs committee. we will talk about his thoughts on the iran nuclear deal. and then later, the u.s. territory of puerto rico is in debt. we will hear from the resident commissioner pedro pierluisi on

what puerto rico is doing to reduce the debt and what help you would like to see from the federal government. we will get to both of those conversations right after this short break. >> he was the only part in history to have ever fought the british navy to a standstill. >> pirates. they see the british navy. >> this sunday night on q&a on the search for the pirate ship the golden fleece. it's captain, a wealthy merchant turned pirate, joe and -- joseph banister. >> he started off his life as a

noble english sea captain, a gentleman who is trusted by very wealthy shipowners to sail airships. the golden fleece, this beautiful golden sailing ship, between london and point -- port royal jamaica. for years he did that responsibly and nobly. but then one day in 1884, for reasons no one can quite determined, he stole the golden fleece retreated -- recruited a top-flight pilot -- pirate crew and started a life as a pirate. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house, congressional hearings, and news conferences. ringing you events that shape public policy. and every morning, washington journal is live with elected officials, policymakers, and

journalists. and your comment by phone, facebook, and twitter. c-span created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. host: we are back, joined now by representative ted yoho. congressman, you heard from secretary of state yesterday in a public hearing, along with energy secretary jack lew. what did you hear? guest: we were hearing how good this deal was. the stipulation was that if we walk away of the congress -- if we walk away as a country, there is a lot more to be found out about that. we found out about a secret deal worked out between the iaea and iran. we questioned a lot about that find out what is in that. the negotiating team has put america, the representatives of

the people, and a situation where we are having to vote against something without seeing all the facts. if there is a back deal made by the iaea and iran, for us to vote on it without seeing it would be disingenuous. host: john secretary -- john responded to the allegations of the secret deal. http://twitter.com/cspanwj[video clip] >> the secret deal. are you going to present this? >> there is no secret deal. the iaea negotiates a secret agreement, as they do with all countries between them and the country. that exists. we are briefed on it. we don't have it. we have been briefed on it. i don't personally have it. host: congressman? guest: like he said, we are

going to be briefed on it. but being briefed and seeing it are different things. iran -- a supposedly nuclear detonation device was detonated in 2003. the report was backed up by over a thousand pages of documents from iran, pretty much with conclusive evidence that they had detonated that. iran would be the one doing the environmental trampling of the soil. i don't know if you read mr. menendez comments, it's like letting lance armstrong take his own blood sample. this is not the way we move down the path, especially when we're talking about profit -- verification. host: what's the alternative? guest: the alternative is we go back to the negotiating table and negotiate stronger. iran came to the negotiating

deal to be relieved of economic sanctions. we still have four hostages over there. do you think we would have started out -- you would think we would've started out on a stronger footing. iran will end up getting a nuclear weapon. we could have delayed it longer, we could have put forth stronger efforts to negotiate iran removing all of their nuclear capabilities like south africa did, like costa rica did, to where they are not even producing the nuclear material. we did not do that. we wound up giving all that away. it's like that song, she got the gold mine, i got the shaft. they are taking a road to a nuclear weapon. they have economic development going on.

we could import persian rugs grapes, and that's. i think we could've done a lot better. i think the biggest thing is they went to u.n.. they went to the u.n. to get approval and said they come back to us. they put the onus on congress and say if you turn this deal down, you are walking away. that put america in a very tough situation. host: you have a vote potential emits a cover when you get back. is it realistic to think that you will go back to the negotiating table? guest: it's better to go early that it is later. you start getting the european union in there. france, china, russia starting to economic development, you are going to have these snapback options. it is better to do the earlier than later. host: you also said the president could have negotiated a better deal to keep iran from a nuclear weapon for longer. this deal is 10 years. how much longer? guest: let's not concentrate so much on the nuclear weapon.

look who you are negotiating with. the leading sponsor of state terrorism. you've got a country that since 1979 has a lot of american blood on its hands. the american soldiers that were killed in iraq and afghanistan they were either killed or wounded by ied's. 90% of those were produced by iran. iran has a foothold in south america and central america. building mosques. radical islam is developing there. you have a country like this. a country that has been saying death to america, death to israel. they are promoting all this. they did this under the. of time when there were economic sanctions on them. if they were suffering so bad why would they be spreading terrorism around the world. they have helped hamas, they have helped hezbollah. they have a hegemony they are

building right now in the middle east. by releasing the sanctions it will end both of them. this is a country that is state-sponsored terror. this is an enemy of the united states and we are saying, let's give you more power. i think it is a misstep in our negotiations. as mr. netanyahu says, this is a historic mistake. host: one issue i want to get to, that is an emotional performance by your colleagues representative mark meadows. a motion to remove the speaker of the house. do you support that? guest: we will see how it goes down the road. we have talked about it since then, we will see how it plays out. this is like any family, they have internal conflicts. i think we will handle this internally, and see how it turns out. host: it sounds it is going to be made public. guest: it is. i'm sure there'll be a lot of talk about it. host: will you get a vote on this before you leave? what is the plan? guest: the way i understand it

he has not filed yet. i have heard reports he has, i have heard reports he hasn't. there is a lot of speculation of there. host: what are you waiting for to decide? guest: to see if it goes forward. host: do you agree with the way the speaker of the house has run things? guest: i think it could be better. so many times things are run on power or money instead of principle, we needed to run on principle and vote for the will of the american people. the people is that the sum. if you do chastise promoting your conscience, on the way to people who said you appear that's wrong. you are squelching the voice of that segment of the population. host: have you voted for the speaker in the past? guest: no i haven't. host: why not then support mark meadows? guest: i probably would support host: what would be your hesitance to vote no?

what would make you say, i'm not going to vote? guest: i'll go with it. host: you will. what do you think happens from there? guest: we will see what happens. i'm here every day, and a lot of people say why are they doing that? why his leadership not doing this? this is what you will see on the hill. host: why -- is the speaker doing anything different than past speakers have? guest: i don't know. this is the only speaker i have had. host: tell us, for those of us who are not familiar how capitol hill works, what is it like? guest: how capitol hill or government works? we've got the debt ceiling coming up. we have tried to repeal obamacare 47 times. things like that. immigration, you want to know how it doesn't work.

why is immigration not dealt with? why have we not dealt with immigration, and system that has failed over 30 years. then that you get into century cities. people getting murdered by people who should have been deported. when we talk about why this is not working, i think you need to look at how things are brought up. before they are brought up even, chairman mccall has a border security bill that was brought up at the beginning of the year. these are contentious issues but if we don't fix these issues who is going to fix them? we need to have this debate. i have a letter going to mr. boehner requesting that we, the legislators, address immigration. i know the feeling of. we don't want to make things to contentious -- too contentious before the presidential primary. so making -- so many times things get punted. let's stop and have the debate. that letter will be going out to

mr. weiner so that we, representatives of the people, we want to have that debate. if we don't, what happens? you get another executive order. i don't want to wait until another one of our citizens gets killed by somebody who shouldn't be in this country. why are we not dealing with that? you talk about the debt ceiling. we have not had a discussion in our conference on how we are going to deal with the debt ceiling when it comes up. and you know what happened in september of 2013, the government shutdown. we do want to do that. but shouldn't we be talking about those strategies today or, in all, six months to a year down the road, i don't see that. host: let's get our viewers involved. , a democrat. -- bob, a democrat. caller: high, thank you for taking -- hi thank you for

taking my call. as the representative said, iran was on the road to get a bomb anyway. whether we relieved sanctions or not. this deal will essentially give them a bomb with sanctions relieved and about $100 billion, which to me seems ridiculous. it is utterly feckless. so, i mean, you know, i cannot understand it. the word leaders -- our enemies in the world must laugh at us because this administration is utterly feckless when it comes to china, iran russia. so that is about all i have to say. guest: bob, i appreciate that and i agree with you. i have sat on that foreign affairs committee are over to a half years, and every meeting we have, we talk about iran. not every meeting, but we have had several. all the experts have told us that iran has enough physical material to have five or six

weapons within six months to a year. if that was true two years ago we can only assume the have enough material. john kerry yesterday said they have enough material for 10 weapons. and if you go back to the original agreement, president obama says iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. and john kerry and the president also said there would be anywhere anywhere, -- anytime, anyplace access. that is not true. we are starting to negotiate on something -- trying to prevent something that we can't instead of preparing for something that will be. we should prepare for the day that iran has a nuclear weapon. but more importantly we should be talking about the responsibility that comes with that. host: roy is next in sun city california. a democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i support the agreement. i would like to ask the

congressman -- what is your alternative? what you think you can do now without the assistance of the other five or six countries? are we going to go to war? and if we do go to war, are we going to raise taxes on the citizens of this country? are we going to start a draft? it is always people like you -- i don't think you have ever served in the military. i'm a 20 year veteran. the world is not the way it was 50 years ago. where we can just to go out and start wars. and i think the agreement is a good one. host: we will have the congressman respond. guest: i appreciate your service to our country, and you are right, i have never served our country. i have a lot of respect for our military. i don't want to go to war and we're not advocating work.

like i said, iran is going to have a nuclear weapon whether we do this or not. you asked what is our alternative. unfortunately, the with this deal was negotiated, our negotiating team and this administration worked out a deal -- and remember what they said, no deal is better than a bad deal. this is not a good deal. i don't care what color you paint it, what assess recent you put on it, this is not a good deal. if you go back to north korea we had south korea and said, if you

guys walk away, we are walking way alone. and i think that is wrong to put the legislators of this country in that position to make us look

like the bad guys instead of coming to us and say, you know what? this is the deal, what do you guys think? and then go back to the negotiations and put more pressure on iran and tell them we expect you to operate in a certain way. host: melissa is in kansas, a republican. caller: hi, good morning. host: good morning. caller: mr. yoho, holly libya take you for your service. guest: thank you. caller: this iran deal absolutely shouldn't even be on the table. we should have never negotiated with the terrorists. obama is going to give money to a terrorist country and i think if he -- a dime goes to iran, obama should be put in jail.

it is a crime. you don't negotiate with terrorists. you eight and obeyed -- i think he takes an oath and says, i'm going to protect america. guest: melissa, i appreciate the question. we had that for a question yesterday. all of us serving appear take that oath to a pull the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. with iran being the number one state sponsor of terror, and we know how much blood they have on their hands, i have heard people say the same thing as you have. and it does make you wonder, if we are the superpower, we should be negotiating from the position of strength. and have iran come to the table, say they are going to denounce terrorism, say they are going to stop funding hamas and hezbollah.

they have propped up the assad regime. and that was with the interim deal. they are supposed to get about $6 billion to $8 billion, which has two new do over $14 billion. with that money, instead of building infrastructure, they helped prop up the assad regime and they already have plans to retrofit over 100,000 missiles that hezbollah has with pinpoint accuracy technology. this is not the -- the actions of the country that wants to be peaceful. again, history will play this out. and my feeling is they are going to have a bomb either way. we should prepare for this, but history will play this out and this negotiating team ob remembered as the next chamberlain or as the next reagan. host: i want to show our viewers and have you react to the exchange yesterday in the hearing between your colleagues scott perry and the secretary of

state about who he was representing, the secretary state, in these negotiations. [video clip] >> do you care more about this deal or the un's approval or american sovereignty and the approve at the -- approval of the american people through their duly elected representatives? secretary kerry: congressman, i don't need any lessons from you on who i represent. >>. bless you for your service sir. secretary kerry: don't give me any lessons on that, ok? this is america's interest because america is the principal guarantee of security in the region. and particularly with respect to some of our closest friends. we believe that iran was marching towards a weapon or the capacity to have a weapon and we have role that back. that is indisputable. >> let me ask you this -- host: congressman? guest: that was a heated debate. the passion from mr. perry, i

mean, you know he stands with his love for his country. and i'm not saying kerry doesn't, he does too. i mean, the death to israel, death to america, the same thing and they are burning american flags and israeli flags. to negotiate, to allow them to go down this path without getting them to denounce some of these other things, i think we could have done a lot better and we should have. and i think the bad thing is like i brought up before, is they negotiated the deal and then comes congress and wants us to approve this. and if we don't, they said that iran -- if we don't approve this, iran has the right to walk away from this deal and start enrichment tomorrow. that is the kind of negotiation that this team did. and if you are negotiating for your site, i think you do a little bit better than that. host: birmingham, alabama an

independent caller. caller: good morning. congressman, as an 18 euros, i joined the military and learned a few things about nuclear power. and the knowledge is still with me. you can destroy their facilities, but what about the knowledge? so yes, they're probably on a path to a nuclear weapon, but this agreement shuts down some of the paths they could take such as a heavy water plant which could produce plutonium which is more useful than a bomb. so my question is, please explant to the people those two things. and my other question to you is, who is going to fight this war? if there is no agreement. and the partners decided to forgo sanctions. and to let iran have that money that they have held in banks for them under the sanctions agreement.

how many people are going to join to volunteer to go fight this war? guest: i appreciate your service to our country and getting in at 18, i commend you. you say you can't bomb away knowledge, and i agree with that. dr. james walsh yesterday said that in another meeting. you cannot bomb that away. it is going to be on a data file somewhere. but you know it you can do is you can bomb away or take away the want of a country that wants to continue terrorism against america. i don't want a war. i do want anybody to fight this war. i do want our young men and women going to another foreign country that is not a direct threat to this country. and if iran gets a nuclear weapon, which they are either way, the way you prevent that war is through tough negotiations and to get the p5 nations to go along with us after all that economic development has happened in iran .

i think it is a fallacy to think we will have the snapback provisions. one of the provisions that is needed to be in place is the iran sanctions act, which is going to expire december 31 of 2016. that has to be in place for the snapback to happen and that expires. are we going to reenact this and will the president sign that? and they wouldn't answer that question. but you try to do snapback's after france or the united kingdom or china or russia have economic development in there and try to get them to come to that table if iran breaks one of their conditions of this agreement. and iran has got a terrible record of standing up and withholding the promises that they make. i can, moving down this path, it is -- it will play out. i hope it plays out for the best for all humanity. host: california, patrick, a democrat. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. yet, i just want to do agree --

to agree on the last call. eventually, we are all going to go to war. i am a child supporter, by the way. host: donald trump. caller: yes, donald trump. excuse me. he usually says whenever you give the enemy power, they are going to strike back at us. so basically, he the other day mentioned -- he put it eloquently when he said, i mean, i have a big -- host: we are going to move on. sorry about that. florida, a republican. caller: hi, hi. i appreciate all of the wonderful calls you have addressed this morning. i'm a little nervous and will just take a second here. guest: i know how you feel.

[laughter] caller: i have been following c-span for about a week now regarding this issue. and i wanted to tell you that i want to thank you for your service and the think you are taking it slow and you are being very careful. guest: thank you. caller: so here is my question. nuclear proliferation in this deal -- and atomic proliferation in the steel seem to be two separate issues. guest: correct. caller: some of us will probably never know all the details about that, but the economic seems even more interesting to me. and the reason that i say that is because time here seems to be so pressing to decide this issue on the side of the administration, concerning the president and when he gets out of office. and i'm wondering if we can't delay some of the negotiations or slow them down like i hope we could.

the question about hillary clinton and some of the investments in terms of the uranium mines and how that works, this all seems so convoluted and very complicated. can you help us with the economic side? guest: i appreciate the question. and the economic side i think is the biggest win for iran, in that they will have economic development of $100 billion to them, like getting trillions of dollars in our country. so, they are going to get between $100 billion and $115 billion. the secretary said it is only going to be 50 billion because some is already allocated to china. so there is $76 billion writer on the table there are getting right now. and it is going to make a country that represses its people, the leading state sponsor of terrorism, human rights violations, free-speech

violations, religious persecution, all that is going on now. now you are going to embolden the leadership of that country not the citizens. and i think you'll see the citizens under more theological control, authoritarian control and you are going to see a worsening situation in iran for the people. but i think you are going to see a hegemony of iran in the middle east and they will be the dominant player over there. look at what they are doing in iraq already. they are the ones leading the charge on so many of these fights. they are supplying the militia in iran, they are supplying the militia in yemen that are fighting saudi arabia. they are funding hezbollah and hamas. and they already medically or that there are going to help rebuild the tunnels. then tie that in with the nuclear proliferation that at any point in time if iran inks this deal didn't work out right for them, they can walk away from it. and going back to the deal that

we should have negotiated earlier and stronger, as you brought up, that you wish we would have done better in the beginning, i wish we did too. if we turn this deal down, according to john kerry, it gives iran the right to walk way from the table and they can enrich tomorrow. if you are negotiating for the united states of america, i think you would do what is best not only for this country, but to stabilize world peace. you know, i just think it was a misstep on foreign policy. and this is something that has happened in his administration over and over again. i get experts from all over the world ambassadors representatives and they said that america's credibility has been brought down to the lowest level in our lifetime. and it is because of the lack of negotiating. host: larry is here in washington dc, a republican. caller: good morning. good morning, congressman. good morning c-span and everybody.

this marks a watershed event for the world. iran, they don't think like other countries. their premise is, we have to create chaos to bring the money. which in 1991, classics and gave iran three nuclear weapons. with this situation, they can develop their own dr. con -- kahn. and the president and secretary of state, they made a number of decisions and it is going to affect -- we are accelerating to a nuclear world war iii. guest: larry, i appreciate your call. and you know, i hope we don't go that route. i hope negotiation does come and countries from around the world will come in and help slow this process down and get iran on the right track. you have a country like iran.

they don't like western ideology. they are teaming up with the radical islam us -- islamists over there and they are working against freedom and liberty. they don't like liberty and freedom. they don't like free speech. and we are fighting in ideological divide. and in bolding someone like iran -- embolding someone like iran i think it is very naive and i think it will be a chamberlain type of moment. and, you know, all we can do is hope that we get together, that this deal gets turned down. we get the p5 back to the negotiating tables and we get iran to maybe release our four american hostages, denounced terrorism, say that they are not going to fund hamas and hezbollah. host: congressman, what to get your reaction.

the front pages -- nato in a corner. turkey drew nader -- nato deeper into that conflict -- guest: i saw that this morning. again, what i think you are going to see is an escalation of this. especially with the nuclear deal . when people start saying other countries start saying iran becoming more empowered, you are going to seeing this and you are going to be bringing in nato, which is going to dry the rest of the world. and with iran and the possibility of a nuclear weapon, you are going to see a proliferation of nuclear weapons in the middle east. we have heard that jordan is looking at it, saudi arabia yemen. when i heard the president and john kerry say that this deal will make the middle east,

israel, and the u.s. and the world safer but if that is true, why are the experts coming into our committee and saying that the best thing we can do is start building missile-defense systems on our eastern seaboard, which we don't have, bolstering the one on our western and alaska. if this deal is so good, why are the experts telling us -- and i think you are just seeing the beginning of more tension in the middle east. host: -- turkey began as tax against the islamic state last week, but also wants the tax on the kurdish separatist groups. that in the "wall street journal" this morning. his second term in congress. before that, a veterinarian for 30 years. iris, you are next in alabama and independent. caller: good morning. take you for taking my call. i love c-span, it is a great show. look, i feel like we look like we are shaking in our boots. they already have a nuclear

weapon. they already have it. somebody is going to push the button. it is just a matter of when they are going to push the button. there is going to be a cataclysm. the $2.5 billion we are fixing to give those people, we need to be building a defense is to protect ourselves. it is coming. there is nothing we can do about it. i hate us. they already told us how they feel about us. they want to wipe us off the face of the earth. they already have one -- won. guest: iris, i appreciate you calling in. you know, we don't want to go down this path. nobody wants war, especially a nuclear war. but i feel your pain and i feel your angst. the iaea inspectors, the international atomic inspection agency, the other ones tasked

with inspection and iran. we can only inspect the places we know about and we had to get permission from iran first. however, how he places are hidden that we didn't know about? yes, it is easy to inspect those things you think you know about. it is the ones you don't know that are the ones that are going to do damage. in president eisenhower said a peaceful nuclear program is done openly and what people can see it. one that is done in the secret is only used to produce nuclear weapons. i think that is wise counsel of a past president. iran has already got icbm's. and they have gotten enriched uranium. as john kerry said, they already have enough material to produce 10 to 12 weapons. all the components are there, it is when they tuesday unit -- when they choose to use it.

icbm's our intercontinental ballistic missiles. and we don't ever want to see that day. i don't want to see my kids live that -- live through that. and i think it is better for us and it would be better to intervene earlier than later after iran get stronger if these economic sanctions get lifted. it will be harder to rein in someone that spouts terrorism like they do, death to america, death to israel, and the spread of terrorism throughout the world. not just their hemisphere, but it is in the western hemisphere now. again, we need to revisit this. i hope congress has the will to vote this down and put pressure on the economic partners we have did this is not good for anybody other than iran. host: congress expected to vote on this in mid-september. "new york times" reporting this morning that the longest serving jewish member now in congress said tuesday that he would support the iran nuclear accord,

lending a have divorce of approval in a chamber deeply skeptical of the deal. we will go to mike in florida, an independent caller. caller: yes, good morning. i believe that we should negotiate a fair deal. i trust that senator kerry and those that represent us are not stupid people. and i don't think that we should be overwhelmed like the lady that spoke earlier with fear. and i don't think the congress should be blackmailed by special interest groups. and i was glad to see that congressman levy cannot with his support -- came out with his support. korea, the soviet union, china they are all technically our adversaries.

and i don't think that we should live in fear. and i am not in fear of iran. host: let's take that sentiment. guest: mike, i agree with you and you said we should have a fair deal. i guess you have to define what fair is. i would hope you would negotiate and do what is best for america and not to box us into a corner that if we vote this down, it allows iran to walkway from the deal and start enriching tomorrow. it doesn't seem like a smart deal if it could be discarded that quickly. and that pressure is put on congress without counseling with congress ahead of time. so it has put congress in a very bad situation. with iris, i don't think we need to fear monger. i think we need to be real pragmatic about this. they are going to have a weapon on the way. we need to prepare for that day and start negotiations today and diplomacy and start talking about responsibilities.

responsibilities of our allies that we will stand up and protect israel and all our allies as best we can. it is time that we put this in the forefront as we negotiate. and i think, like you said, i'm sure john kerry is a very intelligent guy. but i think we could have done a lot better on this deal. and i appreciate your call. host: we will go to mike in montana, a republican. caller: yes, thank you, mr. yoho , for your honesty. i really appreciate that. guest: thank you. caller: a protection racket, is what i hear, what is happening with iran. that makes no sense. they are holding congress and the american people hostage. host: mike, i apologize, a very bad connection there. guest: mike, i got part of that. i agree. and the thing that was interesting to me is the united

nations voted on this over the last weekend, i think it was and the german finance minister or economic development person was in iran immediately after that, as were other nations, talking about economic development. and the idea, again is that if something gets broken in this agreement, all the sanctions will go back. i feel that is a fallacy, along with a lot of the other members. if your are going to negotiate we should go back right now before you have two years of economic development by these other countries and try to get them to come to our side and say, hey this is a bad deal. iran broke the stipulation. and to try to get them to come to our side. this policy, i will predict, will cause isolation of america instead of more involvement in these negotiations in the future. strictly because we have been put on the outside. and if we vote against this, we are on our own, as john kerry now to get -- negotiated, we are on our own.

so that puts us in an isolationist policy. host: here is a headline from your state. ted yoho considering entering the 2016 race to replace marco rubio. guest: i don't know where that came from. i think we had an overzealous supporter. i have no intention to run for the senate. i was surprised because i had three or four people come up to me yesterday saying, hey, mr. senator. i said, what you talking about? no, i'm not. host: you have ruled it out. guest: it is rolled out. host: the story says, looking at the race, but far from a decision. guest: real far. host: why not? guest: they have several great candidates right now on the republican ticket. host: it looks like, though half of floridians, or florida republicans, remain undecided. why do think that is? guest: i think it is early and i don't think people are really focused on that.

there's so much going on with the presidential debate right now. there is just a lot of noise out there with mr. trump. but bringing that up, mr. trump is leading in the polls. and i think that is a testament -- test of the feelings of those on the republican side. why is our debts not fixed? all these other problems we have talked about. they like the rhetoric he is saying. he is saying stuff that people want to hear. i don't know if they want him running the country, but right now, it makes them feel good. and we have several great candidates in the senate race. and i'm staying out. host: trump has twice the support of jeb bush in new hampshire. so do you think he should remain in the race? with the rhetoric you are hearing from him? guest: yeah, i mean, not all of it, but i have heard a lot of it. again, he talks about having a

stronger hand, representing america. our whole line was, it is time to rebuild america. let's get back to our basic principles, according to use. let's stop running away. let's unite this country. and you have to -- the only way you're going to do that is have a common vision or outlook for america. what america should be. john kennedy did that in the 1960's. we put a man on the moon and brought him back safely, not because the technology we had but because he created a desire and he challenged america and we raised up and we did that. he united and nation and we have to do that again. this country needs that and it is going to require a strong leader that can speak and articulate a clear message about what is best for america, what does america stand for. we have lost away. you can see that by the supreme court, where we stand in the world on a foreign policy

people don't aware we stand. people want better that -- than that. host: is your candidate? guest: i am not coming out yet no. host: you have not decided. guest: appreciate your asking, though. [laughter] host: you have your own senator from florida, marco rubio. guest: the field has a lot of good candidates. it is too early to say. host: when do you think -- have you been courted at all from these candidates? guest: we have talked to a lot of them. host: how often do they call? guest: they called in the beginning and we tell them where we stood. and i'm good to be quite on that right now. appreciate your asking, though. host: in chicago, a democrat. caller: i am really getting tired of hearing these republicans, every time they have a microphone in their face, they start line.

ok. i would like this gentleman to tell me two representatives of any two countries that have come to him and explain to him how our status in the world has weakened to the point of any time in history. guest: you ready? egypt, sri lanka, canada australia, i can go on and on and on. and what they said is the -- the goodwill america has built up over the last 200 years has gone off the table. i asked people, what is the sentiment of our country in your country by your citizens? and they say one of the middle eastern countries said congressman, you don't like america. it is not so much the american people, it is the american government. they don't like the policies. we go in there and you tell people -- we tell people you have to have democracy, you have

to have free speech, we have to -- you have to have freedom of religion. we believe in this country that our rights come from the creator . they don't believe that in a middle eastern country. they believe their power comes from government and that government is there to be served by the people. and so we go over their child to push our ideals on them and they resent it. and then we get the context we have. the war in iraq, i am against that war. i don't think we should have ever gone over there. but we are involved now. we have to do the best we can and get our young men and women home. but more importantly, our foreign policies in the future should work to prevent those. and, you know, if you don't like what politicians say, what i recommend is do what i did you'll get tired of it and then you will run into can be a pita help us fix this. host: in pennsylvania, and independent. -- an independent.

caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: please don't cut me off. first of all, mr. trump is speaking nastiness. second of all we have been the purveyors of weapons of mass destruction since -- times. we developed the atomic bomb and a nuclear bomb. and now we are trying to keep it out of the hands of people that never should have gotten it, we should never have developed it. certain countries can have it we can come israel can, russia maybe or they at least have the knowledge. and now one of my other point is going completely out the window. all, we went in there, we went into iran in the 50's -- 1950's and elected a president and we are wondering why this country hates us? we need to stop. we need to stop trying to turn other countries into democracies. they are what they are. host: let's take that point.

guest: i appreciate that. i agree with you, we went into iran that can the 1970's -- in fact, jimmy carter's policy that this nation has followed is there must be security for israel, we must make sure that oil flows out of the middle east through the straits and that there is peace in the middle east. my question to you and the rest of the people watching, how well is that working? and you brought up who are we to tell another country what the canning can do about nuclear weapons? that is my sentiment exactly and that would -- is what i was saying in these meetings. who are we to tell another country with a canning can't have? we should have better diplomacy and build trade relationships with other countries and have stronger relationships that would and talk about the responsibility of nuclear weapons and not be dictating to

other countries. so i agree with you and that is why our foreign policy needs to change. and we need to get away from offering aid like we do in the monetary sense and go in and build trade and economic relationships with countries. because if you are trading with countries cut it you are more likely to be like-minded you are going to look out for each other. that is what we need to focus our foreign policy on instead of these weapons. it would be great if we didn't spent so much money on a military, yet the number one task of our government's national security. but along with just the implements and the armaments foreign policy and the negotiations through your diplomats and finding out what other countries want and help them get that without forcing them to accept our ideology is the way to go. and that is not what i'm seeing happening. host: we will go to -- actually congressman, we are going to end there. appreciate very much your time is money. come back again. guest: thank you. host: we are going to turn our

attention next to the debt situation and put illegal. we will talk with a representative from that u.s. territory, pedro pierluisi joins us to talk about what is next. and later, our spotlight on magazine series continues. harold will be good to talk about how the american south is contributing to the low-wage economy. we will be right back. >> when first lady ida mccamley arrived to the white house, she was in poor health, suffering from epilepsy. and her husband would sit next

to her at white house events. when she saw she was having a seizure, he would cover her face with a large handkerchief until the episode past. despite her health problems, she traveled as the first lady. even attending the 1901 and american exposition, where her husband was assassinated. this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series, "first ladies." examining the public and private lives of the women who fill the position of first lady. from martha washington to michelle obama sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "american history tv" on c-span three. >> he is the only pirate in history to ever bring the british navy to a standstill. >> this is unheard of. >> they see the british navy and a man.

he actually fired shots. >> this sunday night on "q&a," on the search for the ship and its captain, joseph banister. >> he started off his life not as a pirate at all, but as a noble english sea captain who was trusted by very wealthy shipowners to share -- sail their ships between london and port world jamaica, which was known then as the wickedest city on earth. and carry valuable cargoes between london and port royal. for years, he did that responsibly and nobly. but then one day in 1684 for reasons no one could quite determine, he stole his own ship , recruited a top-flight hiring crew, and went on the account of piracy. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a."

"washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome to our table, resident commissioner of puerto rico, pedro pierluisi. good morning, thank you for being here. guest: good morning, greta. host: $72 billion. why? guest: that is the total debt that public entities in puerto rico have in the markets, in the financial markets. and it has accumulated through decades for various reasons. part of it actually is the fact that puerto rico doesn't get the same level of federal assistance as the states do. part of it is mismanagement, bad decisions. in defense, some of the debt has to do with offering deficits of the central government that were financed. and we shouldn't do that. we should live within our means. but the first thing i should say is that this is not one that not one sovereign debt.

puerto rico is an american territory. and, again, there are debts from , let's say, the puerto rican electric authority, one of the entities. any the central government of puerto rico that has issued general obligation bonds. our constitution protects those bonds. pretty much gives them first priority in terms of paying them. so that is themacro, the broad picture -- the macro, the broad picture. host: can puerto rico pay it jack of -- it? guest: yes. there are some authorities that are having difficulty in meeting their payment obligations. that entity has already a forbearance agreement with its major creditors dating back about a year. so that is an entity that definitely -- it needs to

restructure its organizations -- operations, as well as its organization, to make it if it fills its obligations. host: you have introduced legislation to allow perjury go to file bankruptcy. there is this headline, though from yesterday -- congress won't grant puerto rico bankruptcy protection. guest: the first thing i should say is what i'm asking for in my bill, and there is a counterpart bill in the senate, is that puerto rico begin in exactly the same treatment as the states get in terms of bankruptcy. we are not talking about the central government of puerto rico the current bankruptcy. that is not available to the states, so it would be available to puerto rico. but it could allow it if the bill is passed -- if the bill is passed, that the water and sewer authority could reorganize themselves before the bankruptcy court, the federal bankruptcy court. that is a mechanism that is

available in the states, cities, utilities have used it. so to reorganize themselves in a proper legal, safe manner. and that is what i want for puerto rico. it makes sense to have it. and i hope that when the time comes, congress will approve the bill. host: what does puerto rico not get that states get? he said the island does not have as many -- does not get as much federal assistance that the states get. guest: lots of areas. one that comes to mind immediately is health programs. for example, there are huge disparities in the way puerto rico is treated under the medicaid program. that is the program that is available to provide access to medical care to people citizens of the nation. in puerto rico, we get half of the funding, even less than we would get as a state.

and that brings a lot of fiscal pressure to our local government. we have a health insurance card program in puerto rico and the federal government is basically paying less than half its cost and we are not covering people even up to 100% of poverty level. so it is a very different environment to operate in. the medicare program -- this is really amazing -- and puerto rico, we don't pay federal income taxes under local income, but we pay payroll taxes. i mean social security and medicare, yet there are huge disparities in the way the program applies in puerto rico. it is the only place where for subpart b of medicare, the part of the coverage that deals with outpatient services, we don't get it automatically. hospitals in puerto rico do not get the same payment hospitals in the mail and get and they offer the same level of care -- in the mainland get and they offer the same level of care. the reimbursement rates that the

entity administrating the medicare program pays in puerto rico are a lot lower than in the states. so that aspect, the health sector in puerto rico, there are other programs in which we do not get the same deal. people with disabilities in puerto rico do not -- are not eligible to participate in that program. tax credits. the earned income tax credits in the states, which promotes people to go into the labor force basically incentivizes people to work, even though puerto rico has a very low labor participation rate, we don't get that it -- benefit. so i could go on and on. it is unfair. we are 3.5 million american citizens residing in puerto rico. why treat us differently? it is un-american. and i have not even talked about political rights we don't have also. so just simply giving us you quit treatment than federal

programs make us -- makes sense. you moved to puerto rico tomorrow and you lose all kinds of rights. and you are an american citizen. you were not born in puerto rico, not that that makes a difference, and yet you would move tomorrow there and you are not going to get the same treatment from your government the federal government. it frankly makes no sense. host: and you're right in the "having to post," -- "huffington post uncle -- guest: but of course because you are talking about quality of life, you are talking about resources that the government and puerto rico would have that right now we are using our own resources to provide decent care to american citizens living in puerto rico. why not the federal government? it is doing it us or in the nation. and that is why. i do believe that the permanent

solution to the problems facing puerto rico is to treat the american citizens in puerto rico with equality. equal rights for the american citizens in puerto rico. host: is what you're asking for statehood? you are running for governor. guest: i am running for governor and i'm advocating for statehood. actually, the people of puerto rico, we held a vote and statehood got more votes than any other status option. and the people rejected the current territorial status. what is democracy? democracy is basically the people treating their leaders, their elected officials, and the people deciding their political future. it is otherwise called self-determination. well, in puerto rico, we already spoke. and i have a bill pending before congress that basically provides for an up or down vote on statehood, the same vote that hawaii and alaska had before

they begin states of the union. and then the admission process in a body for your -- in about a four year period. we have to make sure that in puerto rico have fiscal responsibility, that we balance our budget, that we change our budgetary system so we make sure we are not overspending. and then at the same time, we want tools. tools to do with this excessive amount of debt that some entities have piled up in puerto rico. the same way that it happens in the states. here in the states when a city a county, or let's say a water and sewer authority gets into financial trouble, it reorganizes itself. the same happens in the private sector, chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. which is available in puerto rico. that is available when any corporation get in financial trouble. you be organize yourself. it is part of the american

capital system and it should be available in puerto rico. host: we are talking with pedro pierluisi, the resident commissioner of puerto rico. first elected in 2008. let's get to calls. the fourth line is set aside for puerto ricans this morning (202) 748-0003 for. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, why is unemployment so high in puerto rico and why is so many people on disability and puerto rico? guest: great question. our economy has been lagging when you compare to the economy in the states. our income per capita is about one third of the state average. and the same' employment. we have always had 4% or 5% percentage points or higher unemployment than in the mainland. we are lagging.

this data is that we have is not performing well anymore. it doesn't work as a platform for puerto rico's economic development. when you ask the people of puerto rico, american citizens what do they prefer? do they prefer joining the union or going our own way and then becoming a sovereign country and in a session with the u.s.? the overwhelming majority will say they would rather join the union on an equal basis with their federal -- fellow american citizens. so a lot has to do with the fact that the status is not working anymore. the unemployment we have, the lack of good jobs we have is happening as a territory. and we should focus on that. host: this is some statistics put together on puerto rico and it says about unemployment that the single most telling statistic in puerto rico is that only 40% of the adult population versus 63% in the mainland is

employed or looking for work paid employers declined to hire workers because the u.s. federal minimum wage is already high relative to the local average. and it says in a more binding constraint unemployment is that in puerto rico, -- local regulations pertaining to overtime, paid vacation, and dismissal are costly and more onerous than on the mainland. guest: be disability rating puerto rico might be higher, but it is basically a reality. people, when they have disabilities, they seek assistance. and they do, in the case of puerto ricans, who are american citizens of puerto rico, they go to the social security office and they file claims to get assistance. but as i said before, any supplemental security income program does also not apply, so we are disadvantage. in terms of the 40% labor

participating, in the mainland the average is 63%. there are all caps of reasons for this. again, good jobs, lack of good jobs and opportunities in puerto rico under the current status. that is the main reason. you also have the fact that you do have a lot of population under the poverty level. and that brings incredible challenges. some of them are receiving assistance from the federal government -- nutritional assistance, it could be housing assistance, section a public housing. and to that extent, it could be that some of those programs do not incentivize work. i am the first when who says the solution cannot be that puerto rico then it not have the federal minimum wage. that is not the solution. in puerto rico, you what decent wages. you are people who get a job to basically make sure -- you want

to make sure the salary they earn allows them to meet their basic necessities. puerto rico is part of the u.s. and the fact that we get the federal minimum wage is a positive. you want our labor force to be productive, to be well motivated, and to be able to have a decent quality of life. so that is not the solution to reduce the minimum wage in puerto rico. the solution is to assist puerto rico and we can assist puerto rico, giving it better treatment and federal programs. and again, i will repeat, and treating american citizens are equally. allowing puerto rico to be a part of the state of the union. host: -- because the welfare system provides generous benefits in puerto rico that often exceeds what minimum wage employment heels. -- yields. caller: good morning. first of all, congratulations on

your program. i would like to tell the commissioner that -- when he started talking, he said about the status of the welfare or the programs that puerto ricans don't get. i think that is the wrong view. that is a lot of the problems for domingo has. the 40% unemployment is that it is not unemployment, it is because people get more money from welfare to go -- than to go out there and get a job. so we have to wait for the federal government to bail us out. we don't want that. jeb bush said yesterday that puerto rico has to solve its problems. before talking about changing the title of the island -- status of the island. host: ok, we will get a

response. guest: nobody is talking about a bailout. nobody is asking for that. we simply want the same treatment as the states get. the federal programs you are referring to are federal. in the case of puerto rico, it makes no sense to reduce the minimum wage because, if anything, then that is going to give them a bigger incentive not to work because if what they are going to be getting paid, a lot less than the value of the benefits they get if they are not working and they are having difficulty, you cannot blame them. then they wouldn't work. they would rather receive the assistance that they need to survive. so it is not right to say that we are advocating for more welfare benefits. that is not it. we are advocating for the same treatment, the equality. puerto rico is part of the u.s. people sometimes forget appear that we are american citizens.

and so we should be treated with respect. now more than ever. now everybody wants a all over the world, why not for the american citizens living in puerto rico? host: we will hear from allie next in california. caller: hello? host: good morning. you are on the air. caller: yes, i have just a few questions. the last 10 years, i was just wondering, how many military bases have been shut down there? that could cause a big, big problem with employment. and then, you also get a -- [indiscernible] and are you regulated by the same epa rules that we are here? and if not, can you get somebody to help build your industry? then you have to be careful with the minimum wage because that will go up and then everybody's rent will also go up. if you could just ask those questions. host: all right. guest: ok, about 12, 13 years

ago, a major navy base was closed and shut down in puerto rico. it was located in ceba. that base was used because in the echoes -- in vieques, the navy did military exercises shelter the island for decades. -- shelled the island for decades. so the navy got out. we do not have any other base except for to buchanan, which is for the -- fort buchanan, which is where the retired military service and so on. it is not an active military base as such. but our people, the american citizens of puerto rico, join the armed forces as much if not higher than most states.

and we have been defending this country consistently in all world wars in the past century. wherever it is needed. and our veterans deserve equal treatment. they don't get it in puerto rico. they cannot vote for the commander-in-chief. they do not have congressional representation. they cannot vote in both the house and the senate up here. they don't get the same benefits and puerto rico as they would get if they were living in the mainland. epa rules, and federal law in general applies in puerto rico. banking laws, environmental laws, and so on. we want that. we want that security. again, we are proud puerto ricans, but we are also proud american citizens. host: from largo, florida, a

democrat. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: my question to you is, you say that you are an american. you say that you are taking all the benefits that we give you. we have given you plenty of benefits, because i am a landlord. i rent a lot of homes to puerto ricans be a housing authority. my biggest question to you is, why don't you become a state? why the you take everything from the u.s., but yet you are not a state? therefore we should cut off everything that goes to puerto rico señor. whenguest: i like your attitude. that's what i'm all about. my quest in life is to change

the status of puerto rico, make it the 51st state of the union. that makes sense and that is what i am fighting for. the bill that i have before congress called for an up or down vote on the admission of puerto rico to statehood. the same boat to hawaii and alaska had before they joined the union. everybody for can vote for, everybody against can vote against it, make it very democratic. then congress of have to treat puerto rico on the same terms and conditions that they admitted other states. we are not asking for special treatment. we are asking for equal treatment for puerto rico. now remember one thing. you mentioned that we have all these benefits. we don't get all these benefits. in the u.s. lots of people do not pay federal income tax and get benefits from the federal government, the same should happen in puerto rico. again, we are american citizens. we should be treated fairly. host: in april, republican

presidential front-runner jeb bush endorsed statehood for puerto rico. do you know where the votes are for your legislation in the house? have you done a with cap? -- with cap -- wip count? guest: the bill already has 110 cosponsors. it has more cosponsors the 99% of the bills before the house, and it is bipartisan support. i have 13 or 14 republican sponsors joining me even know i am a proud democrat, as they believe that this is the right thing to do. have a vote, a democratic vote and then assuming the majority of the people want to join the union, then provide for the admission. this is a quest. it is not going to happen overnight. as i said, we held the play the

site 12 and puerto rico. -- plebecite. 54% of people rejected the current status. at state have got more votes than all the current status. -- statehood got more votes. if people are not satisfied with the territorial status we have, one change and statehood is the answer. host: exodus from puerto rico could sway the election. joseph in rio grande, puerto rico. republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm calling just to say that i am a proud american citizens that defended our great nation for 20 years. i am also of proud -- a proud puerto ricans. i don't understand why and puerto rico we have 78 mayors

for 3.5 million residents. why haven't political personnel made the adjustments needed to beat this crisis? guest: actually joseph, we do have 78 municipalities, but we have no counties. we should not have counties in puerto rico given that we have so many municipalities. what we have to do at the municipality level, the city level, is to make sure that small cities use resources from bigger cities. that we do not have as much bureaucracy and each and every one of those musicality. that is something that we need to be looked -- to do looking forward. but the central government and the municipal government of puerto rico is too large for the size of our economy. we need to grow our economy grow our private sector, and make sure that our government does not grow. we have to use technology and make sure that we do not have as

much bureaucracy as we have right now. but the answer would be to streamline the government of a lot of those municipalities you are referring to. it would not be, though, to start creating counties or other government structures and puerto rico. that would be even more expensive and bureaucratic. host: let's get a has a, also -- also for -- jose, also from puerto rico. a republican. caller: thank you for your service. my question is, i have been hearing that the people of puerto rico have a lot of dependent on welfare or government assistance. but what it is is that we have a moral responsibility with our elderly people and our kids. i'm a service man, my folks, a servicemember from vietnam, i

served in kuwait. we have a passion for our nation. we serve with pride. we have sometimes seen that we got treated like second-class citizens. not only that, i have been told sometimes that i'm from another country. i tell them about my military service and they say, are you a mercenary? if i go put my life on the line it is because i love this country. i love the liberty and justice for all. not only i, all people do that. we are noble in the sense that we go -- we have deep roots of morality. i think that we have, over hundred 20 years -- 120 years,

the flag of the united states. we want statehood. we can do it with the tourists. the tourism industry is something that we have two due to level the field. host: jose, i am going to have our guest respond. but how are you watching us this morning? caller: my tv, yes. guest: we are proud puerto ricans. proud american citizens. you can call us puerto rican americans. nine out of 10 puerto rican americans are very proud of their american citizenship, and they don't want anybody to mess with it. at the same time, we have issues like the aging of the population. the same thing is happening and a lot of other places. we are losing population.

you mentioned it greta, before. why are we losing population? is when you are an american citizen living in puerto rico and you cannot find a good job or you do not get the level of health care that you want, or you are not being treated fairly by your government, you can quickly hop on a plane and moved to the states. go to florida. go to texas. go to connecticut. anywhere in the states. all of a sudden overnight you get rights and opportunities we don't have in puerto rico. that's why i say this makes the sense. jose mentioned that some people here sometimes confuse port -- puerto rico with costa rica our other countries and think we are a foreign country. it is an ongoing education process. puerto rico is part of the u.s.. we are american citizens. you cannot ignore us. we are part of this country, and

when puerto rico prospers america prospers. when frost -- when puerto rico does well, america does well. we are in the midst of the caribbean were lots of things are happening. we should be a bridge between the u.s. and latin america central america. more so than we currently are. let's have a common vision that make sure that we put puerto rico on the path to equality. on the past real progress. host: pedro pierluisi representing the territory of puerto rico. no other member of congress represent that many people. mary, an independent. caller: hi. i was just going to make a comment that right now you don't pay federal income tax, and as you point out you do receive benefits such as social security disability, food stamps, housing supplements medical assistance on some

levels, for which you are putting in nothing. first of all, if you can't make it when you're not paying any federal income tax, how do you think you're going to be able to balance your budget when you start paying tax jacket? second, we don't want to take on your debt if we can't pay our own. third, you actually have a unique situation where your bonds become more valuable in other states. no other state can do that. everyone else's triple tax in their own state. good question. -- guest: good question. you have a lot of people in the mainland getting federal government -- federal support and not pay any income tax. we do get social security.

but we don't get the same deal as citizens in the state. with respect to exceptions for our bonds, that is an exception puerto rico was given. that's a question. it was given out of the same federal tax rate and we got because we are not getting the same assistance in federal programs we would get as a state. that is why we need to change the model. change the platform. it is not working anymore. host: dennis in windermere, florida. a republican. caller: hi. i'm an american veterans. congressman, i have listened to a lot of your speeches on the house floor. also i have listened and also seen all of your writing. sir, i think you are a patriot. we american veterans salute you. this is also a case of equality

for puerto rico. it is a problem, and action must be taken. but also, the federal government must do its part. i was also with governor jeb bush on monday. i served on his transition team for american veterans. his position of puerto rico for 35 years, has been for statehood. he also wants the fiscal problems to be taken care of. one it does not take from the other. we can do both, because for a hundred 17 years puerto rico -- 117 years puerto rico has been oppressed. it is time that we have equal treatment. my question for you sir, with a lot of respect and a lot of admiration, what can you see the federal government doing for the debt restructuring? what is -- it is the duty of

the federal government. what steps you think they can take. also supporting statehood, yes or no, for puerto rico? guest: you are a true patriot, and i am proud of you. i know you are currently residing in florida but you are a true puerto rican. i know you are fighting for equality, and that is the solution. the democratic thing to do -- the right thing to do economically and financially for puerto rico insofar as the immediate crisis is concerned. congress could give puerto rico a tool that is not available in puerto rico, and that is chapter nine of the bankruptcy code. it allows companies to re-organize themselves under the protection of the bankruptcy court, so that they can meet their payment obligations.

it allows them to restructure in an organized and legal way. that is why i am fighting for that in congress. but the permanent solution would be to allow puerto rico to join the union. pay federal taxes. but at the same time, get the same benefits from the federal government. then puerto rico would prosper with that kind of profit -- status. there would be a transition, but we would have no political risk and we would drive the sick -- thrive the same way to states have thrive in the union. host: one last call from atlantic city, democrat. caller: hello. first of all i'd like to pay homage and respect to the 65th infantry reserve. they actually volunteered for world war i. these people are not mandatory to fight our wars. they fight in our cause.

we have the same cause. that is number one. number two, mr. pedro i believe you are not going to be a little pay this debt. i believe your banks will collapse, and i believe puerto rico will become a science experiment. are you prepared for this? guest: i did on -- but do not agree with this assessment. i believe puerto rico has a bright future. on an immediate basis we are facing a fiscal crisis, and we have a lot of debt. it basically amounts to the level of our economy. that is high. but we can manage. we can make sure that we keep innovation for development, that our authorities are reorganized but we do not keep breathing rates would to be terrible for economic development. at the same time we can streamline our government and make sure that we live within

our means. puerto rico as i said, has a lot of potential. many doctors from puerto rico are well-known. that is the biggest resource our stem professionals. our beauty, our location. our culture. we can do much better than we have. we just need the u.s. government is to treat a fairly. allow us to prosper. it was equality and we will -- host: on the debt issue governors schumer -- senator schumer and blumenthal are warning that if puerto rico is not allowed to restructure its debt it could trigger a humanitarian crisis. what sort a few military crisis? guest: it would be chaotic if you do not have the legal structure to adjust your debt

when need be. they are referring to mass migration, more than we have. in the past, we have lost a 250,000 people in just five or six years. if it continues at this level puerto rico will be seriously downsized, even more so. it is going to be very hard to make it viable. we want american citizens who resided puerto rico to stay there. they would rather live in puerto rico than anywhere in the states. but because the economy is lagging, it's not working. the system is not working. that is why we need to change it. that is what they are referring to. i hope the chapter nine deal i introduced in the house, etc. blumenthal and schumer introduced in the senate will get its day in congress and it will become law.

it will deftly help puerto rico. host: pedro pierluisi, thank you very much for your time this morning. resident commissioner of puerto rico. running for governor. thank you. guest: thank you. host: coming up next, our spotlight on magazines continues. we will talk to editor at large of the "american prospect" magazine, harold meyerson, about how the south is driving a low-wage economy. we'll be right back.

he was also awarded the medal of honor posthumously for his actions in world war ii. >> we are sitting here in the augustine museum of history. about 10 years ago a decision was made for a permanent military display to honor to be dais. when i did my research on the book i went through all the carnegie medal recipients, and the 3500 medal of honor recipients. it turns out he is the only person ever to have been awarded both awards. >> he would almost for sure say he did not deserve it. he might point out that somebody else who was better than he was. he was very humble. he never talked about the carnegie medal. when i interviewed people who knew him, when i did the book along time ago, people knew him well. i said tell me, what about this carnegie medal? they didn't know anything about it. i have known a lot of medal of

honor recipients from my years of the medal of honor foundation, and most of them will tell you, i didn't deserve this. it should have been given to somebody else. it is a piece of humility that we can all learn from. i think he was in that category. we also visit the boyhood home of our 28 top -- president woodrow wilson. >> woodrow wilson moved to augustine when he was just eight years old. moved -- a year old. moved to this house when he was three. his very first memory was in november of 1860, before he was four years old. he was standing on the front gate out of front of the house and two men came by in a hurry with very excited tones of voice. and they said abraham lincoln has just been elected president, and there is going to be a war. he ran inside to ask his father what was war? what did that mean?

i were they so excited? we think it is remarkable that his very first memory was about another president, abraham lincoln, and about another war. the civil war. of course wilson would have to leave the country for world war i. >> see all of our programs from augustine, saturday at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. washington journal continues. host: we are joined now by harold meyerson, editor at large of the "american prospect". here to talk about his recent piece in the magazine, boosting low pay. inside if his piece on the american south and how it is driving low wages. how is that happening? guest: it's happening because, in a sense the united states has always had two distinct systems of labor -- northern and southern.

this is obviously the case before the civil war, but there was a distinct southern model after the civil war, which is more low-wage. more antiunion. the five states that don't have a minimum wage of their own are all deep south states. what has happened over the last 20 or 30 years in particular, as the midwest has lost much of its industry, much of its manufacturing -- a lot of it has gone to the south which has had the effect not only of creating lower wage jobs than the jobs that were in the midwest, but actually, over time helping bring down the wages in the north as well. the other dimension of this, of course, is that as low-wage retail chains based in the south, like walmart, have expanded all across the country

they bring their own wage structure with them. all of this creates sort of the southern is asian -- southernization of the northern labor market. host: when did this begin? guest: if you really want to go back to the beginning, textile factories which were located in the north began relocating to the south in the 19th century. recently what we have seen is a wave of foreign manufacturers auto and aerospace, german car manufacturers, airbus, moving into the south because one of the discoveries that i reported on in this article is that when you factor in the difference in productivity levels these companies believe that the south is actually cheaper for them to make things and then china. they make their highest value-added goods -- part i should say, at home in germany

and elsewhere. made by union members who are actually on the board of german up auto companies and -- airbus. but situations in china -- -- said the wages in china have been rising pretty steadily and since wages in the united states have been flat, it actually turned out for them to be cheaper for them to make this stuff in the american south dan in china. i don't think americans, myself included, really have gotten our heads around the notes -- notion that we are really competing with china. we are not competing with europe. host: what is happening in the midwest? guest: what is happening in the midwest is decades of factory closures. one of the things we have seen is the income differential between the midwestern states and the southern states has declined, moving downward.

not that the south is coming up. the other thing we are seeing, and this gets to a similarity between what the south was before the civil war and what the south is today, and the role it plays in the whole national system is through the vehicle of a somewhat southern as republican party. southern laws and values moving north. that is to say, the south lawn had right to work laws which were intended to's guilt -- two's all union growth. they have long had a tradition of voter suppression of minorities, which in recent years has been fostered by acquiring for ids. what we have seen is, midwestern states over the last four or five years, under republican can -- control -- wisconsin michigan indiana -- adopting

these right to work laws in these voter id requirements. these are really designed to suppress young voter and minority voting. these laws are coming north more so than they did in the decades before the civil war. the dred scott case really tried to reserve the southern system. host: do you see a similar system today that existed before the civil war? guest: in the following sense. there are a couple of books written over the last couple of years, "empire of cotton," is one, and "the hat has never been full," make it clear that far from being the kind of futile anomaly as capitalism emerged in the 19th century, the south is really the cheap part of a global production chain. the cotton of the south really

fed the world's first factories. and today, yet again, we are seeing the low wage part. not the no wage part, like it was under slavery, but the low-wage part of a global production chain. the highest value parties manufacturing europe or elsewhere. the assembly plants are in the south. yet again, somewhat surprising i would think to just about all this, myself included, that that has become the low-wage part of a global production chain. this is actually predicted i folks at the boston consulting group in 2011. they set by 2015 the south will be as cheap as china manufacturing will go there. they proved to be right. host: we are talking with harold meyerson about his piece in the recent "american prospect". we will go to larry first, here in bc. an independent.

caller: good morning. harold, just two questions. first, what world use the technology -- what role do you see for technology and the return of the labor movement? and second, i think it it was w.e.b. dubois, who said the rise of black people. guest: sure. technology is obviously a factor in eliminating a number of jobs. factories today employ fewer people to do the work that used to take more people. it's not just manufacturing. even in construction you will see things that they used to have to put together on a worksite now comes prefabricated. it's severally a factor in

reducing employment. it creates jobs but it also destroys jobs. it creates a real conundrum for workers and for the country as well. did the south need to go elsewhere? well, a lot of what happened before the civil war was efforts by the south to suggest we could annex cuba. we should take some of mexico. it was looking at expanding its territory, partly because the south -- john c calhoun, the great advocate for the white slaveholding south -- had feared for a long time that the north would grow in greater numbers and start to dominate congress. there was a real push in the south to expand slavery, not only westward -- this was the conflict within the republican

party which was opposed to that in the 1850's -- but to expand southward. after the civil war, the south was flat on its back for quite some time and has a sharecropping system. but certainly an avid supporter of things like the spanish-american war. host: rain spell alabama, tim a republican. caller: what i was talking about, regulations. this country is getting more regulations than any country around. it's everybody's. with got jobs going over in china. we need to make sure they are regulated just like we are. hillary clinton -- ask hillary about global warming, you can

take it like this -- a portion of the air is over in china just as well as here. that's my question. bring the jobs back, we need to make other countries follow these regulations. guest: well yes. obviously we are still at all kinds of competitive disadvantage to countries that don't have the kind of protections we do. china, china can be cheaper because it does not have some of those regulations. there are also suffering from the lack of regulations to because they can't read the air in most chinese -- breathe the air. in most chinese cities that air pollution is far worse.

but how we get to an even playing field is very collocated . -- very complicated. also the fact that corporations as they become global or multinational, can regulate anywhere. they can go anywhere with the labor is cheaper or the cost of adhering to regulations is lower. that is a problem which we have not addressed in our trade agreement, which essentially fosters the kind of off shoring and outsourcing we have been seeing for good 25 or 30 years. host: you are also a columnist, as many of you probably know for a washington -- the washington post. we will go to john, in cap a, florida. an independent. caller: we of the several causes

of the bad economy that we have. the solution to all of these problems is really simple. that is, elect bernie sanders as president with jim webb as his vice presidential running mate. that is the only way that america has any chance of remediating these problems. every other candidate, whether republican or hillary clinton they all simply serve those powerful, selfish special interests that are responsible for income inequality in the first place. guest: well, sanders ticket would be a very interesting one. i think they have an interesting point of commonality, beyond what you are right about, the great skepticism they have towards the wall street nominated economy. i think that skepticism is completely justified. bernie sanders was head of the

veterans committee and the senate, when the democrats had the senate. jim webb is a prominent veteran and former secretary of the navy. it was certainly be an interesting ticket. i will take respect hillary clinton, she is very cognizant of the fact that the democratic party on economic issues has moved in a bernie sanders and elizabeth war and elizabeth warren direction. you can see that in her policy. she is i think a more concave candidate than you have stated. host: john is next, a republican. caller: good morning. i'm a republican because of this his reasons. i own my own company. i'd like to talk about this job business, minimum wage in florida.

our governor was talking about minimum wage and good jobs in pennsylvania. governor scott i think, from florida, and wawa incorporated, a convenience store, announced they are going to open up 100 stores in florida. i saw something on al jazeera about the abuses of workers down in florida and what they were doing to them down there. i wondered why they were trying to take 100 stores out of our pennsylvania. and open them up in florida, but now after watching the show and researching i can see why. i think it is the south trying to rise again. i just wanted to make that comment. guest: well, like i said, we have two different labor systems and it has been a tendency of northern businesses -- every now and then -- to move south for the cheaper labor.

certainly this is something that is widespread in this country, which is wage theft. workers don't get paid and don't have much legal recourse. we are seeing some legislation in the states have more progressive governments, like california. host: what is the impact of states like new york -- governor saying he wants to see $50 in wage, -- $15 minimum wage, seattle washington, 15 minimum wage. what is the impact of these estates raising minimum wage and the southern states trying to compete. guest: i think i have started to think of it in the last year this way. our current understanding of the universe is that it is raising a part and an ever faster rate and i think we're seeing that between blue and red states. this is largely because of we can't get anything out of the

building that is right behind you -- congress is broken down as a body that can create national legislation. it just barely does that anymore. we are in a federal system. states have a good deal of leeway. we are seeing in cities where there is a generally progressive electorate, we are really seeing those cities, even more than the states, move. one of the crucial developments in american politics over the last 10 years in particular is the swing of cities of all kinds in all regions in a more liberal direction. right now the 30 largest american cities, 25 have democratic mayors. i mean, they are not all diehard liberals but that is still the greatest part of the balance. host: do those companies in new york and other places where the minimum wage is higher, today

moves the south? here is a tweet from one of our viewers. how does the low-wage -- how is the low-wage of southern factory workers any worse than no wages in northern states with no industry? guest: they are both bad. what andrew cuomo, the government -- the governor of new york said, is it affects food workers. most of our workers are service sector workers. they are not in a position to move. they are anchored in place. the manufacturing, yes. manufacturing can move, has moved. but one of the sort of sobering realities is despite the fact that you do have factories opening in the south, southern wages have not gone anywhere. in fact they have gone down as much if not slightly more than

the rest of the country. there is definitely a boost in employment but there is a qualitative as well as a quantitative dimension. host: roger green on twitter writing in with this, americans have no one to made -- blame about themselves. buy american-made only and the problem goes away. a caller for maryland. caller: i'm a little confused with your conclusion and/or analysis here. and a free-market society businesses are free to move wherever they want to, and states are also free to make their citizens he able to afford to have the kind of jobs. if you have a place where the minimum wage is five dollars every other price will follow

it. in places like new york, they just say, ok it's going to be $15. if people want to go there they can afford to do so. the free market is doing exactly what the free market is intended to do. businesses are also free to do so to attract income. the question is this, at the end of the day isn't this what the free market is intended to do? wage earners to move from one place to another depending on what the market looks like. and they are free to do so. guest: well, if human beings were as mobile as all that, you would be right. but there are real limits to people moving from country to country, and even from state to state. the problem also is the lack of

equity between employers and employees. some people who objects to setting minimum wages will argue that it is too inflexible, it doesn't allow for the particular circumstances of each company. well, one thing was that -- one thing that does allow for the particular circumstance of each company is when workers can bargain with their employers at a particular company. but unions have been so weakened in this country over the last 40 years that that bargaining has almost been eliminated. at the moment, only 6.6% of american workers are in unions because of any number of reasons. but to a large degree because employers have really found ways to intimidate workers who wants to join unions. that kind of free bargaining which i would argue should be an

aspect of a free-market economy just does not exist anymore. corporations are really bargaining more with activist shareholders who say hey, pay us more in dividends and share buybacks, then they are with the folks who actually make or sell their products -- their own employees. host: here's a story in the washington post. companies in this country are upping their spending on benefits such as health care and paid time off, rather than increasing salaries, because it is cheaper. guest: that's right. this only though, refers to companies that offer benefits in the first place. one of the things we know, and one of the reasons why a obamacare was enacted is that fewer and fewer employers actually offer benefits. for that growing part of the workforce that is and what is

called the service economy there is nothing at all. i think that is a very good story in the post, but it only applies to those countries that might have an upscale workforce and offer benefits in the first place. host: we talked with senator mark warner, a democrat from virginia, on the show. you can go to www.c-span.org to watch that. from flushing new york, a democrat. caller: good morning. we need to have a conversation about this. the only way to have a serious conversation is it starts from an enlightened, -- you know, electing reasonable people to congress. all that gerrymandering for people who go to congress not to engage in intelligent problem-solving does not help. they represent nobody but themselves.

it starts with the people we elect. as for the presidential election, here we go again. gerrymandering from the get-go. in a democracy all ideas and all candidates should be heard. then the electorate will choose. guest: amen. although i don't know the congress members and elected officials represent only themselves, my fear is that as more and more money -- big-money -- enters into terminating -- determining the result of electoral process greater weight is given to very large moneyed interests. my particular fair, beyond all of the things that are viewer just cited is in congress and all of the electorate's -- all

elected officials increasingly indebted to moneyed interests. it should be one person one vote, not one dollar one vote host:. bill is next in garfield arkansas, and independent. caller: earlier in the discussion there was talk about voter id laws in the south suppressing minority voting. i lived in maryland, between baltimore and d.c. for over 30 years. every time i went to vote by show of photo -- drivers license or sometime of photo id. when i moved to arkansas i was not the prize to be asked for some type of foot oig. i'd like your guest to explain how requiring identification, before you can pick up a ballot to go vote, suppresses voters.

there are so many forms of identification and programs to get these ideas -- i.ds, to me it is a non-complaint. it is a protection of the ballot and the boat is more important than allowing some of the walk up and say i'm john doe and i want to ballot. thank you. guest: let me respond in two ways. first, the notion that we have people who are pretending to be other people voting is not the case. during the george w. bush presidency the orders went up to the federal prosecutors everywhere to find those people -- and they couldn't. there is virtually no voter fraud of that nature going on in the united states. this is on the level of the moon is made of green cheese.

secondly there are particular kinds of voter id laws. there are some states in the south that will not permit people to show their student identification -- if you are a student in college there. that does not count because students tend to vote more democratic. things like a gun permit issued by the state is, because given the demographics of that and what the survey show, they are more likely to be a republican. it can be a really discriminatory tool. it is a form of political discrimination, which i don't think is what we would like to see. host: from texas, ronnie. on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. all the jobs it went overseas, you know those jobs really went to the american people. i am about to start building a

company. i father bought stocks to help build a company. when the american people support these companies and build them up from scratch, the jobs go to the american people not some foreign country. they have to support these just the beginning. guest: i agree with you. but how to the american people actually exercise that control? i would argue that you really need the workers in a company to have more say in what the company does. that can be done through unions. in germany the law requires that any corporation with more than 1000 employees has to divide its board of directors equally between worker representatives and management shareholder representatives. often that kind of power that the employees of a company

should be exercising our companies just roaming around the globe. it is often the case, as with some of these german companies that they roam around the globe to. but because they have real worker power they make sure that the best jobs are kept at home. we don't do that. host: hillary clinton proposing corporate profit sharing. a corporation would get a 50% tax credit if they share profits. guest: this is part of a move of the center of the democratic party. to recognize that investment is down by most american corporations, and wages are down , and profits are at a record high share of the national economy -- the gdp. wages are at a record low. as long as that is true we really need to incentivize -- and i think her proposal does --

corporations to share profits. this is her support are creating a better playing field for unions and wages as well. host: another story in the papers this morning, rising rent. rising rents are outpacing wages in wide swathes of the united states. much of this is attributed to supply and demand. millennial are entering the labor pool in force but new households are much more likely to be renters than buyers. that -- jack in providence, rhode island. a republican. caller: mr. meyer sent -- meyerson knows that capital goes where it gets its greatest returns. a lot of people don't realize this. the state of texas, where they have the predominant job growth -- if it wasn't for the state

of texas, the united states would be down in job growth. barack obama never mentions that. host: jack can you explain a little bit what texas did to draw companies to the state? caller: to me it is quite simple. you have a company that has employed 100 people. they have a very diverse work full there. you've got very good universities, the university of texas, you have companies that are in software. you have companies are in hardware. you also have people that work there who are last in oriented, and they are socially very conservative. but draws talent. i have a brother who was an engineer new york. he got laid off. he got a tech -- a job in texas

right away. guest: they do have a record of substantial job creation, some of which was related to the oil boom which is now over. job creation has not really floats of the price of oil plummeted. but there was a survey by the university of california looking at the question of how many people who are poor also are employed? and what they did was they looked at eligibility for federal poverty programs, in particular medicaid and food stamps and child welfare programs. how many of them were actually employed? but still poor? then they ranked the state by the percentage of people who

were eligible for these programs who nonetheless were employed? in taxes, 67% of the people eligible for poverty assistance are employed. what does that mean? that means federal taxpayers, in essence, are subsidizing the texas job miracle. the reason these people can afford to do with they do, and consumer they consume, which is a lot, is because they are also receiving federal tax dollars and food stamps, or medicaid. taxpayers and the other 49 states are helping to subsidize this. host: harold meyerson, editor at large at "american prospect". bridget in d.c., you are next. caller: the economy is obviously

a very station, that i did not want to miss the chance to tell you that i think you're such an intelligent and amazing female role model, and thank you so much for representing a rational voice for women. host: thank you very much. caller: thank you. host: we will move on to glenda in minnesota. a democrat. caller: hi. i just wanted to comment. i live in the south, in savanna, part of the year. i was reading an article about in 1850 i noticed that the people in the south wanted to go to places like minnesota, california, to places where they did not have slaves. they wanted the rights to take their slaves with them. i can't imagine what it would've been like in 1850.

you are taking your slave with you? that sort of expansion was going to be very compensated. -- complicated, deciding if they were going to be re-or slaves? -- free or slaves. guest: the south was able to get through congress, or through this supreme court decision, the right of southern slaveholders -- this is obviously until the civil war -- to come north and have their slaves with them. if a slave escaped, and many slaves did try to escape, and some made it to the north, the fugitive slave act essentially gave slave bounty hunters a right to go north and bring their slaves back. this was a point of contention before the civil war.

many of the northern states, new england in particular, passed laws to protect these slaves. the south persuaded congress to create the fugitive slave law. this is one of the real aerie is a conflict between the north and the south. then the dred scott decision that basically said if you are a -- if you are black you are a slave no matter where you are. one of the crucial developments that push the north and the south further apart. host: in pennsylvania, john. a republican. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just heard today that mcdonald, if they decide to raise the minimum wage again that mcdonald is considering going with kiosks. that is going to hurt the people that work at mcdonald's because there is the possibility that

they would cut their staff in half. when you are in a business sometimes fast food agencies follow each other. but donald starts it off and then it's wendy's, or another last food. my question to the gentleman is where the ucs being in five years from now -- where do you see us in five years, and it seems like our country became a service country. like i said, i live in allentown pennsylvania. we are building so many warehouses, which is good for the people, to get jobs, my question is where do ucs -- you see us in the next five years? guest: globalization and technology are unstoppable forces. we are going to see more -- one

of the things globalization does is it puts american jobs in competition with jobs elsewhere which holds weight is down in those fields. work by alan blinder, a former deputy head of the federal reserve, and noted economist has shown in technology, whether or not mcdonald's sets up kiosks is going to be a real factor in employment as well. my actual concern -- one of my many concerns about the future of jobs in america -- is as we shift to an economy where there are more -- ubers and more aibnbs and so on, is we are going to shift to an economy where there are more contractors. in the united states your benefits are connected to your jobs. if you are not an employee, if you're doing work that is considered -- would have been considered to be the work of an employee 10 years ago, but now

you work for a contractor or subcontractor, where do you get your benefits? that's a big concern. i don't think we really have a good answer. there was a good article in "democracy magazine," that lays out a plan for how to do that. host: we have to leave it there. the house is about to gavel in. harold meyerson, thank you for your time. host: live coverage of the house begins now. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]