.e has this attention to detail he pushes his workers hard. i tend to lean more to an edison idea. i think elon has lots to prove. i take away that he is a guy who has these thousands of engineers at space x tesla, the brightest of the bright, he is a hard-working individual and is able to get products out of them that can be commercialized. that has really changed industry. to me, he is the guy who has combined software and hardware. bits and its -- atoms and in a way that nobody has. >> tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. the road to the white house continues live at the iowa state fair on c-span, c-span radio,

and www.c-span.org. as candidates what the fairgrounds and speak at the candidate's soapbox. today, scott walker, followed by carly fiorina, and then lindsey graham. tuesday morning, senator marco john kasich30 and if i look like. on wednesday, rep. will speak at 11:00. on friday afternoon at 2:30, take cruise. ze.ted crui join the twitter conversation at #dmrsoapbox. campaign 2016, taking you on the road to the white house. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us is michael farris, cofounder of the convention of the states project .

here to talk about their efforts to amend the u.s. constitution. tell us what profit you to get behind this effort. i have been working around government for about three decades. specifically here in washington d c. i became convinced that the combination of big ceilings -- eight cities, big media, and --y -- and big government the burden of big government on us will never be solved inside the city. if we are going to do that, we need to get outside of washington. the only way to do a structural change is through article v of the constitution to limit the power of the federal government. point, let'sarting take a look at the fifth article hethe constitution at what is talking about. theays if two thirds of

states call for a amendment, it shall be valid. it also says it would take 34 states -- it would now take 34 states to call for a convention of the states. in 2015. have filed this effort has passed and four states, georgia, alaska, alabama, and florida. define this term convention of the states. between afferent convention of the state and a constitutional convention? congress,opposed to a you come together as one state, one vote. it is for a particular purpose. there have been over 30 conventions of state and the history of the american republic. about two thirds of those prior

to the constitution, and one third since the constitution. convention ofthe the states as you get together for a single subject and you discuss that subject and you come out with a proposal that is relevant to that. constitution, -- for the constitution, they came together with the purpose of revising the government. here, it is coming together for a particular amendment. there have been 400 applications for conventions, and we have never had a convention of the states because we have never had two thirds on the same subject matter. the starting point is you have to have two thirds of the states say we want a convention for this purpose. the purpose we are asking for is a convention to impose this restraint on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and impose term limits on federal officials. it does not mean all those things will survive the process, but it means those things are what can be lawfully discussed at the convention. host: why wouldn't you do these things through the normal

amendment process of the institution? guest: there is no way in the world that congress will propose any amendment to limit the power in washington dc. model that isone bipartisan -- increase washington's power, increase its influence. host: when was the last time the constitution was amended? guest: the 27th amendment was in the 1990's. it was proposed as part of the original bill of rights. that is an anomaly for the 18-year-old vote amendment. host: we talking about amending the constitution. amendoup's efforts to some issues. you can join the conversation for republicans, 202-748-8001, democrats at 202-748-8000. for all others, 202-748-8002. send us a tweet @cspan. head of the wall street journal

in the washington times says -- what is involved in a campaign to start a convention? guest: we are trying to get grassroot participates of at least 100 people in each of the states. there are 4000 that are primary targets. if we can get 100 people and 75% of those districts, we believe that kind of pressure will allow state legislatures to feel free to vote in favor of a convention of the states. we hope this will get done in a couple of years. it will not take six months, it will not take 10 years. we hope that in about two years we will see a convention of the states. host: as the effort to call a convention of the states ever been undertaken? you said we have never done this before. has anyone ever tried to call one? guest: there have been 400

applications. an organized grassroots approach has not been done very much. it has mostly been more inside politics were a group of state willlatures -- legislators say less try to do this or try to do that. it is not enough political punch within effort of only state legislators. you need both of them and grassroots participants to make this a reality. host: what is the situation in american legislators these days? who controls a majority of the legislatures? guest: if you count nebraska who is officially nonpartisan but if you counted as republican which is the reality, there are 32 states where the republicans control both houses of the legislature. an additional six states where the republicans and democrats each have a house. 11 states -- my numbers are off by one.

11 states were the democrats control both houses. 32 plus seven plus 11 gets you to 50. host: georgia, alaska, alabama, florida, alter controlled by republicans? guest: correct. we were able to pass in a single house last year. we passed it in the iowa house this year, didn't get it through the iowa senate. there was a party shift from these house -- from the house and senate. host: is there a time limit for this? ,uest: it is good forever unless one of two things happens. either the legislature rescinds its application, or they put a time limit within the application itself. if they do that, then it expires according to its own terms. host: we have calls for michael

farris on amending the u.s. constitution. in north carolina, go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. farris. do toan ordinary citizens get behind this to get this underway? guest: you can sign up on our website, convention of states.com. we need health and north -- help and north caroline a. we had a committee this year. i came and testify. if there are enough restaurants backing, north carolina is a state that should really pass a convention of the state. we got close to getting the votes there, but they weren't quite there. we pulled back and are waiting for next year. priorities again on what you would like to see addressed. guest: limiting federal spending, limiting federal regulation, balanced budget,

some realistic checks and balances on the federal court, particularly the supreme court. the supreme court has said approximately 20 times that there is no realistic check on their power other than their own internal sense of self-restraint. either term limits or legislative overwrite -- oversight where something is done to check the supreme court. i was thinking when he was saying he was going to amend something, i thought he said he was going to amend citizens united or something about congress representing the people rather than corporations. when somebody says less government to me, that says corporations. passing, that would give them an enormous control

over everything and everybody. control, so whatever happens, he is in charge. they give very much. guest: i certainly agree that god is in control ultimately. the way to get money out of washington dc and money out of politics. corporate welfare is not good for this country. the kind of corruption we see going on through the financial practices is because people can make money in washington dc by regulating. where spending and regulation is located in washington dc, there is money to be made. if we fix the general welfare andse, the commerce clause, have those decisions dispersed throughout the country, the ability to manipulate the process efficiently goes away. the ability of big corporations to run this country effectively goes away. the diffusion of power will help the problem that lives at the

heart of citizens united. host: david in new jersey, independent line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my understanding is that paid benefits, pensions, for all federal employees, states, county, whatever, it's constitutionally protected. considering the status of so many states, if this is true, i think that protection should be a limited. be a matter ofld state constitutional law, not federal constitutional law. there was an illinois decision on that subject. i was the decision. there was a state constitutional protection. i am not aware of any other state having that. if there is, it is very rare. there is certainly not a federal constitutional revision on that point. government pension reform has to be a part of balancing the budget and getting the problem under wraps. we're not going to see this .ountry get fiscally sound

if we think the problem is $18 trillion, it is more like $100 trillion when you consider what we all people taking out of the social security trust funds, medicare, medicaid. the unfunded mandates are far greater than the stated national debt. host: david, stall echo any follow-up? caller: what i understand the guest is saying is that it is state-by-state but it is very rare that the state actually protects employees and pays them pensions an? guest: as a matter of state constitutions, that is rare. politically, it would be a difficult thing to undo pension plans. in fairness to people, you need to wind these things down. if you're going to change benefits to people, you can't do it with someone who is 59 years old. you have to start over and say if you are 59 years old, your

plan is going to be different when you come out of the other side. you have to treat people fairly who in relying on the system for a long time. groups strongly oppose the effort of states to call a constitutional convention. looking at the group democracy 21, they released a statement saying he call for a convention would place all of the constitutional rights and protections of individuals up for grabs. what is your response to that? guest: that is the same position taken by the john birch society. it is the not cases on the other end that take that viewpoint. there is no law behind it. we have 400 applications for a convention of the states that says you have to have an agreement on the subject matter. i actually litigated a case that is on the other side of that. can you change the rules and the middle of the stream?

the all rights amendment was originally given seven years for ratification. congress reported to change the rules in the middle of the stream. i filed the first lawsuit challenge of the constitutionality of that change of process of the washington state legislators 30 years ago. we won that case. the role from the federal district court was that you cannot change the rules in the middle of the stream. if you have an agreement on the subject matter to start with, and you can't change the rules, then the fear mongering from the extreme left and right is nonsense. power of the convention is no different than congress. you can call a convention for a particular purpose. commerce can propose an amendment for a particular

purpose -- congress can oppose

i think we should have more of a socialist federal government. it is evil to think the states will fend for themselves. guest: he wants a socialist government, so that reveals his perspective. for a person who once a socialist government, it does not make sense. the epa issue in seattle, for example, is facing real problems and job layoffs because the epa has adopted a fish eating standard to washington state -- they eat more fish per capita than any other state. they have higher mercury discharge levels. they are losing jobs in seattle -- jobs are threatened in seattle from the boeing airplane company because the people there

are not able to get equal achievement by the epa. i think washington state legislature could pass appropriate environmental for the state of washington. we don't need the epa to make edex for washington state. washington state can do it by itself. edicts. host: from illinois, independent line. caller: thank you. are you familiar with article 26 ? guest: article 26 of what? caller: the constitution. guest: there is not. if you meant amendment 26? caller: amendment 26, i'm sorry. i'm not a constitutional expert. i'm a citizen. guest: what about it? caller: i wanted to make note that unless the public gets angry, nothing happens. the people in power, especially

the attorneys that come out of law school need to feel the power. this article to propose an amendment to the states march 23, 1971, was the fastest ratified amendment because the 21s of the day who were not could not vote but still he drafted -- still be drafted. my generation. i am a veteran of the did ---era -- of the vietnam era there were schools that were so concerned about control. you cannot vote but you could get drafted. i could die for the great legislatures who come up with a stuff but i can't vote. is the only action way to any legislator anyplace will move is when the grassroot

action becomes so powerful that their own livelihoods are put at stake. do you agree with that? guest: i agree absolutely that grassroots action is the key. if i am recalling it correct, jerry springer had a lot to do with that. he made a popular. it is grassroots activity during that is exactly right. if people think that washington dc has aggrandized too much of its own power and is building up its power base to the detriment of both the people and the states, then we need a grassroots asked to list dismantle this. convention of the states.com is a way they can connect with us. host: orlando, republican line, hello there. caller: my question is when this convention is called, how do you envision it would operate?

how would it organize itself and do the things it has to do? guest: we have a draft, a set of rules, that we are circulating around state legislatures run out. the principal rule is this. one state, one vote. states ase nature of opposed to congress. the delegates vote. and a convention of states, states will. one state, one vote. central principle. i hope it would be organized in the middle of the country that would be symbolically helpful. anyplace other than washington dc would be all right with me. you can keep that from tearing off the topics that you are calling a four, a balanced budget, money out of washington, and other issues. a man is being proposed by states that are not part of the original plan -- how do you keep a amendment --

guest: theoretically, it would be non-germane to do that. they political forces that brought the conventions, the 34 states that brought the conventions would all be coming with instructions. you stick to this topic. the states will be under instructions to stay to the subject matter. the other 16, 17 states that it is that don't have instructions would not be able to carry the day. ultimately, you can file lawsuits. i filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality one congress change the rules. we could file a lawsuit if delegates try to change the rules as well. rules will be called, they will be called for a particular purpose. you have to stick to that purpose. host: our guest is michael farris, cofounder of the group convention of the states project a state in for

convention to address constitutional issues. democrats line, missouri, hi steve. caller: thank you. i wanted to say that i spotted this right off the bat as soon as he stood up and said this is deregulation. that is the problem. we need regular shimon everything. we have -- we need regulation on everything. we have an out of control government. it is like donald trump talking about ronald reagan and how great he was. ronald reagan the regular did everything and lower the taxes on the rich. he said he would close the borders in 1986. it never happened because they got cheap labor. this is all fraud and that is all i have to say. thank you very much. host: the caller is self-inflicted. guest: he says the government is out of control but we need more radiation. regulation does not regulate government, regulation regulates private people.

that is the problem in the country is there's too many inflicting regulations. the basic genius of the founders is that one level, and only one level of government should deal with each issue. if we achieve that -- sure we need some radiation, some laws, but do we need -- sure we need some regulation, but do we need conflicting laws? do we need a law on every level about the same issue? do we need one level of government regulating laws, one on education, one on prices? host: a question on twitter. this one says we need a totally new constitution in line with reality. if it is broken, do not fix it. steve says i'm for a convention of the states to fix the constitution. rewriting the second amendment is long overdue. the federal government these to be more powerful. you cannot have 50 different state laws on marriage, abortion, or marijuana.

another one says we need a convention of the states asap. texas, republican line. good morning. -- sam marcos. caller: i would like to clarify a couple of things. i think it is great what he is doing. second of all, i am from new york but i'm from texas -- i live in texas. i think that anything that takes power away from the federal government is good. that being said, i think we need a few basic laws at the federal level that regularly all of the states. -- regulates all of the states. i have seen in arkansas they have terrible roads. and other states they have privately smooth highways all over the place. .- perfectly smooth i get there is a certain level of difference between each state and the way that it runs things.

we need more power given to the individual and not corporations which, for some reason, are defined as people. benefit foriggest limited government is that it increases the power of the people. the more government power, the less freedom. freedom is the ultimate objective of any effort to limit government power. the right of the people -- i am a first amendment and for the moment litigator. -- and fourth amendment litigator. the reason the founders did not think we needed a bill of rights , bestie federal estate, they isd the federal government so limited in its power it can't possibly intrude into the right of the people. we are spying on her own citizens -- on our own citizens, abusing the rights of citizens

daily. it is because we have two powerful of a federal government. host: does your group see a need to change the bill of rights ? guest: that would be germane. move toto me, this is a move us back to the issues of the civil war. we know that during the civil war, states rights denied minorities any rights at all. le isederal government's ro to make sure we are treated equally. under this proposal, there is no equality. each state can do whatever it wants to do with the lesser of the peoples. they minorities and the poor. guest: that is not true under our application. it is theoretically possible to write an application that would impact the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment, but not ours. our application is there to limit the power of the federal

government to spend money, regular businesses, regulate , where theto debt supreme court has no checks and balances. possible, -- if somebody wrote an application for a wide-open convention than you could talk about the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. therelitics are such that are no votes and this country for touching any of those things. we have to deal with political reality. it is theoretically possible that president obama could xtminate me for the ne vacancy on the supreme court. the chances of that happening are zero. people don't go all around wondering what would happen if michael farris became a justice. we live in political reality. we count votes. we can post to see what is realistically powerful. it is possible to trim the

federal government and regulations. it is possible to have a check and balances on the supreme court. any dramatic move is not possible. it is time we go as far as possible and limiting the power of washington, increasing the rights of the people, increasing the responsible the other states. host: grace on twitter agrees with the caller saying that the federal government needs to control civil rights law, not the states. otherwise we would be back to slavery in some states and back to the civil war. i want to ask you was about your efforts in some of the states. washington post headlines say virginia republicans want to amend the u.s. constitution. the party is split in a big way. they write that earlier this year, conservative legislators what is the status of your efforts in virginia? guest: in virginia, we had the

routes -- we had the votes to pass it in the house, but one vote short in the senate. there was a one vote margin andeen the republicans democrats. there were two republicans on the wrong side of the issue, one of whom is retired and the other is my own senator, dick black. they were listening to the john birch society. they preach all of this ronald reagan convention nonsense. they also preached it was a legally adopted in the first place. that was it -- that is historically inaccurate. the fear mongering that goes on is an obstacle. we think we will get there. we need to switch to vote and the virginia senate and then we will be able to pass it. host: bob and philadelphia on the independent line. caller: either comment and a question. -- a comment and a question.

if you hold it, you should hold in philadelphia at the constitution center, the birthplace of the country. that is my comments. my question is you said it was one state, one vote. 90%ou have a state that is liberal, does that mean conservatives do not have a voice? if it was to votes, -- two votes, a democrat and a republican, everyone would have a vote. what do you think? guest: even if it is one state, one vote, everyone would have multiple delegates. he state legislator -- the state legislature chooses that. it will be likely in many of the states. sayreality is that let's pennsylvania has nine delegates. let's say it is six republicans and three democrats, to make up numbers. that would be some sort of representation.

pennsylvania would caucus on each of the issues. i don't think every issue would be a straight partisan issue. there will be some bipartisan matters that will be discussed. that will be the way the system works. andeflects bipartisanship diverse forms of power than you would think right of first. locust grove, virginia, eugene, democrats line. caller: something you said scraping at the foundation of citizens united. it seems to me that for years , big money has been electing their reps incidents in states. -- their representatives in states.

this causes skewed voting. it is unbalanced in many states. my concern is that what we would be doing is weakening the government, not benefiting it. would be more easily affected by big money than the current government actually is. i think the best way to clean up the federal government would be to get somebody in place that is ties to big money , somebody like bernie sanders. there is a solution. is the costeality

of eight u.s. senate race and the cost of a virginia state apart.race are worlds that is because big money knows the vast majority of money to be made is an washington, d.c.. finances in the senate where most domestic spending is shifted away from washington dc into the states, there will be a reallocation of power, but it will be diffuse in nature. the ability of people to control the election -- try to make an appointment to visit the u.s. .enator or state senator it is much easier to visit state and local representatives. the money is not there. then't know what experience caller has, but i have around federal and state government for a long time. big money plays a huge role in washington dc. it is much more muted at the state level. host: i want to talk about an

opinion piece in the daily caller saying that the supreme legalizing marriage -- gay marriage is proof we need an article v convention. the purpose of self-government is at the .lected officials make the law we should make constitutional law, we should make statutory law. if we don't like the law that makes -- that gets made, we can vote the rascals out. you can't vote the supreme court . people have said hundreds of thousands of times, the supreme court legalized supreme -- same-sex marriage. that is what happened, but they are not supposed to legalize anything. whoectly stated, the people wrote the 14th amendment legalized same-sex marriage. if you put those words out on the table, there are no -- there is no way the people who wrote the fourth -- 14th amendment

meant same-sex marriage. if the legislatures of the states want to voted in, let them voted in. the question is, who decides? these questions boil down to who makes these decisions? we believe that unelected officials should not be able to make nation changing decisions as the supreme court made. theyver side of the case came down on, they should not be able to make that decision. elected people should. the supreme court defines the role of the supreme court as being the only one that can define the constitution of the united states. the federal restoration act, theyrnie versus florida, the unit to be unconstitutional on the federal level because

only the supreme court can interpret the constitution of the united states. that is different than the supreme court being the final interpreter and the only interpreter. i think that is a dangerous place to be were nine lawyers -- where nine lawyers get to decide what the state -- the nation stands for when many people have not voted on. host: mike on an independent line. go ahead. veterani, too, am a that was drafted and served before we had the opportunity to vote. i also take exception to the gentleman. i disagree with them. i take exception to him and his organization that are doing nothing but trying to circumvent the constitution that we

veterans fought to uphold and defend. first of all, i did not say that anyone who opposes me is a lunatic. i say to people who make the argument that the constitutional provision of article five will automatically result in a -- the convention extreme left and the extreme right are the ones that make that argument. there is no law, policy, political reality behind that. is therticular argument argument of the lunatic fringe. i will stand by that. other people oppose it -- if they want a bigger federal government, they should oppose it. people who want to be suffering court to have no checks and balances should oppose it. those are not lunatic fringe andtions -- they are honest understandable. i don't agree with them. that is different than saying

that the article -- congress will have a runaway, we will bring back slavery. line, welcome. caller: i was pleased to hear you talk a couple callers ago about the people who wrote the 14th amendment. in my opinion, there is one thing in the 14th amendment that needs to be changed, and it wasn't designed for this purpose. that is for people to get around laws byl immigration visiting united states -- foreign nationals dropping a vision to become -- dropping a baby to become a citizen. i know that the founders did not intend for that to happen, and i would love to see the change. guest: the issue of birthright that is addressed in the 14th amendment is something that congress can legislate about.

section five of the 14th amendment gives congress the power to enforce provisions of that article by appropriate legislation. congress could legitimately pass laws that eliminate the so-called anchor baby provisions and other provisions by making sure that the person who is giving birth has a legitimate attachment to united states as a condition to getting birthright citizenship. that could be done if the votes are there. that is not something that needs to be addressed at the constitutional level, and we are not seeking to address that. that would change the power of the federal government in a way where the federal government needs to be in power. the federal government needs the soldiers -- the jurisdiction over immigration. host: that could be a legislative solution a? guest: actually. they write that this

remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration. would this come up in your convention? outside of the scope of a we are trying to a congress. host: let's hear from jim and missouri. good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. -- i may be a fearmonger. the constitution was wrote and we keep adding to it things that are difficult to understand for normal people. you can hear a lawyer talk the law, thingsolor of like that. the american people are so confused and upset with the government now. we call the government -- it is a corporation.

you talk about money. trying to control the money. the money we have in this country is not real money. it is not backed by anything. what kind of issues are you going to bring up with the constitution with that? money. the money -- fiat the american people -- i say people are not citizens -- that is a word that lawyers use -- anyway, the thing i have is about the money. host: we will respond, thank you, jim. guest: the ability of the federal government to create money out of thin air is an issue that worries a lot of people. it is something that could be addressed at the convention we are talking about. most people are concerned about the ability to spend money that we don't have. the issue of spending money -- someone thinks it is a good idea and we never give consideration

to do we have the resources to do this? becoming fiscally responsible is actually -- is an absolutely essential factor. i have kids and grandkids and i believe that they will be economic slaves if we don't get the out-of-control spending under control. money is toissue on stop the abuse of federal spending and say we need to live within our means. host: a comment on twitter says that the government is not allow upward mobility. the federal government is in a way that protects their own. how about you? guest: it is bipartisan on what issue? that issue is how much power should washington dc have?

we should not be thinking republican and democrat. we should be thinking washington and regular america. thisthat is the bipartisanship t matters. regular america against washington and i think regular america needs to stand up, speak up, and show up. viewers can find more at convention of states.com. thank you for joining us this morning on washington journal. guest: thank you. speak with teddy downey, executive editor of the financial newsletter capitol forum. we will talk about the role of economic populism as a campaign issue. later we will talk about the ongoing debate over the game hunting and cecil the lion with jeff kerr of peta.

♪ >> with the senate in its august break, we will feature booktv programming weeknights in primetime on c-span2. fewthe weekends, here are a booktv special programs. saturday we are live from jackson for the inaugural mississippi book festival. with discussions on harper lee, civil rights, and the civil war. on saturday, september 5, we are live from the capital for the 15th annual national book festival.

followed on sunday with our live in depth program with former second lady lynne cheney. booktv on c-span2, television for serious readers. communicators.he >> he was really into commune -- computers and sci-fi. he had always heard about silicon valley and dreamed of getting to america. from a very young age that is what he pined to do. >> bloomberg businessweek technology reporter ashley vance on one of silicon valley's most inventive leaders, elon musk. >> he is seen as the next steve jobs kind of figure. he has this attention to detail. he pushes his workers really hard. i tend to lean more to the edison idea. gets these who thousands of engineers, the brightest of the brights and

these very hard-working individuals and is really able to get products out of them that can be commercialized and that have really changed industry. to me, he is the guy who has combined software and hardware. bits ina of atoms and the way no one else has. >> tonight on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. host: teddy downey is executive editor of the capitol forum. here to talk with us this morning about the issue of economic populism. some have said income inequality on the campaign trail. the issue as it relates to campaign 2016. what does your group to? -- do? we provide legal analysis for a range of subscribers, policymakers, investors, corporations. host: a recent story in usa

today. they looked at ceo pay. paid 800 times more than their workers. based on the most recent total reported compensation of ceos. why has this issue bubbled up in the campaigns of bernie sanders and hillary clinton? guest: i think the main reason is people are unhappy with the level of income inequality that exists. about the lot of talk results of income inequality.

how big the gap is. how much ceos make. how much the average american makes and how big of a gap there is. but there is not as much conversation about why that occurs. at the capitol forum we study market competition, which is a big factor in how you get to that cap -- gap. the reality is that an economy is defined by lots of competition. if there isn't a dramatic amount of consolidation in every industry, employers compete for workers. they compete to get the best talent. they pay them more. they provide better benefits. as a result competition is really good for the worker and that reduces income inequality. what you have here is some of the elements that have pushed populism to work in the past. consolidated economic power.

income inequality. these consolidated industries not defined by competition. bernie sanders with his classic populism that he is promoting, anti-big bank, anti-consolidation, is really working right now. host: in terms of the minimum a number of organizations are raising it. some cities are calling for raising it. what are we hearing from the candidates? guest: i haven't been paying close attention to all of the different proposals. lineup as you might expect. conservatives tend to think that the minimum wage is not the appropriate way to address problems like income inequality.

that it creates bad business incentives. perspective is more to analyze things from a market competition point of view. the point i was making earlier, the structural reasons for why wages are not going up is in part because employers are not competing over workers. there aren't enough. the rules for competition aren't encouraging employers to provide better pay or benefits or allow for upward mobility of workers. that's probably the thing that is missing from the conservative side of the aisle. bernieocrats, sanders and hillary clinton will be calling for significant increase in the minimum wage. sense because the economy is consolidated. it is not efficiently allocating

resources and paying workers what they should be earning in a truly competitive market. host: teddy downey is executive editor of the capitol forum here to talk to us about economic populism. for republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independent line (202) 748-8002. wall street is betting on bush financialn's disclosure. a report came out on how much the bush campaign and the clinton campaign are getting from wall street. i will play some comments that hillary clinton made recently about wall street and what she is calling quarterly capitalism. >> i'm not talking about

charity. clear-eyed about capitalism. many companies have prospered by improving wages and training their workers that than yield higher productivity, better service, and larger profits. to cut costs by holding down or even decreasing pay and other investments to inflate quarterly stock prices. but i would argue that is bad for business in the long run and it is really bad for our country. workers are assets. investing in them pays off. higher wages pay off. training pays off. to help more companies do that i creditd a new $1500 tax for every worker they train and hire. i will be proposing a new plan to reform capital gains taxes to

reward longer-term investments that create jobs. host: is hillary clinton's message aimed at both her wall street supporters and the people who are affected by wall street policies? i think part of the problem she is identifying is that there is a culture on wall street that focuses on quarterly profits and is much more short-term focused. i think that's right. a lot of our subscribers are investors. over the years i have gotten to see that the focus very much is on the short term for them. sense that a lot of she is addressing that as a fundamental problem. but it's not really a wall street specific issue that she's hitting at. onhink she's really focused what really is best for workers. of the things she's saying

are hard to argue with. would be good to have rules to encourage companies to hire over the long term? i think that is a no-brainer. would it be good for wages to go up? i think that is also a no-brainer. i don't know if she is putting forward enough policies that would actually create a turnaround. he said a number of your youcribers are investors -- said a number of your subscribers are investors. are you hearing back from them? investors are like anyone else across the country in a lot of ways. they have teams they are on that were formed throughout their lives. there are democrats, there are republicans. you get conversations that mimic the same conversations that i have with your average person. to the article that you pointed they are not

particularly worried about this election affecting how they think about investments and how they think policies will change. because hillary clinton or jeb bush, a lot of people on wall street think they are the front runners and one of them is likely to win, really represent either the status quo of the way things have gone under the obama administration or perhaps slightly better for businesses and profits and wall street in general. been an advisor for institutional investors. year is in an election it a big deal for investors to what's ahead?on i think it's important to

the extent people are saying things that are credible. i don't think that a lot of the candidates are taken at their word for what their policies are going to be. i think the outlook is really to look beyond what they are saying and what they would actually do. what is their track record? and thenton and bush more establishment candidates, you will get something very similar to what you are accustomed to from policies in and the obama administration in particular. and nothing worse than that. and sanders,trump there is a little bit of fear that what they are saying could actually be what they do. on behalf of institutional investors. aret: and people who

interested in trying to predict what the policies will be like. it is really focused on what they are saying. i think people really are listening to what bernie sanders is saying because he has the potential to actually implement policies that are different and are bold and aggressive and populist. host: we have calls for teddy downey. your thoughts on economic populism and what you are hearing from the candidates. anthony, republican line. good morning. baltimore. walter in independent line. caller: good morning, c-span. populism,mic progressive fairness. i think it is a matter of getting over the greed. outragt flashed the

eous, criminal disparity. i don't even want a burrito anymore. i saw chipotle on that list. we support the greed in america of the donald trumps. the hotel he is building not far from you is being built by those rapists and murderers that he commented on. carson flat taxed another 999 joke. he stated yesterday that we don't want to be easy on those at the bottom. that is the problem of america. this clown, the republican candidates, none of them care about the workers. but this clown actually said, we don't want to be easy on those at the bottom. when the flat tax that he was proposing was exposed to him. not in my progressive state of

mind, but when he was being interviewed on the clown show and i don't need to name that network. but the comment that those on the bottom continue to get pressed down -- they are just flying on helium. host: we will get a response. caller wasink the really focusing on how conservatives in the race have a tendency to say that there shouldn't be welfare programs, we should get away from programs that provide federal assistance to the poor. i think that's what he was getting at. markets that we look at at the capitol forum is the financial services industry. i know the caller was talking about chipotle and thre burritoes, but one of the examples where is this seeming

gapirness and an increasing among the workers and owners is in the financial services industry. ofhink there are a couple statistics and things that are relevant to the campaign that show this gap. overs really that there is $1 trillion in student debt outstanding. at the bottom end of the spectrum, students just coming out of college, they are addressing this huge amount of debt. they can't buy phones or cars. so they are feeling suppressed. thehe other end of spectrum, the financial services industry has been very good to the people who have are ready done well. so it is pretty clear that there is another silicon valley bubble. ares clear corporations

doing well with all of the stock buybacks that they are able to afford and there is a big merger wave right now. so the financial services industry has not really done much since dodd frank to really help the people who are worse off. you see wall street and silicon valley really doing well. that exacerbates what the caller was talking about in terms of inequality. host: jack in iowa. caller: good morning. isn't the real problems the ira programs that reagan set up where workers widely throw money into mutual funds and fund managers never challenge corporate data powerful tech the hnocrats? the inequality problem began under reagan. too much retirement money and nowhere for it to go.

too much emphasis on blind to diversification and no oversight. shouldn't iras pay money into individual stocks, forcing people to think where they put their retirement money? guest: i think the biggest problem with people and their retirements is they don't have enough money to put into a retirement account. if you are in a position of trying to figure out where that money goes, i think you are better off than a lot of the people out there who don't have any money to put into retirement in the first place. there is actually a department of labor rule that is somewhat controversial right now that is supposed to apply stricter fiduciary standards on financial advisors. i think some of what you have seen in the past, high fees associated with retirement accounts, that has contributed to not as much wealth creation for the average american in their retirement account. hopefully if that rule works, there will be a shift in the

competitive landscape and instead of financial advisors pushing people into high feet products they will be competing over how to provide better services and lower fee products which will ultimately allow for more wealth accumulation. host: that was proposed by the labor department? guest: yes. hearings just ended last week. there should be a final rollout in the coming months. fiorina spoke last week about the rolling back of certain financial regulations. >> let's look at what happened with dodd frank. the agencies that started the financial crisis and the housing bubble in the first place. fannie mae and freddie mac are still in place. we put dodd frank in place. 10 banks too big to fail became five banks too big to fail. would you be an advocate of

raking up citigroup? theseling away all of regulations in which only the big can survive. i would do what is necessary to help community banks grow and be strengthened. the next thing i would do is make sure that families and family owned businesses are getting a line of credit. they are not getting a line of credit today. in mainstreet america all across this country, you see small businesses not able to get the capital they need to grow. fiorina speaking at the iowa state fair today. live coverage at 11:00 here on c-span. the issue is economic populism. our guest is teddy downey. here is mark in virginia. caller: good morning. i think we are over complicating this issue. i'm just sitting here listening

and overall, we kind of missed the real issue. the first caller had it right. the issue is greed on one end. but then the other issue is the electorate. choice is spend our dollars where we want to spend the dollars, and wherever we see or feel that there is injustice as far as income disparity, we have the right to boycott. as an entrepreneur myself, i feel just like many on the republican side is that is this should not be regulated and profits should not be regulated. but we the people have the power to regulate prices by the way we spend. henry ford in his day had perfectly correct. he wasn't just some nice opulent businessperson. the was a person who used rationale, i'm going to build a

car, but i have to pay the people to afford the car. so therefore from the beginning and in section of ford, ford employees have always been paid pretty well so that they can sustain, enjoy the products which they purpose -- purchase. now we are in a greed zone on steroids. so when they say, if you raise the minimum wage, which isn't even the real problem. problem is if you raise the minimum wage, the greedsters are going to raise the product of services and we will be in -- the price of products and services and we will be in the same place where we started. so we have to stand up and say, these mergers, we don't want. we not have that many holes to run in. have that many holes to run in.

carly fiorina was right. the small business concept is a false herring. when people talk about small businesses, they are talking about 100 plus employees. i'm talking about the mom and pop that have three people. they are being crushed in our economy. mark --ts of their, lots there, mark. guest: i think one of the the economylems in is increased consolidation, lack of competition. and what the caller mentioned as a lack of choices. when you have a lot of in the economy right now is the illusion of choice. you go to the supermarket and see a lot of different goods, but chances are on any given shelf there are only two companies providing all of the goods on that shelf. if you go to rent a car, it looks like you have 10 different car rentals.

but really it is only three companies. is an issue that occurs when industries are consolidated. consumers have less choice and less ability to buy with their feet and push industries in different directions. does that also affect pricing? guest: it can. prices can certainly go up. as probably have and will with the rental car industry. priceis and everything -- isn't everything. people can't really see. choice, quality. those are some of the inputs in competition you want to see. when you have huge consolidation among distributors and retailers

like walmart and amazon, they offer low prices, but you have less choice and the supply chain is squeezed significantly. resulting in mom and pop businesses being squeezed in the way the caller mentioned. delawaree is eric in on the republican line. caller: where missing the elephant in the room. it is the economy is so depressed that wages are actually falling. it's not because some ceo is making millions of dollars. up in arms about an actor making $30 million a year on a film working 12 weeks out of the year. it is just a populist message and socialist message of the rich versus the poor and it is just to divide people.

i'm not concerned my neighbor makes more than me. i should be concerned about what i can do, not what other people have. that's my comment. i think the average america isn't -- average focused on having a problem with their neighbor making more money. i think the big thing is about are they earning it? people who earn their wage and earn lots of money, no one has a problem with that. but if they get the sense you are cheating or you didn't really earn it, you were handed parents,rom your rich or you swindled someone or ripped off the government or polluted the environment, people are unhappy if you made your money that way. a lot of people are working hard and not making a living wage.

and they see other people cheating and not working hard and making lots of money. i think that is really where the problems come from. host: here is michelle in wisconsin on the democrat line. think a lot of the problem in our economy is the wage gap. look at people because they are wealthy and they are the problem. i look at as though the way things have been heading, our economy and the cost of living keeps going up. and people's wages aren't going up. to have tocontinue pay the expense prices for everything as it goes up. but the wages do not go up. and i just think that that's part of the problem. and i think ceos also need to realize that if it wasn't for the sweat and the hard work of

the people who help make those companies successful, that they, too, need to have incentives to keep them going. bonuses and things like that. ceos get bonuses but employees don't really get bonuses. so part of the problem is there. as far as the students coming out of college, i don't see why they can't refinance loans just like you would a mortgage. those percentage rates are still too high for these college students to be able to move out of the house and make a living on their own. so i think something's got to give there. and with social security, i know the republicans are saying it is going to run out. people have paid into that their whole lives when they work. they expect it to be there when

they retire. so why is that system going broke when people have been putting into it? they say it's the baby boomers. host: we would get a response. -- we will get a response. guest: i'm not 100% sure what the question was. you mentioned student debt. i think this is really one of the big issues for the 2016 campaign. this populist backlash against the way the economy works right now. trillion in over $1 debt outstanding. this is actually an economic issue. houses aren't being purchased, cars aren't being purchased

because students are weighed down by a significant amount of debt. as a result the economy isn't growing the way it should. millennial's are staying at home. huge drag on the economy. how the candidates choose to try and address the issue and how congress and the next president address the issue is really going to be one that defines whether or not this populist backlash has sunk in enough to drive a change in behavior. host: in the washington times today, and opinion piece on the plan hillary clinton announced about college loans. why hillary clinton's college tuition plan won't work. tuition mustge start with illuminating waste and fraud. another piece in the new york

times, the problem with house prices. housing cannot propel the economy the way it once did. it is growing inequality in incomes. only investment income has been rising steadily in the recovery, while wages from work have stagnated. buying a home is still out of reach for many working people, particularly those who would have been first-time buyers in a healthy economy. newe is a low inventory on starter homes. our guest is teddy downey, executive editor of capitol forum. economic populism as a campaign theme. we go to houston. go ahead. i would like to ask just

one question on that. who makes the laws? is it the senate and the house of representatives? guest: yes. and the congress president signs legislation. caller: wire we focused on what the president can do? shouldn't we focus on who we put in congress? since they make the laws? maybe we can get things changed if we put the right people in there. guest: absolutely. the reason there is such a focus on the president is because they an incredible ability to drive the agenda in congress. they also have a lot of tools at their disposal to change and enforce laws. one of the things people don't

pay enough attention to is how law enforcement and the people who implement the laws are just as important if not even more important than the people who write them. one good example is the financial sector. we talked about dodd frank. a lot of the problems with that law have been implementation. the people who are implementing it don't act quickly and aggressively to change behavior in the markets they are trying to regulate. or alter the competitive outlook. one small group, the new york department of financial services, which is part of the governor's office, gives a really good example of what one determined law enforcer can really do. a guide by the name of been

lasky had more of an impact by himself in that agency than thertgage market b had in the years it was working on the same issue. yorksmall office in new was really determined to change the behavior of the industry and crackdown on misrepresentation and conflicts of interest. it doesn't take a lot of determined law enforcers. to make big change. that is another reason people in washington are focused on the president. senators of several running for president is bernie sanders. he was interviewed on meet the press yesterday.

he talked about the issue of income inequality. >> we are resonating all over this country because we are talking about issues that are life and death issues to the american people. and that is the collapse of the american middle class. the massive and grotesque level of income and wealth inequality in this country. the fact that we are the only major country on earth who doesn't guarantee health care for old people. the fact that millions of working class families are now finding it very difficult to send their kids to college. and the basic facts that people are working longer hours for lower wages. and all of the new income and wealth is going to the top 1%. and then a campaign finance system as a result of citizens united allows billionaire families like the koch brothers and others to literally by politicians and corrupt the

american political process. all that together and the american people are saying enough is enough. bernie sanders running on the democratic ticket with chuck todd on meet the press. our guest is teddy downey, executive editor of capitol forum. the issue of economic populism. ray in arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. called -- these corporations ship in people from foreign countries and pay them like indentured servants to be " trained" to do something for their company. if one of our problems is we have more people then jobs, we should stop importing people to work for these big companies.

that's it. part how much of that is a -- major corporations using those pvisas? we have done a lot of work on this and we never really found a compelling study that work wast h1b visa as necessary as businesses claim they are. it is really all about price. how much does it cost to train a worker? how much does it cost to get an h-1b worker to do the same job? so when someone says i need more h-1b visas, they really want lower wage workers so they can

make more money on the products or services they are providing. driver of income inequality. it is an issue and we haven't found compelling evidence that the alternative, which is bringing in workers and training them from the u.s., is not really doable. it may take more time and be more costly, but this is a social issue. it is how the congress and the president and the people want their economy to work. i think that is really the question. it is not a question of, do they need it? the caller certainly thinks we should focus on training programs. similar to the one we heard earlier from hillary clinton to create incentives to hire and

train. host: a couple of tweets. this one says that while profitsions make record and back politicians that fight against increasing wages, proves trickle down was a con. says there is no competition in the usa. monopolies role almost every market and now even hospitals are taking over doctors practices. this one says someone needs to propose a cap on ceo salaries. disclosure rules took five years. that is the biggest problem with them. it shows a tremendous lack of that itip at the sec took five years to get disclosure rules out there. having taken a quick look at the

rules, i don't think they will work. there are a lot of loopholes that seem like corporations will be able to abuse. for example, temporary workers won't count toward the number. the owners of the corporations will have discretion over what period of time they look at. so seasonal workers and contract workers won't count. the number is subject to manipulation. disclosure and focus on ceo pay is probably very important and it is an important shaming mechanism and educational tool so people can understand what the gap really is and try to figure what is happening. dan in denver. good morning. caller: it seems like the sec has either been incompetent or complicit with the ceos and

stuff. donald trump friday said he icahn helpcarkarl him set things straight. there?hat is happening icahn is an activist investor on wall street who likes to buy interesting companies and get influence through the board and try to push the company in a certain direction that he thinks will create a better valuation. he is one of the legends of wall street in terms of his activities in pushing companies around and getting stocks to be

or companies to be bought at a higher level than what he originally purchased them at through leveraged buyout's and things like that. there's a lot of talk about barbarians at the gate. of thate of the "icons" movement. is amusing in some respects. but it is part of the trump image at this point. which is that he is a businessman and he is unabashed about making lots of money and being successful and talking about corruption. that happens all the time and that businesses by off offticians -- buy politicians. just being unabashed about how he is going to use his business acumen and bring other people in

who have been successful without a regard to how they got that success at what the implications are for policy is amusing. host: a quick look at rick perry. his radical proposal to put wall street in its place. plan tol aspect of his reform the financial sector puts him in alliance with liberal radicals such as elizabeth warren and bernie sanders. one more call for teddy downey. kathy in buffalo. caller: good morning. my comment is this. educationlower level aren't qualified for low-wage jobs. we also make up the largest portion in the population of america and other countries. ormer per to earn 100

lower levelbs at education, we would become less reliant on government subsidies. so that is your call for increasing the minimum wage? caller: yes. host: final comments. guest: i miss the question. missed the question. host: she was talking about increasing the minimum wage would make people less reliant on government benefits. guest: that's absolutely right. the minimum wage is a way to address the fundamental lack of competition throughout the economy. when there is competition, employers fight to attract the best talent and pay their workers the best and give them

good benefits. and that competitive environment creates less of a need for the minimum wage. when you have a largely consolidated economy that lacks theseompetition, you get more behavioral rules from the government and calls for things like the minimum wage to address that competition cap. gap.mpetition host: teddy downey. thanks for being here. the continuing story of big game hunting in the wake of the story of cecil the lion. we will hear from jeff kerr, general counsel for the peta foundation. washington journal continues here on c-span. ♪

>> follow the c-span cities tour as we travel outside the washington beltway to communities across america. >> the idea is to take the programming for htb and booktv out on the road beyond the beltway to produce pieces that are more visual. the provide a window into cities that viewers would normally go to that have rich histories and literary scene. >> what about the smaller ones like albany, new york? cities in have hit 95 april. >> most of our programming is event coverage. these are shorter.

they take you someplace. >> we partner with our cable affiliates to explore the history and literary culture of various cities. >> the cable operator contacts the city. they are looking for great characters. you want viewers to be able to identify with people we are talking about. >> it is an experiential type of program. we are taking people on the road to places where they can see things. history playsocal into the national story. it should be enticing that they can get the idea of the story but also feel as if this is in our backyards. >> we want viewers to get a sense that, i know that place. mission as with

all of our coverage bleeds into what we do on the road. >> you have to be able to communicate the message of this network. it has done the one thing we wanted to do which is build relationships with the city and our cable partners and gather great programming for american history tv and booktv. >> watch the cities tour on the c-span networks. c-span.org -- see our schedule at c-span.org. host: jeff kerr's general counsel for peta. he is joining us to talk about the issue of big game hunting and endangered species. a lot of this in the wake of the killing in zimbabwe of the celebrity lion, cecil the

lion. news outlets seek stories that are hard to ignore. certainly the story of cecil the lion has drawn attention to the issue of big game hunting. what's your organization's view on the killing of that line in particular -- lion in particular? are serialhy hunters killers that have no respect for wildlife. there are about exploitation to and getting some kind of perverse joy and excitement out of the killing of these magnificent animals. this has nothing to do with conservation whatsoever. killing was an outrage and people are rightly outraged by it. he was lured out of a protected area. he was shot at night with the use of lights with a high-powered crossbow.

and then left in anguish to suffer for 40 hours before the trackers tracked him down and shot him to death, cut his head off, and took his hide. while hiding the gps tracking collar that he had on because he was being tracked by an oxford university study. it is an outrage. host: how unusual is this type of shooting? guest: unfortunately it is all too common. ofse hunts are not some kind wild man against nature kind of thing. the vast majority of these are the equivalent of canned hunts where animals are bred for this purpose. they are in confined areas. the trackers know exactly where they are. these overblown overprivileged usually which -- rich white american europeans american and europeans get some kind of perverse pleasure by going over

and blowing them away. you really have to question the psyche of people who travel halfway around the world, spend $60,000, to go and kill an animal who simply wants nothing more than to be left alone and to be with his or her family so they can cut off their head, skin them, and hang it on their wall. host: jeff kerr is peta's general counsel. we started this conversation last week with a guest who represented the hunters point of view. i want to open up the phone lines early. we have set aside phone numbers like this. zones, and central time (202) 748-8001. for mountain and pacific (202) 748-8000. .or hunters, (202) 748-8002

we will get to those calls momentarily. former president of a safari organization was on her program last week -- our program last week. i wanted to air some of his comments. the fish and wildlife service reviewed the status of the african lion. they found that the threats were a loss of habitat and conflict with local people. and loss of prey base. the hunting community provides those things. it provides habitats for lions. the largest part of budget revenue for management. it provides the first line of defense against poaching. and much more.

it is a conservation tool. it is used as a tool. there have been regional and international workshops on how to save the african lion. hunting was found in each case not to be the cause of the decline, but the solution and a method of saving the african lion in the wild. jackson laid out several advantages of hunting. he talked about loss of habitat. revenue provided. what is your response? guest: i have several responses to the fallacies he is putting forward. first of all, most of the revenue from these canned hunts from these rich people going over there to blow away wildlife, does not benefit the indigenous people. who have in problems, no question. as his modern-day colonialism. where these rich white people are going over to kill these animals. cared aboutly

conservation and unfortunately conservation nowadays is being thrown around as a word that really means exploitation. if they really cared about it, they would give money for to manageotection, wildlife humanely, not blowing them away. many of the problems that he touched on our human caused problems to begin with. moving into habitats and so forth. and if that money really wanted to be used for that purpose, the billions of dollars these hunters are spending every year to go over there could be used in other ways without having to kill these animals. host: is there ever a case in peta's view where hunting is appropriate for population control or other reasons? guest: saying you have to kill animals to control the population is like saying you have to kill people to address world hunger. whereubsistence hunting people have no other ability to

feed themselves in a much more natural state is something that peta is not opposed to. that is not at all but we are talking about here. let's go back to what happened with cecil. outas tracked, he was lured of a protected area, he was shot with a high-powered bow and left to suffer for 40 hours so his head could cut -- because cut off and he could be skinned. that has nothing to do with conservation. host: let's hear from viewers with jeff kerr from peta. brian in massachusetts. caller: hi. i understand that most professional biologists in mainstream wildlife management consider hunting a very useful tool in the management of the game populations. isn't it a fact that the zimbabwe people are rather viewexed at peta's strange

of the lion killing? thank you very much. i have talkedthat to or heard of is perplexed by our position against this outrage. was trackedlion who as we have said, who enjoyed sitting in the shade of jeeps. he was known. two prides with 24 children that he was responsible for. out of a protected area and killed horribly. this notion of having to kill to control population, we think is a smokescreen. the real issue is human beings living cooperatively with nature and finding humane methods of dealing with and interacting with animals for the benefit of both. host: the washington post says that peta calls for walter palmer to be hanged for killing cecil the lion.

was that metaphorical? guest: it's hyperbole. no one expected that to be taken seriously. what we want very much is for him to be extradited and charged and for him to face the music and be jailed. if what we understand to be the facts are borne out in a trial. zimbabwe --ew from are left shaking our heads wondering why americans care more about african animals than about african people. don't tell us what to do with our animals when you allowed your own mountain lines to be hunted to near extinction in the eastern united states. don't bemoan the cutting of our forests when you turn yours into concrete jungles and please don't offer me condolences about cecil unless you are also willing to offer me condolences about villagers killed by political violence or hunger.

what is your response? no question there are problems around the world with the way in which human beings interact with and exploit animals. but exploitation in one place doesn't justify it in another. to we need to find solutions humans interacting with animals in humane nonviolent ways. i saw a story this week in about a boy from kenya who learned through his own process that lions don't like flashing lights. batteryrung up with a and a solar panel flashing lights around their cattle shed to keep lions away. and ever since he has done it, there has been no killing of the cattle and the lions haven't been killed by humans because they are not doing anything bad. host: next call from california. hello john. caller: good morning. right after this happened, i saw that article in the new york therefrom the zimbabwean

was talking about how animals attack us and they are ferocious. but these creatures are down to extinction levels. we are overpopulated the planet. there are defenseless. we have all of these wars going on around the world and they have no weapons and no political party other than yopeta. it is cowardice. these people go out and shoot a defenseless lion. it breaks my heart to look at lions, elephants, and all of these great species. i think there is a moral consequence of this. the human race is suffering from it. , andport your organization i am outraged by this. thank you. in ohio.e is carl

good morning. caller: yes. i was just wanting to mention that all lives matter. , and a shame about cecil other animals, but where's the outrage over abortion and the killing of children? it seems like we are becoming more sensitized to the loss of life. guest: i agreed all lives matter. the people for ethical treatment of animals. we absolutely support people doing good things around the animals,help people, anybody in need. we are here, and our members and supporters demand of us to speak up for the animals, and that is what we will do. if i could pick up on a comment from one of the callers. you played a piece from mr. jackson. it goes back to what i was ,alking about about the psyche

what we believe is the provision of this. some of the other things you heid -- i made some notes -- called the killings of animals for trophy killings as a higher experience, like love and affection, and can't be explained, but it is real, and he claimed the greater the animal, the greater the feeling. that is twisted like saying that jeffrey dahmer had a special relationship with his victims. you have to question what is going on here. this is not about conservation. this is about people going over, and getting some bizarre pleasure about using high-powered rifles are crossbows to track and kill animals, who want nothing but to be left alone. lion you said cecil the was killed by a crossbow, is that correct? guest: he was shot and wounded

by a high-powered crossbow, but e languish for 48 hours before he was finished off, decapitated, and skin. host: particularly if you have big game hunting extreme, we have set aside a line for you, (202) 745-8002. we are looking for your calls as well. easter in central time zone, (202) 748-8001. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8000. darlington, virginia, johnson, welcome. caller: i'm not a member of peta , buying leather is an organization out there standing up for the animals. i want my grandchildren to be able to experience these animals . i'm afraid that between deforestation and hunting, these animals will not be around for my grandchildren to enjoy. guest: i couldn't have said that

better myself. i is is that they why we are here. host: what is the status, particularly in zimbabwe, for animals like lions? guest: in october 2014, they were asked to be listed as threatened. the official particular status e issue.h all of the animals there are endangered from these hunts, these trophy hunts that serve no purpose other than to stroke the go of these overprivileged people who get some pleasure out of blowing animals away. most people want to enjoy nature without killing the animals. , a person says, why hasn't the u.s. extradited him? is peta involved in trying to extradite him? can.: we are doing what we

he needs to go over and face the music. it is up to our government. to humane are up and action in the face of these animals. he does need to be extradited. caring people around the world need to call on our government to extradite him back to zimbabwe and so he can face the music. keep in mind, this is not the first time he has done something like this. in 2008, he was -- he pled tolty to a felony of lying fish and wildlife officials when they were looking into circumstances when he killed the a bear outside of authorized areas. he lied about it. mail,"rter in "the daily also reported that he offered a bribe of $20,000 to the guys he was with, in the hopes that they would buy as well.

he got a $3000 fine for that, instead of facing years in prison and a hefty fine that he should have gotten. the laws are on the books, and they need to be enforced, not only in the united states, but in zimbabwe as well. mail" reportedy on that last week too -- a photo of mr. palmer with that their he shot. let's hear from a hunter. we go to pennsylvania. thanks for joining us. caller: yes. i'm from pennsylvania. the pennsylvania game commission was started in the early 1900s by hunters. it was encouraged by hunters to preserve the wildlife in pennsylvania, which at that time was pretty well decimated by uncontrolled hunting, etc. contributed and paid for most of the conservation efforts all across

the united states. peta has a very primitive view between the relationship of humans and animals. ultimately, if you want to look all of the characteristics of ultimatehumans are the predator. that is ingrained in us in some ways. we like to deny it, and we all like to eat well, and be nice, and everything else, but they value animals more than they value people. .'m sure they are pro-abortion i'm sure they have no problem with all that kind of thing. if you look at them, they are actually in some instances very much terrorists in this country. host: a terrorist organization. how do you respond to that? it demonstrates the absurdity -- it is a charger the messenger.k he said himself that the reason conservation had to be started in this country is because of

overhunting. unregulated killing, willy-nilly, of animals. if you really believe in conservation, spend the money, make a donation, do the hard work to conserve and protect these animals. peta just wants them to be left alone. that is what they want too. host: here is mike in missouri. welcome. caller: thank you. i appreciate your show. eta'sappreciate p pragmatism. cecil the lion made me sick. peta'sappreciate idealism. could touch on roadkill,

and the fact that we are an auto centric society, and we don't do anything to curb or prevent these awful tragedies on our highways. also, i think we need to reinforce kids in public schools that we don't need me in the human diet -- meat in the human diet. hunting is an addiction, it is rarely a necessity. host: do you see hunting as an addiction? guest: there is something certainly wrong with it. again, when you look at the psyche of these people who spent tens of thousands of dollars to travel around the world just to kill an animal that wants to be left alone, and claimed that it is conservation, it seems to me that something is seriously wrong there. the colors right, we do need to look at how we interact with animals. we can have another conversation about veganism, and how that would really help the planet, by want to come back to something

we talked about earlier. that is that these problems that confront animals are human made. we are encroaching on their territory. we are killing their prey animals, whether for food or hunting, and it needs to stop. we need to live in harmony with these animals, and there are few me humane ways to do it. ofrelation to the notion what he referred to as roadkill, their places in the united states where animals are hunted example.for these areas are actually seated with food so they will continue to multiply, so they can be hunted. that, together with our human encroachment on their territory, is a large part of the problem. host: don't you think there are real problems with deer in urban areas in terms of overpopulation?

a reliable option might be too cold to find hunting? guest: i don't think that is the solution. the solution is humane methods of control and separation, and also for us to respect their habitat and give them protected areas. host: john is also a hunter. thanks for joining us. caller: it is amazing, some of the absurdity that has come out of the mouth of this gentleman. the bible says that man is the and the ruler of everything that is on this planet. day, when they had to hunt for survival, these instincts are ingrained in the human psyche. if he really was concerned about endangered species, then

comment about the 400,000-500,000 raptors, bats, and other bird species that have been destroyed by these shredders -- d wind turbine bird shredders. i don't necessarily agree with the process of this trophy hunting, but it is a business. the zimbabwe people have chosen to engage in it. they are free people. reason for them not to control their destiny. if they choose to eliminate the on as a species and their

country, they have a right to do that. host: on john's point, a bigline, "trophy hunting is business in south africa." what kind of revenue when they lose if they were to end it? guest: as i said earlier, most of the revenue does not go to help the indigenous people, who are in dire need. most of it goes to the choice industry, run by mostly white people. it is modern-day colonialism. to the colors comment, this is not about survival hunting, or some type of natural state. this is about people who are killing, i would not even safer sport. these hunters are driven out in times at night, using floodlights to blind animals, and then kill them up close with high-powered guns or crossbows, many times, just like

them soil, injuring they suffer. all just so somebody can have a head or skin to put in the den n or living room. host: anthony in minnesota. welcome. caller: thank you. thank you for c-span. that comment -- that at as humans, we have in the hair just 62 kill animals. first see a deer, my instinct is not shoot it with a high-powered rifle. i would rather just sit down and watch it. i like mr. kerr's comments --

when you use a laser scope and a high-powered rifle, it is not really a spark. if you want to kill the animal, you have to tackle it yourself, make a spark. in other ways, i think peta -- i peta. guest: i think we have to many times fight our urges. we all have urges of one thing or another, but we have to fight urges that are destructive, just as we do in every walk of our lives. as human beings, we have a special obligation and responsibility, precisely because we can control our own conduct. we have a special responsibility to look out for their well-being, as well as our own. host: a couple of comments on

twitter, including this one -- trophy hunting needs to be banned altogether, we have lost too many. jim says, man is a meter, and has been since the beginning, and our brain needs that type of protein. from carol, i cannot abide killing animals for sport, and must tune out for this segment. next this mike from ohio. welcome. caller: i was an avid hunter at watched, but the more i these programs on tv, it turned me off to the point where i want nothing to do with the anymore. standingse hunters over the majestic animals, such bears, and after they kill them, they high-fived each other and have like an

orgasmic reaction to the thrill of the kill. it just becomes unprecedented to me. i can deal with the anymore. i can't hunt no more. i want to thank you, and appreciate your time. host: what is your organization stands as far as the level of hunting interest? he mentioned tv shows. far as hunting as an activity in the united states? guest: i think we are clearly on the decline. the shows are representation of , hopefully, of this i-30. to the caller, thank you very much for giving up hunting. people don't want -- they don't consider it being enjoying nature by going out and killing the animals. people are much more interested

in ecotourism, which can bring in as much if not more money as hunters and their conservation efforts. ecotourism is taking off around the world. we are very supportive of that. that is the way of the future. host: what about people in the u.s., you see them go out and hunt, and the venison, they either all year long or donate it. tor organization is opposed that sort of hunting? guest: if it is subsistence hunting, that is one thing. what we are talking about is different. it is a choice. it is the choice to go out and kill animals for your own pleasure, benefit, and attainment. -- entertainment. host: is it better to get your food -- if you have the choice -- get your food through a grocery store? the meat has been processed at a

plant. thaniew that as better going out and hunting? guest: what we view as better is meat at all. i have been a proud vegan for 25 years, perfectly healthy. it is just a myth that you have to eat meat to have a well-balanced diet. a well-balanced vegan diet is the way of the future. it is better for the environment, your health, and the animals. host: let's go to washington, paula is with us. caller: good morning. i just had a comment. i'm so disgusted at this center. i grew up in a family of hunters. it is shameful what this guy has done. ,t is like lawnchair hunting waiting for the deer to come

with a beer in your hand. it is embarrassing. as a hunter and a meat eater, i'm embarrassed. i think this guy should be embarrassed too. most of the hunters that i know are very good at protecting wildlife, but i have known a few like this guy. we always ate our venison. now, we make sure we use the whole animal. there are certain things you do. firearms first. we no longer hunt anymore. i'm not opposed to it, if it is done properly. this is embarrassing. .nyway, that is my comment i also don't believe that peta is a terrorist organization. guest: thank you very much for comments. i don't really care if palmer is

embarrassed or not. what i care about and what p be cares about is that he extradited and face the charges, and face the appropriate punishment for what he has done. host: we read in opposing view earlier in "the new york times spirit go a photo of people protesting the death of cecil the lion. related to that is a story in "the washington post," about the president of zimbabwe. they right that having led his country to war, he is used to speaking about the evils of imperialism, and on monday, he found what he deemed a contemporary example, the killing of cecil the lion. he warned that people are here to regularly and illegally .cquire resources, wha

what has zimbabwe done in the wake of this particular killing? it forthere was a ban on a short-term, about 10 days. it was lifted. wasy two conservationists outraged. call on them to ban or suspension will be hunting in the country. there is some truth in that, and that is when i said earlier, this is modern-day colonialism. these are, again, rich overprivileged, overblown people, usually white, usually from the united states or europe, going down there, paying all this money, and have some bizarre notion of privilege, and feel that these animals, these countries, and these people are therefore there taking an excellent d -- and expec exploitation.

host: next is tom, a hunter. caller: i want to clarify, i am a former hunter. my son and friends still hunt quite a bit. northwestern pennsylvania is the beset with deer. the insurance companies were on the gaming commission because the deers were driving them broke on our highways. i just to work at 4:00 in the morning, and i see road kill all over the place. i have to say, the deer population is down right now. there is a balance here that can by somenized intelligent conservation. i would rather watch dear then hunt them now, even though i

used to hunt them. i wouldn't take that away from my friends and family that still hunt. host: may i ask, do you think the population is down because of deer hunting policies in your part of the state? yes.r: i think it has come back down considerably. it is not just that. i work with some guys that say they were there when the game commission brought in a flatbed truck of coyotes and let them loose in the woods. this is part of conservation. host: we will get response. thank you for your call. guest: again, what i think he is describing is the cause of the problem is our encroachment increasingly on the habitat of these animals. it is not like these animals are saying, i will play dodge cars with traffic in the street. it is human beings continually

encroaching on these populations. the responsibility is ours to find humane, nonlethal means of living cooperatively with deers and other wildlife. host: a couple more calls. we go to fort lauderdale, florida and livz. caller: i just want to say that i don't think people would like it very much if they were lured out of their protected homes by a delivery man, quote unquote on postal, holding their mail at playstation, or and then getting shot. secondly, i don't think that it is fair to make analogies about lions and humans.

our 7 billion of us, and only 20,000 of them. thank you for taking my call. tost: that, goes directly what we talked about earlier. one of the earlier callers called it lawnchair hunting. that is what is going on here. these people are being driven out by these guys, they know where these animals are, and they're just willy-nilly killing these animals up close. many signs that night. they blind them just to cut off their heads and take their skins. it has to stop. the hunters line, round rock, texas, mike, welcome. caller: good morning. i am also a former hunter. it, so i very good at didn't enjoy it much, but

anyway, i have a question for your guest not necessarily about bullfighting, dogfighting, and the kind of activity. our cultures that glorify that. i think it is sick. guest: thank you for the call and the question. the color is actually right. there are still bullfights and dogfighting. fortunately, that is changing to radically -- dramatically. spain used to be the haven for bullfighting, and cities throughout the country have outlawed and stopped the bullfighting. that is clearly where things are going. it is the rare exception where bullfights are still going on. carrying animal rights advocates and people all over the world are fighting against it. we all know the horrors of dogfighting. it is a federal crime. we all know the michael vick story and how terribly those animals were exploited and

abused. there is no room for him civilized society. host: phil, new york. the morning. comment. have one it has been mentioned several times this morning that man has an instinct to hunt and pray. i think that is true and we do have to recognize that, however, i also believe that we have that given the present state of the world, we need to overcome this and do things that are more commensurate with keeping the world balanced and safe. wast: that is what i talking about earlier about our higher responsibility, an obligation to care for these animals and live in harmony with them. there are many things that human beings used to do for thousands of years that we have evolved beyond. our interaction with animals is the next version of the civil

rights movement in this country, as we learn to peacefully coexist with animals, and respect them not as our inferiors, but as co-inhabitants of the planet. kerr of the pit people for ethical treatment of animals. that will be it for this morning's "washington journal." we look forward to seeing you tomorrow. have a great day. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> tonight on "the communicators,." he had always heard of silicon valley, entry and of getting to america. from a very young age, that is what he planned to do. at 17, he ran away from home. >> bloomberg businessweek reported ashlee vance on one of silicon valley's most inventive leaders, elon musk. he has this attention to detail. he pushes his workers really hard. i tend to lead more to this edison kind of idea, although i think he has a lot to prove. what i have taken away is he he is a guy