security consultant that specializes in helping workplaces prepare for active shooter incidences. we will take your call. you can join a conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: since taking office seven years ago, president obama has only addressed the nation from the oval office twice. the most recent dates -- dates back to august 23 of 2010, when he announced the withdrawal from iraq. tonight the president will address the nation once again to talk about terror threats, gun violence, and homeland security. good morning, it's sunday, december 6. we will have live coverage of his remarks beginning at 8 p.m. eastern time on c-span and c-span radio. according to shooting tracker

.com, last week's shooting spree in california marked the 355th mass shooting of the year defined as four or more injured or killed. that is going to be our starting point this sunday morning. we want to hear from gun owners and don gun owners on the second amendment. what does it mean to you? rights -- ort gun if you are a non-gun owner supporting changes to gun laws 202-7 48-8001. you can join in on the conversation at facebook.com/c-span. to remind you what the second amendment states -- a well reckoned -- a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." a survivors life on "the

washington post." one who was injured in oregon and her struggles to regain a sense of normalcy. the photograph also on the front page of "the washington post," the nra and its chief label here right to ad and the bear arms. >> you and i did not choose to be targets in the age of terror. but in essence like us will continue to be slaughtered in concert halls, sports stadiums, restaurants, and airplanes. no amount of bloodshed will ever satisfy the demons among us. dream ofards inflicting more damage, suffering, and terror. no target is to intimate or two sacred for these monsters syria they will come to where we worship. where we educate. --they will come to where we for these monsters. they will come to where we

worship. where we educate. americans have a power that no others share. the full throated right to defend our families and ourselves with our second amendment. let them decide if mercy is offered to the demons at our door. i'm from the national rifle association of america. hear from you,o gun owners and non-gun owners on what the second amendment means to you. this is yesterday's front page of "the new york times." for the first time since 1920 they have posted an editorial on its front page called -- the gun epidemic ." the intention and anger of americans --

host: the editorial was first posted yesterday and is available on the website. ae white house issued statement last night indicating that the president would address these issues tonight, it is available online, the press secretary's statement saying that the topic of the speech is to keep american people safe and it is the president's first and foremost responsibility to talk about the terror threats and gun violence along with homeland security issues. floyd is joining us from jonesville, virginia, a gun owner. good morning to you, floyd. >> good morning, steve. i was calling to comment on that. wrong thing with trying to do away with our guns.

we live way out in the country. you know it takes a long time for the police to get here. by the time they get here, you know, 20 or 30 minutes, you are hurting. i think they like -- they ought to keep it like it is, the second amendment. the problem is the way people have turned away from god, that's what's causing the problem. .merica has turned from god in genesis, chapter four, eve satan.d had a baby by that's with the problem is, people don't know that, even people that go to church and taught that, but those people are still here, the offspring of cain, that's what causes this. if you need a place to learn 1-800-643-4645. they can get all the information on that that they need because it is really important that they learn about what happened back

then. phoebe, non-gun owner, pennsylvania, good morning. good morning. i think the second amendment doesn't apply to the weapons we have today. it applies to like muzzleloaders and things like that. now that we have assault weapons i think they should all be banned and i think that we should stop manufacturing bullet . that way everyone can have all the guns they want but they can't kill anybody. host: thank you for the call. "the daily times" reporting on the presidents speech tonight. plane -- "obama to outline plan to fight terrorism and the islamic state ." "the president delivering a rare primetime address tonight from the oval office outlining his administration's plans to combat terrorism and provide an

update on the federal investigation into wednesday's attack that killed 14 people at a holiday party in california. it is being investigated as an act of terrorism. spent -- san bernardino is one of several attacks in recent years, as well as the 2013 boston marathon bombings that appeared to involve lone wolf workers inspired by terrorist groups but acting independently. joining is next from new york city, a non-gun owner. good morning to you, sir. caller: how are you doing? guest: fine, thank you. caller: i do support the second amendment was diversely. syria has taught us that the government can be a threat to our civil liberties and human rights as well as, so it's essential. the second amendment was clearly up there in the amendments just people in the

last resort will be able to protect their human rights and liberties, due process rights. we have seen it with different countries around the world, these states, these governments don't necessarily act for the people. we have seen mass genocides. in russia we sell 100 million russians killed. we saw the german situation, we saw pol pot. ,ssentially when the government even crony capitalism when it gets together it tends to be a threat to the mast population. i think america has remained a beacon of freedom because of the second amendment. or least the fact that we have that amendment. of these incidents happening may or may not be false flags. people are looking into those conspiracy theories. i think it's absolutely essential that we maintain the second amendment free and unfettered, other than the

people defending themselves, that's of this country is based on. people have to safeguard their own freedoms and constitutional rights at the end of the day. it's not up to the government to do that, it's the people who have to maintain their freedoms, that kind of thing. you aresed on what saying, what about these assult-style rifles that are intended to kill 30, 40, 50 people at a time with the type of bullets in them versus pistils or rifles used for protection or for hunting? point in the that has to be a ground, but at the same time if ms killing is going to take place it could take place with anything, you know? you can't ban hatchets because a unit that lunatic used to hatchet. the reality is we should focus on the mental health issues a lot more than the outright banning of guns and that kind of thing. with theout the baby bathwater in terms of getting rid of our second amendment

rights, that's very dangerous. especially in light of history. the last couple of hundred years around the world we have seen so many incidents where once the people give up their rights to own firearms voluntarily, mass genocides eventually take place. i pre-she ate a very much. richard rogers sent us this tweet -- 30,000 gun deaths per year in america, 20 thousand suicides, 10,000 homicides, about 88 or day, calling san .ernardino a slow day a sheriff and also county says it is time to make sure that if you own a gun that you carry a gun. the latest mass shooting proctor the sheriff to make a public proclamation. he said in a statement -- i urge you to responsibly take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm. he posted this on his facebook page.

"i want to encourage citizens license to carry a firearm to phone lines are open. for gun owners -- also welcome our listeners on c-span radio and sirius xm's potus channel. following the shootings on thursday, this is what the president had to say. obama: we see the prevalence of these kinds of shootings in this country. i think so many americans sometimes feel as if there's nothing we can do about it. anare fortunate to have extraordinary combination of law enforcement and intelligence and military that work every single day to keep a safe.

but we can't just do these , rely on these professionals to deal with the problems of these cans of horrible killings. we all have a part to play. that as the investigation moves forward it will be important for all of us, including our legislatures, to see what we can do to make sure when individuals decide they want to do harm, we will make it harder for them to do it. because right now it's just too easy. we are going to have to search to makes as a society sure that we can take the basic , which make it harder, not impossible, but harder for these individuals to get access to weapons. host: that may came up at --

that may come up again tonight as he addresses the nation for the first time that second time in his presidency from the oval office. the less cynical gun-control reflex is online at the national review website. edwin has this tweet -- the supreme court of the united states rulings on it, people will defend themselves, the nra pushes fear, stupid. sharon, jacksonville, ohio, a non-gun owner, what does the second amendment mean to you? caller: it don't mean much to me. host: why is that? caller: i don't believe in having a gun. nobody should have a gun. they should have god instead. i'm one of those car sticker people. what's on your car? sevres chapel,r: a church. host: your point is?

nobody should have a gun, because if you have weapons, you die by the sword. you use the sword, you die by the sword. everyone should have got behind them and it don't matter if you have a million guns, god will protect you. us thischael is joining morning. michael, you own a gun. how many? michael, are you with us? try one more time for michael. we will go on to brock, joining us from lumberton, north carolina. good morning. caller: hey, how are you doing? good morning. host: you are a non-gun owner, correct? caller: yes, i'm a non-gun owner, but i do support the second amendment. after what happened i feel we have seen too much finger-pointing between the administration and the nra.

with the don't agree ad from wayne lapierre, i think it's over the top and fear mongering, but on the other side the administration wants to spin the terrorist incident to gun ownership. in the end gun laws are not going to stop terrorists. mean, it's just an ideological war. to stop a is going terrorist from doing what they want to do. they will find a way. they will recap make. i just think it just comes down to common sense. i'm thinking about purchasing a gun, but like the previous caller said, as soon as i buy the gun i wonder what's going to happen? the bible does say that you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. and makented to call that point. you have a great day. host: brock, lumberton, this

tweet says -- that ground checks for all sales, no loopholes were domestic and foreign terrorists the nationalfrom association branch says that the nra is not to blame, neither is our second amendment freedom -- an act of evil unfolded in california and the president use it not as a moment to inform or con the american people, rather he exploited it to pushes gun-control agenda. policy discussion should be based on fact, not politics. saying that laws did nothing to prevent these horrific crimes let's goace, nothing." back to this weekend's editorial from the front page of "the new york times." it has been almost 100 years since the new york times posted an editorial on the

front page, taking aim at the second amendment, saying that it's not necessary to debate the ruling, no right is unreasonably away from reasonable regulation. allen joins us from kentucky. you are a gun owner. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i don't go along with that. i'm a registered democrat. but -- host: go ahead, we're listening. caller: i don't go along with that. i don't like it -- i do like the way they talk of taking people's guns. i don't like that, if you are not using a gun you will use something else. people that want to kill are going to kill. david joins us from columbia, missouri. good morning. caller: good morning.

i believe that people are missing the first half of that second amendment there. it's for mainly militia to and theire people surrounding areas. we have police now. we have the military now. we have organized forces now. we definitely don't need guns in our homes when we do have our .wn police forces as far as the hunters, they should be registered with, you know, their states or whatever because i believe in hunting to. there's no reason to be having all of this fight about gun ownership except for the fact that people living in cities should have them locked up in a reasonable way. they shouldn't be necessary for

self-defense. host: this tweet -- host: we are getting your calls and comments on what the second amendment means to use. michael goodwin has his essay this morning from inside "the ." "what will it take for obama to admit that "?is is islamic terrorism that phrase a phrase that he and george w. bush avoided during the president these. next, caller. the second amendment means i have the right to own a gun to protect myself from people just like what happened

in california. we may have a police but by the time you call the police and they get to your house, you are already dead. you need a gun to protect yourself. these stupid democrats, they all have secret service and all kinds of people guarding them. i bet they have got a gun. i let granny there has a gun guarding her, don't you? so to some of the republican candidates, including donald trump and ben carson, they have secret service protection as well. caller: they are no different. i've got a 38 special. and address my name to obama so that he can come and take it? who's good going to listen him tonight? use i going to do anything other than blame it on the american people. once he is a -- ast: melissa, he is not muslim. let's get the facts out there. he is not a muslim.

why do you continue to say that? he is a muslim? why does and he ever defend the american people, then? [spelling the word] host: we will go next to gavin. caller: i heard that one, too. i don't believe that barack obama is going to come take my gun. however, i do believe that i have the right to have a gun and i do plan on having a concealed permit and every thing else because of a business. host: what's your business? caller: i own a little pub. ofortunately we have people all different generations coming in, all different types. i love everybody. we have a great little pub. where people who are dark

skinned, light-skinned, it's wonderful. older, younger. in the middle of a melting pot where there are shootings going on constantly. you know what? we have the vigilance where we know better than that. we are not just going to go out there shooting people, we will not go out there and raise a fuss. we will sit here and stand tight. but i do believe that we should , if you canu can pass a background check, you can get a gun, have your gun. that if something's going on you can turn around and raise the gun and take out the not have toand worry. like that sheriff said, if you have a gun, bring a gun. host: thank you very much for the call. last week on the senate floor the democratic leader, harry reid, had this to say. harry reid: they once called

mandatory background checks reasonable. not making this up. now the organization has transformed into a militant wing of the republican party. they are being pushed more and into the camp of guns for everybody anytime they want them . and they are being pushed by -- they have a competitor now. gun owners of america. to do thechoose bidding of the nra will be held accountable by our constituents. their vote against the sensible measures will be a stain for all of the american people to look at and look at. something has to be done. we must take a stand. the american people are desperately looking for help, some help, any help. it will never be possible to prevent every shooting. we know that. but we have a responsibility to try. there are certain things that we can do. some people who are mentally

deranged and criminals, should they be able to walk in and buy a gun anyplace? of course not. from harry reid on the senate floor last week following the shooting and san bernardino that left 17 injured, 14 killed, and the president addressing that issue. homeland security is expected to bring up the issue of guns as well. tonight, a primetime address on c-span radio. this tweet from karen buchanan, in response to an earlier caller -- pointing out for the record that arnold -- ronald reagan had armed secret service and still got shot. going back to this front page editorial from yesterday in "the new york times." "certain slightly modified weapons and certain kinds of ammunition must be outlawed for civilian ownership. it is possible to define them clearly and effectively --

host: going back to your calls on the issue of the second amendment, carmen is next, a gun owner. steve. good morning, yes, i own guns. i'm a responsible pet owner. i support the nra but i detest wayne lapierre. host: why is that? caller: the man is supporting massive gun distribution among the united states and we have a whole population, very large part of it, that's mentally ill. in 1976 our beloved ronald let 750 thousand mental patients out of a mental institution in california and set the template for his presidency, giving the money,

the $2 billion, to the richest 1% of californians. the richest people in the united states saw that an elected him president. the gun violence keeps getting worse and worse because we have a problem with mentally ill people everywhere in the united states they can get guns. laws should be upheld, but i think there should be laws there to protect everyone and to start screening out the mentally ill. i don't mean to target just anybody, but somebody who's got and asked to grind with, but there are people out there that are known to be mentally ill. they are everywhere, in every town, the police and neighbors know them. everybody knows them. we have got a severe problem here. how many hundreds and hundreds of mass murders do we need before the americans will wake up and just tweak the gun laws just a little bit. come on, america. this is -- what is going on right here, we are the embarrassment of the world.

not only do we go out and take our poor men and make them go out and fight the wars of rich men, false flag wars that are made up. all the guns being sold all over the world, this is mass hysteria. it's got to stop. we've got to thank richard nixon -- i mean -- dick cheney and george bush for this big mess we are in over there in the middle east. richard nixon for taking us off the gold standard. ronald reagan for stopping the fairness doctrine. you know? -- there so many things supreme court with citizens united? takenup de grace has been to us and they have shot us and the back of the head already. this from another viewer -- obama and the democrats don't have a problem with you having a gun, we do have a problem with you having an arsenal of military rifles.

carol, oklahoma, welcome to the conversation. you are a non-gun owner, correct? caller: yes. go ahead with your comment. what does the second amendment mean to you? caller: it means everything to me. i believe that a well armed populace is the best defense against government tyranny and i believe that obama has done every thing he can to tear this country down. host: why? caller: what? host: why has he done everything to tear this country down? caller: he's trying to take our guns. we don't look good overseas. he's trying to let the syrians in here when he they are the ones attacking us? i don't know what became of this. everything is ruined. host: thank you for the call from oklahoma. releasing ause photograph yesterday of the national security briefing that

took place inside the situation room inside the basement of the white house. this is the president receiving an update on the shootings in san bernardino. we will have live coverage tonight. yesterday was part of ahtv, american history tv. we talked about -- we talked with thomas jefferson. of course, not really, but reenactor bill barker was in costume. greta bronner asked his three and a -- what does the second amendment mean to him? here's a portion of that conversation yesterday from colonial williamsburg, virginia. >> what does the second amendment mean to you? how should future generations interpret it? >> one cannot deny that one of the unalienable rights in nature is for one to protect and defend themselves. not a soul can take that away from another individual and is not the duty and purpose of

government to simply protect people from entry by one and the other? otherwise, to keep them free, that they may engage their own industry and engage their own improvement. therefore i believe is dr. franklin did, who realized that upon thennocent soul byways and boulevards of philadelphia city might not be protected in a dark alley or otherwise at nighttime, dr. franklin encouraging a police force to be formed in philadelphia city. thean individual still has right to protect themselves and, with good common sense, that ought to be protected and defended and secured by society. common sense and an individual's right to protect and defend themselves, it doesn't mean that they should aggress or be a possible nature with any weapon upon another. no, that is not civilization. i think that any individual who has been brought up with the responsibility of bearing arms

knows the responsibility of those arms. knows the responsibility of preserving, protecting, and defending the common good of their neighbor, let alone themselves. of course, a well regulated militia must be well regulated through its commission by the government, otherwise it is illegal and a militia cannot exist without a government commission. his -- is anis inalienable right for account, state, and nation, to be protected by a well-regulated militia. host: that was part of yesterday's coverage on ." arecan history tv reenactor of thomas jefferson portrayed by bill barker, in full costume. .t will re-air on christmas day you can check out the full schedule of our american history tv online at any time on c-span.org.

back with your calls and comments on the second amendment . what does it means -- what does it mean to you? we've been reading from yesterday's editorial from "the "opponents of." gun control are saying after they do that no law unwillingly -- unfailingly forestalls a specific criminal act -- host: this morning from "the new york times go ashley, non-gun owner, good morning. good morning. i think these gun laws have to between. we need to get control of what's going on in this country.

i worked in a trauma center here in houston. i cannot tell you how many gunshot wounds i have seen and taken care of. people don't realize the end results of packing all these guns and all that's going on in this country. when you work with it for 25 years, you know the end results. you see the paraplegics, the children that find their daddies gun and shoot themselves in the head to. you see the floor when their kids are killed. something has to be done about these guns. lovey of these people who guns so much good work and a trauma center the way that i did for 25 years, they would save -- they would see the end result of these guns. i thank you. for the call.u from houston, texas. with response to our reenactor playing thomas jefferson, this you are saying that jefferson and the founding fathers were

facing actual tyranny without a standing army. the second amendment was written for those times. senator bernie sanders issuing this tweet -- host: the president of liberty university in virginia is urging all students at that school to be armed. get your permit. this is a story from ktla five in los angeles. good morning, welcome to the program. good morning, tim. i believe in the second amendment and people having the right to bear arms or use them for sports activities or whatever they want to do, but i definitely don't agree with that guy from the nra and the nra and that commercial. i thought that that was just ridiculous. book,d every trick in the

from fear mongering to saying that all evil is coming and that evil is not evil, it's not spiritual, it's organic, that there are sick people that do stuff like that and as far as evil, they are coming over here while we are over there. and they are telling us the same thing. go home. thanks a lot. host: that was tim for minneapolis. john has this tweet -- a study from the pew research center focusing on guns bipartisan continued support for expanding background checks on gun sales, you can read more details from the pew research website. us thisdawn, joining morning from cookeville, tennessee. caller: good morning, how are you all doing today? hold on, just tell us a little bit about yourself.

how many guns do you own? caller: just one. i just have one, it's been registered. i've had it for 35 years. i bought it when i was in houston, texas. i appreciate the previous calling you had from houston. although she and i may be on the opposite ends of things, her arguments for well thought out and very articulate and my heart goes out to her job. i had to transport deposits in my job and my time. rather have itld and not needed the need it and not have it. as far as gun control, i wish the president would take a look at chicago to see their problems. supposedly they have this strictest gun-control laws in the nation and look at all the tragedies going on there. what i do think would be helpful

is if there could be a quick and profilingychological when you do go to apply for a handgun purchase. something that would take out the nut cases right off the bat. in may not have a history some institutions, but if there is a way that they can screen out the psychologically unfit at that time, i think that that would be most beneficial. i don't know, let's hear some feedback on that one. host: thank you very much for the call. michael has this tweet -- out yourare getting calls and comments on the tweets and what the second amendment means to you. fred joins is next. actually, john is next. non-gun owner. good morning. i am a supporter of the

second amendment, but i don't own a gun by choice. i am against the constant whittling away of the second amendment. please let me finish this, this is kind of important. some of the things -- this is one example of the ways in which the propaganda to get rid of guns, to make it harder to get guns, this is how some of that work. it was never meant -- it's not about hunting. people talk about having hunting rights. it's about being able to attack yourself and your family. i don't have a family, but if i did -- it's not only a right, but an obligation to protect them. it doesn't matter if it's from a bear, a criminal, or a policeman and then you have to deal with the consequences of that later, that's your choice. as far as the propaganda goes, in the 1980's or early 1990's the largest that he was done that is still constantly used in television shows and things, you are more likely to kill someone

that you know, a friend or a neighbor if you think someone is breaking into your house than you are to kill a criminal. use facts,e they that's a fact, but they use that to distort things, because in that same study, and people can look it up, the largest ever , the what actually happens results are that nine out of 10 times someone breaks into your home and you are there and you brandish a weapon, nine out of 10 times no one gets killed because they flee. of the remaining 10% where you have to use your weapon, nine out of 10 times they don't die. law-abiding people after shooting someone who doesn't die don't walk over and then shoot them in the head. they call 911. talking about 10% of 10%. 1% of the time that you are actually killing someone. 99% of the time you have effectively protected your family, their lives, and their

belongings. your property and their lives. is the statistic that you are likely to kill someone you know over an intruder, that's true, but it distorts the reality that in almost every case the gun has protected your family and property. john, from illinois. thanks for the call. jim has this point -- host: a few more minutes with your calls and comments, then we will check in on new hampshire, -- hampshire politics. this is the front page of "the new york times," focusing a large part on san bernardino. "urgent pet -- urgent prayers and panic as survivors recall the chaos." this story from

, "the u.s. we thinking how to stop the attacks here, "90,000 words, many of them ominous, a story ons tongue." the phrasing of his sentiment and speeches that we have been covering on the c-span network and what it means for donald trump, the republican candidate in the republican field and his supporters. that's available online at nytimes.com. senator john cornyn, member of the senate judiciary committee, has this tweet -- host: let's go to fred -- sorry, bill, from maccallum, texas. good morning. caller: the humor take my call.

host: absolutely. in regards to what the second amendment means to me, it's immutable. you had an actor there for trying thomas jefferson stating that was the actor's opinions, not thomas jefferson's. if you take out the gun free york, chicago,w d.c., los angeles, the crime rate with guns plummets. something that you read earlier -- start on thug violence, that's absolutely correct. our founding fathers left us the second amendment to specifically protect against a rampaging government. a tyrannical government. when it comes to protecting all of these attacks and massacres happen in gun freezone's. everyone wants to blame it on the gun. no, sir, it's the individual who attacked, like you said, the government.

the bleeding hearts, the gun are zones that you created efficient in a barrel shooting match. it's ridiculous. gething else that wants to brought up his utter tripe, in my opinion. we need to arm the people, if they don't want to, that's their choice. as a responsible adult, i'm going to go armed. bill, thank you for adding your voice to the conversation. bonnie says that the second amendment is not threatened. the last call is day and, joining us from aberdeen. good morning to you. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: absolutely. caller: the self-censorship we go through every times of the and we sit here and we when, youaziness

know, if people were armed, if people were protected they would be less apt to try to break and your home into home invasion? less apt to bust into a concert and shoot people? over in france they unloaded every round they had and walked becausefront door nobody was shooting back. there was nobody there able to protect themselves and it was a shooting gallery. in america, you know, it doesn't happen as bad as it did in france. we are still armed. if we didn't and up for our first amendment, we would be a bunch of sheep without self-censorship every time a shooting happens. we are pretty much walking into the same scenario. it's kind of ridiculous. thank you ray much for the call. on the issue of the second amendment and what it means to you, the conversation continues online.

join us there with your tweets and comments. poll out last week showing that republican candidate governor chris christie is moving ahead in the granite state. here a senator is joining us on the phone, the political editor "the boston globe," good morning, thank you for being with us. thank you for having us -- having me this morning. host: let's talk about the endorsement of governor chris christie from "the union leader," allowing him to move up in the polls. has he capitalized on that? guest: usually when this happens usually, because they have been endorsing for years, the campaign really tries to gear up. marco rubio trying to gear up his appearances in the state. in the case of chris christie, he was already geared up. he had his 50th day campaigning this week. he's had many, many town halls

throughout hampshire and he has a strong campaign already. is he taking advantage of the good publicity that comes from such an endorsement? absolutely. but in many ways he had a lot of the key components that made a strong hampshire campaign already there. host: donald trump already in a strong position there, like jeb bush -- but jeb bush, wears his candidacy? guest: jeb bush or donald trump? host: jeb bush. guest: he announced this week that he would be hiring more staff in new hampshire and he is going on another ad blitz as well this week in an effort to turn his campaign around and get stuff out of the single digits and into the double digits. it's a tough call, he has tried many different things since he sunk in the polls during the spring. host: a study was reported

online that the more the jeb bush spends, the further his poll numbers drop. guest: i haven't seen that study, but i would believe it, he has spent a lot of money. he has the most robust fundraising operation for a campaign. more than any of the other candidates when this election earlier thisrnest year. it's not surprising at all. he still has a lot of that establishment support. he has a lot of really well-known operatives who having guiding his ship and it's just that the ship is not on the ascendancy right now. there has been grumbling from major stept a change. bush campaign is trying to sue some of those donors, that's online. we are talking with the

political editor for "the boston globe." let me talk again about this poll that shows donald trump at 27%, marco rubio and percent. john kasich, 6%. what about these other contenders in the single digits? john kasich came out of the gates very strong in new hampshire right before the first debate in august. $4 million spent on the airways and it paid dividends for him in up there. he shot now when he goes to campaign in new hampshire, it's a small state, but you see the huge crowds, but not like for donald trump or marco rubio. to dok some of that has with his national debate performance the last time around. i think that this debate will be very important for him, the one on the 15th, to see if he can get some gain on the momentum again. we covered an event last

monday in which 13 of the 14 democratic female senators endorsing hillary clinton, the only no-show was the senator from your state, elizabeth moran, and she had good things on your site. where is she in terms of an endorsement and why is she there? we don't know exactly, but the senator asked barbara mikulski saying -- maybe she has a cold. you know, obviously you know as well as i do in politics that of someone wants to be there, they will make sure they are there. she was doing what she told the globe she would do, keeping her powder dry. she is not going to endorse anyone until she feels absolutely compelled to do so. she said she would do it before the convention, so anyone really work -- really waiting to hear from her, it will be at the latest six months.

you also have the five standout quotes in politics this week and i want to share with our audience two of those quotes . "it is nice to be wanted to grow and endorsement long sought after by governor chris christie. -- wanted." and endorsement long sought after by governor chris christie. yes, this really goes into what i was talking about earlier with chris christie of the laying so much groundwork for a solid new hampshire campaign. he's been courting well-known republicans for an endorsement for months now. this was her reaction to it. -- sheve the story goes told him that he was in the top three and he said as what do i have to be -- have to do to be your number one? she certainly was wanted by

chris christie. -- host: another standout quote from herman cain. "at least i was once winning. jeb bush has been doing nothing but losing for the entire cane. -- entire campaign. from: this is a backlash herman cain towards jeb bush, who has at times referenced which isin has lead, only for a few weeks at that in the 2012 campaign, that these other guys, these candidates for a few weeks for the candidate. remember that thousand three and 2004? thatnts to be the one voters want to marry in the end. herman cain has not taken kindly to these suggestions about his candidacy, so he wrote something on his website about it. too think that it's key

point out however the jeb bush was actually meeting at one point in this campaign, it just was a long time ago. host: what are you looking for in the week ahead? in terms of politics in new hampshire? guest: i will be looking at a couple of different things. jeb bush is coming back to new hampshire in the middle of this week. we will see how the crowds are doing and if there is any sign of life in his campaign. i will be a big one. john kasich also be back and we will see how that is going to go for donald trump, who won't be in the state this week. he had a rally last week in the central to northern part of new hampshire that had a smaller crowd but there was huge ice storm. welcome to new hampshire politics. the update you for on the sunday. we appreciate it. guest: absolutely, thank you for having me. bye-bye. host: you can of course follow

the campaign on our website and we will be back in new hampshire this week to showcase some of the events she was just talking about. coming up in a couple of minutes we will turn our attention to the week ahead. aikido line for congress. will they put together a $1.1 trillion spending bill that needs to be in place by friday? lauren french, who covers congress and politics for politico will be at the table to take your comments. mark frye will be here to talk about national security and the visa waiver program. he is here to discuss the impact of some of these proposed changes. but first, a preview of following, which airs "the washington journal." our guest is the house committee chair to talk about what congress is doing to address a number of issues. he talked about the potential for the types of attacks we saw

in paris happening here in the united states. here's a portion. representative good latte: they've been addressing this. two bills, one from two weeks ago that deals with the possibility of refugees, people using the refugee system in the united states. for travel and tourism purposes in the united states for 38 countries, mostly western european countries, but not all of them. theproblem there is that process by which you enter the country without a visa, by its very nature constitutes less scrutiny. so, we have a bill that will be on the floor this coming week that will deal with the issue of

people traveling to a rack, syria, ron, the sudan, and to have dual citizenship in those 38 countries. if you were both syrian dual citizen you would not be able to enter the united states under the program, you would have to apply for a visa. >> do you imagine that judiciary committee or congress in the house would still be considering legislation in the days, weeks, and months ahead specifically targeting gun violence? >> there is the mental health bill that congressman tim murphy, himself a psychologist, had been working on for a long time, that's gaining and increasing respect and momentum.

i'm a cosponsor and i hope we are able to move that to the , passed out of the energy and commerce subcommittee recently. i hope it's taken up in the full committee soon as well. i'm also working on legislation to address this workplace violence issue, which if this is not a terrorist attack it appears it might be workplace related to make sure that when employers hire somebody they have the most information possible about whether they have with violence, with rage and so on. host: this week our guest is the chair of the house judiciary streamed, republican, on the web at c-span.org as well. want to welcome lauren french, who covers politics and

capitol hill for "politico." thank you for being with us. guest: good morning. host: here's a portion of what paul ryan had to say last week. [video clip] ryan: tactics cannot win a mandate. they can make you popular, but they can't solve problems. , but theyelp a party can't save the country. so, why in the world would we want to act that way? so, we want to save the country? if we want to do what we believe in, we need a mandate from the people. if we want a mandate, we need to offer ideas. if we want to offer ideas, we need to have ideas. that is where the house

republicans come in. number one goal for next year is to put together a complete alternative to the it left's agenda. lauren french, could we see the framework for a new contract with america like we saw with newt gingrich? tost: they are trying outline an agenda, they are not calling it a contract with america, but you are seeing it here. paul ryan is looking for a way, the man who was the vice presidential candidate for republicans, looking for a way to win back the white house, maintain a republican senate, house, and legislate on those ideas. it was similar in a lot of ways to that 1998 era. we will see more push on obamacare. you will see more push now on issues of taxes.

paul ryan, the former ways and means chairman, is very focused on doing tax reform with mr. brady. you are going to see a lot of those things. this is an all-encompassing document that they want to lay out, it is about elections, legislating, and creating a new focus for republicans. they have been so mired in disarray with former speaker boehner essentially being pushed out of the conservative wing of the party. this is his attempt to really get republicans back on track. host: you wrote about this as republicans trying to rebrand, the headline is that they were hoping it could buoy the gop at the polls. in terms of his operation, six to seven weeks as the speaker of the house, has he changed his tone in any way? guest: the conservatives ate one

of their own and they really scuttled kevin mccarthy's bid to replace him as speaker. this is a conference that couldn't pass basic bills. they were having troubles with votes and now what you are reallyis conservatives buying into the plan. raul labrador saying that right now we are happy with how he's doing. things are working through conference. there's much less tension amongst republicans right now. that is a tonal change. host: let me ask you about a story cowritten by your former colleague this morning -- 90,000 words, many of them ominous from .he tongue of trump he could be the nominee. he's leaving new hampshire, iowa, the national polls. makes the following points -- his breezy stage presence makes him the more inviting.

the most striking hallmark -- fearful aspect he is tapping into in the u.s.. it is effective. this is not a fad anymore with donald trump. he has been leading the polls. going into winter. there is no end in sight. republican voters especially primary caucus voters, he is

tapping into what they believe in a way no other presidential candidate has been able to do so far. the president addressing the nation for only the third time from the oval office, talking about the threats after what happened in california. give us a sense on how the issue has unfolded in light of the attacks that resulted in 14 deaths, on second amendment and gun control. a senate vote went down, a lot of democrats putting up this legislation. give us a sense of the politics behind all of this. guest: a really smart story on this about how there is still no control on capitol hill, even after the shootings. you are having conversations where democrats are pushing for gun control and think this will be a big win for them in 20 seen with electorate. but republicans really don't see

any appetite to do it. in the senate what you did see votedo is a legislation down. there is talk of doing a bill on mental health, which will likely .et a vote next year there is no response in terms of legislation on gun control and a lot of the rest wants will be vocus on the syrian refugee issue. not people on the no-fly list should be able to purchase guns. that is so much less of what you see democrats calling for. following the vote last week in the senate, then control advocates made clear they do not trust anybody with a gun and they slandered her second american death second amendment americans as extremists and even nose, many supporters have

effective measures to keep america safe from terrorists, among them ensuring that foreign nationals supportive of terrorist groups are kept out of america in the first place. guest: there is much more of an appetite to do with syrian let's talk about these waiver programs, that will likely be fixed for there is any sort of serious vote on gun control in the house there people can come in without a been, fromu have coming in without additional vetting. hudson billnicole that temporarily stopped refugees from iraq and syria coming in. there will likely be something in the omnibus refugee -- that is really the response. what has come from the shootings

of issues especially after paris a national security question. we are it as a national security threat. host: the new york times talking about powerful firearms, calling it the gun epidemic. this is the first time since 1928 of the new york times has hosted an editorial on its front page. absolutely. it is causing a lot of discussion. it is a strongly worded editorial calling for congress to do something on gun control. the journalists and people around the country can say, there is no appetite for it. congress is not feeling it as a gun-control issue but a national security issue. need to curbee a

gun ownership here they want to do with it international security sense. host: we are with warren french who covers congress for politico. a speech last thursday that we carried live on the seas and network. we will get to your calls and comments and a moment and we welcome our listeners on the span radio and streaming on the web at c-span.org. we are also heard nationwide on every sunday24 morning. we welcome those listeners as well. 'sre from speaker reiner speech thursday morning. to ryan: it all comes down whether we conservatives have confidence in ourselves. do we really believe our philosophy is true? do we have the best ideas #if so, i see no reason why we should not hold back. the left wants to make this a

debate about personalities. they want to paint us as irresponsible because we all know what the left stands for. we all know what another progressive presidency will mean. just more of the same. so don't take the bait. don't play that game. don't give them a win by default. positive agenda and take it to the american people. give the people of this country the choice they have been yearning for. next year, this house can say we have done that, then we will have done our job. thatthe people will know we stand for a more prosperous, more secure, and more confident america. host: the speech by the new speaker of the house paul ryan this past week. you heard what he had to say, and follow what is happening in the presidential campaign with donald trump right now leading the polls.

where does that put the gop? in an interesting spot. if he becomes the nominee, house candidates cannot trash their own republican nominee for president here it there was a memo leaked earlier this week written earlier this fall talking about ways candidates trumpal with a donald presidency, talking about some of the controversial comments he made about women, the memo said pivot away from that and talk about, my wife or daughters were offended by that, really separating and putting distance between the candidate and donald trump. said was paul ryan talking about how the left wants to make the conversation about personality or there is no better way for democrats to turn 2016 into a personality discussion than if donald trump becomes president. and democrats are really hopeful. they are gleeful that donald trump is leading in the polls. it is connecting almost every

candidate in the swing say to donald trump. that is the best way for them, they view, to continue having the white house and even -- because they are so deep in the house minority, crawling back out of that and regaining some seats. for republicans, this is not a character who were -- inspires field.oss the many candidates would like him not to run, with donald trump at the top of the ticket, but they have to find a way to work within his viewpoint especially because he is so popular in many polls are still leading by double digits. guest is lauren french from politico. phone lines are open. we will start with cecelia. good morning. sayer: i just wanted to that i believe donald trump is

no different from a little hitler. because of his policies. and basically i don't feel he is on themoral person your other hand, another thing i want to talk about is gun control. control,k about gun those people did not fly the guns over here. they had to purchase them here. they had to be manufactured right here. , california has the strictest gun-control and all the nation. well, they transported from one state to the other until we have total control. i believe every household has the right to a gun and protection. rifles andwered things should not be necessary in the country of the free. a high-powered rifle

like that, your intention is to do serious harm. host: thanks for the call. guest: this is part of the debate democrats want to amp up after the attack and after the paris attack. definitely after the mass shootings, about whether or not there should be stricter gun control laws and whether or not the of the lily and ease that you are allowed to get a gun, that a law-abiding citizen who never had a federal conviction, whether or not it is too easy and more should go into it. intobi is now looking whether or not there were signs the couple was radicalizing and whether they were in touch with islamic terrorists overseas. on whetherdiscussion or not posts on social media were reaching out to terrorist groups in. . host: next, steve joining us

from california, independent line. caller: i was a republican, but i switched to independent. i'm a registered independent. i am right down the road from man wasardino and that not mentally ill. republicans talking mental illness, but he was not mentally ill. these high-powered rifles are part of the nra. they used to call me all the time until i told them i was for getting rid of these military rifles. the other issue i have with republicans is donald trump. -- i happen to like what paul ryan is doing, i happen to like paul rubio and cruise -- ted cruz. information, i found myself voting more democrat over the years. republican from ronald reagan to george bush, but i cannot -- i do not like

their far right policies. so i switched. host: thank you for the call. guest: that is the fear of a lot right now, the donald trump could drive independent voters to either stay home and not vote , or vote democrat in the 2016 either presidential or down ticket races. that is something a lot of people are fearing in the republican establishment write-down. senators cruise and marco rubio. these are tedious people the establishment is feeling as he the biggest defenders against the donald trump nomination. this is an issue tapping into the republicans establishment all over washington. news our website, a look at mass shootings in january of this year courtesy of shooting called

tracker.com. 355 mass shootings, defined as four or more killed our injured -- killed or injured. most recently taking place in oregon and less wednesday and california. reaction? guest: this is one of the .easons americans are so scared one of the reasons donald trump is so successful in the polls is he is tapping into that fear. that used to be an idea schools a movie theaters and shopping malls are safe and the mass shootings are undermining that is why you are continuing to have a discussion about national security and foreign policy and gun control because people want to see some sort of reaction from the white house, from congress. view that that is not happening. when the shootings are happening more than one a day, at this this will be a huge part

of what clay 16 will be about. it is what candidates will be talking about across the board. host: friday is an important deadline if lawmakers will put together a spending plan. .he omnibus spending plan guest: absolutely. december 11 is when the government will shut down. the likelihood of that now is very slim. democrat, republican aides telling us, telling pretty much all of the capital press corps, the idea of a shutdown is not likely. both sides were flopping proposals and trying to get to a place where they can find the government, put out an additional pr, another lovely washington term continuing resolution that could happen. likely, they are

confident they could get an omnibus bill. it is being hung up over policy writers, in addition to this. there is a push from conservative republicans to have policy writers, of course a discussion of syrian refugees and money going to settlements, saw, senatesues you democrats putting up gun-control issues. those issues are still being worked out and are the big roadblocks to securing a deal. ben, d.c., democrats line. good morning. you are calling on the democrats line. caller: yes. i have voted both ways over my i find since reagan was president, i gave up on republicans. it amazes me the young lady was talking about some kind of

regulation on guns. i do not understand the problem with having guns registered. i own five guns myself. i never shot anybody, but i own five guns. i do not get the problem why we cannot have people have background checks before they get gun. it seems like common sense to me. we do it for cars and everything else. what is coming out of congress, there is nothing coming out of except the 15 years last thing they did, when bill clinton was president and together, they finally balanced the budget. it did not take the bush administration want to kill that. the donald trump, give me a break hereinafter jewel but -- george bush, we have got a flamethrower like donald trump running for president people are buying that question mark i don't get it. are regulations owning guns.

the guns do have to be registered. what the conversations hinging on is going a step further. you have a bill from a republican from new york talking about whether or not you should automatic ban someone who is on the no-fly watchlist from purchasing a gun. senate and house democrats want to go even further to close loopholes for gun shows that make it easy without increasing , he iskground time tapping into some kind of national fear happening because of these shootings, because of the situation abroad. it is popular with a lot of republican voters and there is an angst he is able to tap into and talk about and resonate with people. the reasons there was talk earlier in the summer about the poll being skewed about him having a large name id and flooding out everyone else.

people have had multiple debates and there is another one coming up for republicans. thele have gotten to know other candidates. there are a lot of them, to be sure. but now donald trump has a commanding lead in the old and does not seem to be going anywhere. host: from ohio, jean saying -- he is the former chair of the house ways and means committee. this is part of it. you will see the republicans roll out their own budget and rollout priorities for them. he said something which really struck me. they will put bills on the floor even if they will not get to the president's desk, even if they know it will be a veto because they want to illustrate the difference between republicans and democrats. even if the bill has no hope of becoming law, they want to be

able to show what republicans stand for fiscally, socially, economically. you can see medicare reform being a part of this. paul ryan has made a name for self. someone very deep in the details. the medicare budget has been a the heart of that for him. host: our guest house written for the houston chronicle. a graduate of george washington university and is a congressional reporter for politico. john, florida, republican line, good morning. good morning, joan. i meant to joan. that is fine. that is the masculine of joan. i would like to make a comment as far as the republicans, democrats, an independent. and donald trump us his popularity with people in the united states. take exception, lauren, to

your saying he is tapping into the year. it is reality. it is a reality. this is the only how we live in the united states since 9/11, ask anyone in the northeast. i have a niece that works on wall street in manhattan and is rate every time she has get on the bus and take very her that she will get trapped on the bus i a terrorist attack. donald trump is actually telling the american people what the democrats and with the ts have not said to the gentleman from tennessee is correct, nothing has been done. it has been in fighting like a bunch of little kids in the sandbox, throwing sand in each other's faces. mr. trump is telling the truth. be politically what it washington is used to, i

think under the circumstances, that is why he is so popular. people are paying attention to him. let me ask you a couple of questions. who have you supported in the past, in 2012 in 2008, did you support mitt romney and john mccain? no, i voted for barack obama. the last great president was ronald reagan. with the ways the atmosphere is in washington, he would be can it a rat today us is double can party. this is why mr. trump is so popular. trump were the nominee, without be a help or hindrance for other republicans running next year in a, senate, and governor? www.c-span.org caller caller: it will definitely be a hindrance.

mainstream usa is standing up and paying attention. the gentleman from tennessee is , people in thel south, it is the bible belt and i am a northern girl who lived in florida for 45 years and i but peoplearyland, in the south, we feel our rights over the years has been eroded. our constitutional rights. that includes gun-control. every gun should be registered that is sold in the country. we have a no-fly zone and get people can get into the country illegally and buy a gun. for the callou their there you have it. a solid donald trump reporter. guest: there you go. there she is. she was taking exception to my term, tapping into the fear. but that was what the she then

described, the fearful culture people are living in. her knees in new york that she was worried every time she got on a bus. that is what donald trump is able to talk about and really connect with voters so well on and that is why he is leading the polls. people to support them are fearful and they believe he is telling the truth. talking about the reality and doing it and away that is not what we expect from politicians. the best retail politician we've seen and so on the is he is able to connect individually with people and they believe so much that he is telling them the truth and all other politicians have failed to tell them over the years. that is one reason he is popular, especially with republican primary voters so fed up with establishment republicans and with, this was part of the trend that helped to force john boehner out he can as

they felt he was weak need when dealing with the president. that is what they want to see them someone who is authentic and for whatever other criticism people have of donald trump, he is authentic and he connects with people. that is again why he is leaving in the polls area -- polls. host: does donald trump ever engaged to centers? -- a new poll from gallup says he has an 11% approval rating. who is the 11%? but it is the lowest in the last couple of years. guest: you're seeing across the with dissatisfaction politicians and that is overall, there are people at this point with the exception of donald trump, a high approval rating.

one reason 2016 will be so interesting, this is one of the first chances you have host a revolution in congress, with john boehner being kicked out, with the growth of the peopleative wing, where have a clean slate for president, they have the chance again, but everyone -- you can see a situation where seats changed the parties don't change and they are voting out and comments, against incumbents, and we have been talking a lot about donald trump hindering republicans, but could he lead to a situation where you have comingrs -- an outspoken in because people are looking for that and looking for something refreshed? host: -- keith, savannah, then --

savannah, tennessee. good morning. thanks for taking my call. i think donald trump has finally got people talking about the and i thinkction donald trump will stay solid and i think he will win and he is finally got people actually out vote who has been not voting, and he has got their attention and what he is talking about makes sense. he does not need nobody passes money pay or you do not have to worry about him out there shaking the bushes for money. he has got his own money. you like the fact that he is funding his own campaign? yes because he does not have to depend on other people. he does not have to worry about paying he will back and favors. he doesn't have to do that. he will do his own thing. thanks for the call.

we will let you take care of the dog of yours. donald trump made a similar point last week speaking at a juror form, he made a joke that many criticized as teetering on giving anti-jewish stereotypes. he was saying, i do not need your money and i am not going to need your money and will not have to pay back and favors. this is something donald trump has talked about a lot, that he can self fund his own campaign, probably one of the richest people to ever run for president, he does not need donors coming in even though he -- ourting them, especially he is going to be able to go the distance. the biggest risk in a republican field this large is you run out of money because donors are staying out of the game until it is more clear who will be in, or

they run out of money to give. it is a finite resource. he could go through the iowa caucuses, without raising a lot of money because he is so well-funded. he really views that as a bus zone camp in. he does not have to go hat in hand to republican donors and then afterwards saying this is what i want. that is something refreshing to people. you see the influence money has in washington and it does discussed most average americans. favor swapping. tot: the bush team trying sue the donor concerns about the jeb bush campaign. senator marco rubio has a number these scheduled.

the second large number of trees have been focusing on donald trump. i will to you about the largest. this is from marie -- donald trump has a unique speaking style. it is raw and a lot of ways. people are connecting with that. whereas you have obama who has been criticized in the past and praised in the past that has a more profit to a more formal way of speaking. be donald trump. he swears and calls people out and makes fun of people in his aegis. it is deathly a guy connecting his people because of braggadocio's personality. host: the number 13 --

guest: paul ryan's beard. used to walkho around with his iphone headphones in, listening to rap music. he is a new guy. his teammate fun of it in an instagram post, asking the last time a speaker of the house had appeared. thursday he has not shaved it off. whether he comes back clean shaven, that is the question and if he does, it will create another storm. this is all ryan's personality. he is in formal. he does an bottle that -- embody shucks kind of guy. i think the beard is part of that. you are seeing it being

capitalized on. we got over november where fears are very popular. see if it goes forward. a new era, one more connected and less formal. host: without enough editing the deadline, the president is signing the transportation bill. if they do not meet the friday deadline, then what? guest: they passed a short-term continuing resolution through the weekend. a lot of caucuses are powerful in washington. you have the conservative caucus and the progressive caucus. there is not one more powerful than the get out of town caucus. you will see a lot of pressure on paul ryan as they come back on tuesday to really get a deal done. members do not want to stay over the weekend want to be here for the last week of the session, the week of the 15th.

they would like to see that week canceled and they are hoping to see it canceled. you'll see a lot of deals getting time so they can go home and get a break from coming back into washington. host: thanks for adding your insights here. lauren french of politico appeared i appreciate your time today. remember a few months ago when pope francis came to the u.s.? that is when the u.s. america say was canonized. we will turn our attention later to homeland security issues and the visa program. we will be joined next by mark and later, bill a gage. first, part of c-span's city

to learn about the history part ofissions c-span2's booktv programming and c-span3's american history programming. here is a preview. >> we are here at the carmel mission. this is a site established in colonizationof the of the central coast. the original founding date was 1770, june 3, after which, the site moved. upper california, began in 1769 with the establishment of san diego mission.

that particular site was not the prime objective. located and asy a result, we get a joint military and religious expedition known as the sacred expedition. accompanied byas the friar who came to the they to establish at monterey on june 3 of 1770 ear and the franciscans were cast with essentially vandalizing upper california or the region we identify with california today. their objective was basically bringing indigenous communities into the church, into the worship of >>. that was the prime objective. host: we hope you tune in today and c-span3's american history tv and c-span2's booktv as we

take you to monterey, california. and the carmel mission and more newest american saints canonized by pope francis when he traveled to washington, d.c., december. we want to talk to marc frey, of homelandirector 2010.ty from 2007 to let me begin with some background to explain to the audience exactly what it is. for example, if you are a non-immigrant visa for a formant -- for an immigrant -- visa to the united states, which is what happened in california, correct? guest: that is my understanding. it is worth 20 other visas are quite distinct from the program. some processes may overlap, but immigrant visas go through a different screening process and

a different selecting process as opposed to the tourist and this is people who come here under the visa waiver program. a bit about talk those visas, but it is not quite the same. host: who needs a visa in the u.s.? guest: people who come here to work, to get a paycheck as opposed to just a business meeting, for example. anyone contemplating a long-term stay. the visa waiver program is for travelers who come here for a maximum of 90 days and only for tourism and business. this chart shows essentially how complex the issue is. the screening system in place for those applicants going through homeland security, the fbi, the department of state. as you look at this, what is your reaction? it may be confiscated but

it is indicative of all the layers of security these travelers undergo for the united states. it may be worthwhile to talk about what the visa program is and is not, because there is a bit of a misconception out there -- perhaps because of the name, visa waiver, that somehow security requirements are waived. that is not the case. strictre a number of time it's for the program and they parallel these requirements for visa holders as well. a number of screening provisions , secure travel documents, information sharing, and audits and -- while i have not seen the chart before and do not want to comment to specifically on it, i think just looking at it now, it is indicative of all the different levels of screening and information sharing built in. created back in 19 86,

it'll as citizens from 38 countries to come to the u.s. for up to 90 days. this is the headline from the washington post, as house readers led by nancy pelosi and planting to move on a bill that would tighten the security for the program, how so? i would like to say the visa waiver program needs to evolve and needs to be reviewed continuously. we are going through in light of the paris attacks in particular but also in light of the current environment, it is entirely right and the fact that this waiver program since 9/11 has gone through these reforms, the interest in this weather on the hill or the administration or the public it is entirely right. there are things we can and should do. some are sensible and some are perhaps not as sensible.

efforts going on the house right now, particularly on the , of michigan,ity has quite a few sensible reforms. i believe that as a bill that received bipartisan support. some of the things the bill is considering and that the administration is working on at the moment are enhancing the electronic system for authorization, the screening mechanism by which travelers are screened. it is insuring our agencies get the best intelligence and information on criminal malls -- criminals, ensuring the small number of current travelers who do not use electronic passports are using this passport. it is insuring we have better use in our visa waiver programs thetatuses, particularly lost and stolen database. all those things are good and sensible for these waiver

programs. host: our conversation with marc earned his doctorate from temple university. we talk about the visa waiver program and nationals are ready. your role in homeland security involved what? i was in several positions but i was the director of the visa waiver program for three years. oning that time, i worked major legislative changes to the program which to place in 2007 and implemented the electronic system for travel authorization that we have been taught about, as well as security requirements in other ways, and i managed the program daily implementation, which includes the continuing keep upng that dhs does to date on current threat theronments to ensure border security, aviation security, document issuance,

counterterrorism capabilities, with u.s.fficient standards and those reviews, of which i lead probably dozens during the time along with dhs , state department collies, fbi collies, etc. dhs are a powerful tool for and the u.s. government to andally have visibility should we find gaps and things that need to be fixed, we can work with countries on how to get security up to where it needs to be. , we: if you hold a visa have a line set aside for you. let me ask you specifically about the situation in paris. those involved in the terrorist attack had passports were belgium and france and that is visa program.s.

potentially, could they have come into the u.s.? theory, a holder could -- is eligible for the program. there are a number of layers of screening that are art of program. to the extent the french security for law enforcement services have derogatory information on these individuals , such as they traveled to syria, the program requires those countries to share the information with united states. we would have information in our databases so when the person , he would the program not be able to. i think that is again the one misconception. it seems to be a sense that all you need is a european passport and you can show up at the airport in france and arrive at jfk in new york without any additional screening or

security. is precisely the opposite of the case. there are multiple layers of security part of the program, and part of what dhs does generally for all travelers to the united states. host: this question -- guest: i don't think so. i think the government is doing betting and screening on individuals to see if they present a threat to the united states. i do not think that can go across the board to tacit approvals of any action the person may take when they're in the united states are it is a snapshot in time. you havening is very information you gather, analysis, and you determine

whether a particular person presents a risk at that time. a risk may present six months later, that is a different issue. host: this question -- guest: yes, we do. at the moment, we do not have great statistics on that, but yes. we are aware of people stay longer than 90 days, that is noted in the system. if that person has overstayed and then tried to come back, it will be noted that they did not follow rules last time and will be prohibited from using the visa waiver program in the future. us fromrk is joining virginia. good morning. caller: the last comment you made, that is the problem the american people are not aware of. these people coming here on any kind of visa and it is a contract that the american

people have got to understand we should know exactly where they are at it every time. they have gotres, to leave instead of just letting them stay here and get amnesty. i had athe visa in, secret clearance. numerous neighbors have had higher clearances. i have gone back in my hometown, where they asked high school tochers how the student was these people are coming in from let's say south america in the middle east, the cast there, what do they do, go back to the high school teacher and figure out what kind of student they were? they go to the christian church, to ask thesque, priest or the mom how they were? this is ridiculous people think they can do this in two or three years and get it to come out right. like i said, it is hard to

believe we are even asking this of the american people. overseas, do this all surrounded by you and forces and even american troops there and we spent billions of dollars there is a nice neighborhood at the same amount. thank you. guest: thanks for the question. with respect to the first part, you're right in a sense that it is a contract and people who come to the knife is whether under the visa or under one of the many visa categories, agree to say for a certain amount of time and they have limits on that. if they violate the contract, they should not get the privilege next time. i think it would be quite a large resource implication and a very difficult practice to know where all people are at all times to come here. we generally know when you believe and if they should not have left, and if they meet law enforcement criteria, the u.s. does figure out where they are

and if necessary, detain them. i think the process is working pretty well. to art ins go clearwater, kansas, republican line. good morning. caller: i have an unusual question. a few years ago, a couple of werer patrol agents prosecuted for shooting a fleeing drug smuggler across the southern order. a prosecutor by the name of johnny sutton, prosecuted our own border patrol agent and gave immunity to the drug smuggler, who, according to media reports, smuggled more drugs in while he was waiting to test i under that visa and immunity. i always wondered why johnny was co-conspiracy for to drug smuggling. that is my question. thank you. guest: i am not from a year with the story although i will a,

more generally, they have a difficult job and they generally do a good job. but i am not familiar with the specifics of the case. next from virginia, independent line. caller: i am a former republican and i do not believe we should allow those people to come into the united states. we are currently allowing about 100,000 people from countries that have jihadist principles into the united states. there is no reason we should allow any of them to come. why should we pay to follow around and fit them and a percentage of those people want to destroy us? people are talking about donald trump, i came from queens, new york, the most diverse borough in the united states. the taliban u.n. headquarters was down from my house. these people are dangerous and do not want to assimilate. there is no reason why they

should be allowed to come here at all. trump speaks the truth. he sees a program used with the visas, and he's just right. if donald trump is not the nominee, i will probably we vote for a democrat. that is all i've got to say. they should not be coming at all. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think everyone would agree that dangerous folks should not coming here. that is precisely what the visa waiver program is trying to do, to screen out and prevent the travel of the small number of dangerous people from the millions upon millions who come here for legitimate reasons, for tourism, travel, business, and contribute the reins of dollars to the u.s. economy, whether in new york or queens or elsewhere. the task before us is to find the needles in the haystack.

all the screening done by the visa waiver program as well as set the and parallel to the visa filters, is designed to find that needle. host: courtesy of the department of homeland security, a look at the more than 21 million foreigners who came to the u.s. in 2013. leading the list is great japan,, followed by france, south korea, the netherlands, ireland, switzerland, denmark, and belgium. the remaining coming from 27 other countries. dry ridge,from kentucky, republican line, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to ask live southern borders have never been secured. border is aouthern great challenge. hospitable, there are

quite a few open spots that border patrol in particular is designed to control. the issue here again is legal travel to the united states by the visa waiver program and what we are doing to find dangerous individuals. it is distinct and a different problem from the problem of securing the southwest border. those folks are not coming here under the waiver programs. many are not coming here legally. so i think that is a different issue. this tweet goes to the female suspect involved in the shooting in san bernardino. -- guest: thanks for the question. i confess i am maybe not up to the minute on some of the develop methods in the story. i was not aware there was a fake

address reported. the point is, and it is a good one, the screening systems are good but they can always be better. and dhs inent particular is working to make the screening systems that are. that gets to some of the points made in the beginning about the visa waiver program and enhancements going on. host: the husband and wife partner involved in the shootings, walk us through how she was able to get here. i would be happy to talk about it on a general level, but she did not come here -- there is a different and distinct process for that, which i understand, both a database screening on multiple interviews at a foreign location. there will probably be an effort

going forward to see what the gaps were in this particular instance and tighten up the gaps to ensure we are able to capture this. host: so you have an american citizen able to basically through a website, found his in saudi arabia and then came to the u.s. legally. guest: right. approved for a visa. that is what i understand. at some point in the process, though i do not think we know where, she became radicalized. perhaps it happened in saudi arabia and we missed it. perhaps it happened here in the united states when she was already here. a separate problem we are facing, folks who either self radicalized or are radicalized on the internet or elsewhere when they are already here, whether they are american citizens or immigrants. the president had a meeting yesterday with his national security team and will be addressing tonight.

can you give a sense of what you think the debate now going on inside the white house and security apparatus, it yet, homeland security, now involves? guest: it probably involves some of what i just spoke about. have been reviewing now for the last several days the process by which the visa was issued, what we missed, what could be done collectively with the fbi and homeland security and intelligence agencies, etc., to close the gaps so we do not miss those again. i think that is what the u.s. government does and hence to do well after the incidents. perfect but wes learn from mistakes we've made and try to make the next system more effective. harry is our next caller from new jersey, the line for independents. caller: maybe you could put my

mind at ease. we hear a lot of talk from trump , ted cruz, that the syrian refugees on the refugee trail, we have no way of knowing what .hey're back ground was they say there is no way we could check them out. if you could put my mind at ease, how do we know if he were to take off his hood and start walking, and wants to come in? how are we going to get this guy? can we really? maybe you could put my mind at ease and thank you very much. i wait your answer. for the question. i think you put your finger on a problem and that is something we are struggling with, how to ensure -- to talk and bring it back to the

discussion we are having, the refugee issue and screening is distinct from the visa waiver program and refugees do not get to come out waiver program at least not for a long time. secondly, the refugee process is a long one, a fairly detailed one. refugees do not just get to choose where they want to come. there is a selection process. potential isis terrorist who wants to target the united states by refugee program, that is quite a complicated bank shot of getting here. because there are a number of vetting points and screening points and it takes a long time to be approved for refugee status. it is a problem and one the administration and congress is a rope really focus on. how do we address the gap you pointed out? how do we get as much information as's to do the appropriate screening on refugees but also on travelers more generally? how do we work with our partners to close the gaps?

the visa waiver program is a tool that allows us to work at her with honors and get that information. host: -- guest: more than a u.s. passport. sure. there are 38 countries in the visa waiver program, most in europe and several are in asia and one in south america and chili. -- and comprehensive, even travelers in the 38 visa waiver programs in those countries, if they are not coming for 90 days for business purposes, they also require a visa. french the -- french citizens coming here for other reasons still require a visa. host: there is a debate in congress and some differences on the visa waiver program p me

outline some of the key differences. anyone who is traveled from , sudan, or iran since march 1 two thousand one, when syrian civil war began, also, the senate only places specific limits on people who have traveled from iraq and syria in the last five years. back to your calls. edward is joining us from illinois, a republican line, with mark fray. the many is athink motivator. they want to do something like they keep a lot of money in their pockets and that is something we need to investigated. there are too many loose and. ends.ose everybody gets out of prison is marked with some kind of label.

this is just a joke. we need to get seriously back to the government. we have too many people in office who need to be removed because they are looking at money. that guy never would have been prosecuted if we did not have people like janet reno or someone who really looked at the law. they are just taking in money and i think these are other scams and we need to get serious. need to do ore want to do something for the security of the country, -- [indiscernible] ways to put people down and put people out. we need to stop it because it is nothing but slander. host: thank you, edward. we'll get a response. think there are some problems with our screening our visa waiver.

we are trying to improve the process. ohio,phil is next from democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i saw a part of my answer with the senate bill, but here is my question. why is this time of these terrorist attacks, do we allow people to travel to pakistan, afghanistan, syria, iran, iraq? if someone wants to go, they should not be allowed back unless they are going for verifiable or what related reasons. if they want to just go for traveling or religious purposes and we do not know what they are doing, at this time in our country, should not be allowing it. saw part of my answer with the senate bill coming up, will that stop travel to those regions? guest: thank you. issue withre is an travel other than legitimate work or humanitarian or other

purposes. i think the house bill and senate bill and some proposals are designed to address that issue. i do not know that they are addressed to stop travel from their as much as they are designed to stop people who travel to their from coming here orhout having a lot of perhaps having to demonstrate why they went there. maybe there is a legitimate reason, in which case, they should be allowed to have of these that or use of these up. if there is not, the senate bill and some of the information in the white house pressing to add will block them from coming. host: certainly, there are more questions than answers to what happened in california. what are your thoughts? guest: i think the biggest question is when we have touched thishich is when and how seemed to happen and if it happened prior to the visa being issued, how can we fix that

process so we are catching that? how can they work better with their partners all over the world to get the information we need? issued -- iat is think that is the issue and it is one that requires give abilities, and international resources. in light of the fact of what has happened, i think there will be quite a bit more of that moving forward. host: this is a photograph of one of the two suspects killed and that she doubt a few hours after the rampage in san bernardino, california. your teen deaths and -- 14 desk and more than a dozen serious injuries. chelsea from massachusetts, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is a question or maybe a comment, to. first of all, thank you for your work. you mentioned about 38 countries

having visa waivers. i went to make a comment that one of those countries is not poland. one of the closest allies of the united states, it is a shame that this country is put on the back burner. i would like to see if he can take a look at this closely and start looking at these countries that are allies. we have so many problems with illegals crossing the border. syrians are not accepted without even knowing who they are. please, or combat situation. host: two are for the call. i happen to agree with you 100%. you are right that at the moment, it is not a member of the visa waiver program, one of the handful of european countries that is not. i think they should be. ishink what has held them up something that an anachronism in the visa waiver program law which states from when it began in the late 1980's, it was a

problemabout economic and not security. there is a provision that means you have to make a certain threshold and poland has not been able to meet that threshold. there are a number of reforms that make help get poland get there, but they should the a member of the visa waiver program. i agree with you. host: as you see the debate unfolding with travel to syria and iraq, but the list of countries could expand pretty significantly and do you have traveled in this country's [indiscernible] guest: right now, it is iraq and syria. maybe another country will take its place in a few years, but you have to put your finger on one of the hard problems which is you do not have to travel in today's world to become radicalized. you can do it on the internet or just by living in your

neighborhood, so i think that gets down to better international cooperation with their partners so we are aware of people who are self radicalizing or otherwise taking steps down that path, and we can intervene beforehand. even if we are unable to stop radicalization, we can stop them from coming here. host: bruce joins us from england. this is. life on the bbc parliament channel. caller: good morning. i hope you are well. host: thank you, yes. caller: excellent. let me just ask, there is a lot of paranoia from people in the united states who are worried about the potential threat of wishisa waiver program who united states are armed, however, the results of the

potential of that past been reversed, unfortunately, this is all history i am about to mention, but there are four things i wish to say. committee andid ira, we all know that certain members of the community put their hands in their pocket and gave money to organizations in the united states, which was then passed on, and it was used c-4 as you call it by the ira by which they then used for campaigns on the mainland in britain and there were thousands and thousands of people with troubles in northern ireland which has been for

four decades or five decades and i'm wondering since the waivers are reciprocal, is it time americans realize it is not just one way paranoia and there are potential threats they could be facing for americans traveling overseas and using our visa waiver as well. host: thank you for the call. guest: thank you, bruce. i think you put your finger on a key point to the visa waiver program and how it is reciprocal. gives u.s. citizens and ability for visa free airfare as so, including to the u.k. and that is something to keep in mind because all of the requirements we are talking about, at some point, could be applied to u.s. citizens wanting to go for holiday, business to any of the visa waiver program countries. moment, there is

not a tremendous amount of concern for some of the issues you raised. it is worth keeping in mind that the additional security departments will be imposed and they could equal and be imposed on u.s. citizens traveling to other countries. --t: five a, the headline is "forget refugees, how terrorists could get into the united states," which is a focus on what we are talking about, the visa program and you can follow us on twitter at cspanwj. we will go to florida next. good morning, george. caller: good morning. i would like to know is there really any way we can vet these people? can the government guarantee that if they are going to allow,

and of course, they guaranteed a lot in the last few years that hasn't been done, and if they are not able to even take care of what they promise in , how can i trust them to set up a system that is going to keep my family safe? guest: thank you. i think you put your finger on a problem on how we need to do a better job of letting. there is ank guarantee in anything in life. the security screening by dhs and other government agencies in cooperation with other international partners, it is spaced on risk assessment and trying to identify the bad guys in the vast majority of people who are not bad. it is worth pointing out, the visa waiver program has been in existence nearly 30 years and

has become a major security program in the wake of 9/11, and the screening is hard to think back in recent memory to someone coming here under the visa waiver program and explaining it in the way we are talking about. it does not mean it will not happen and there are no guarantees, but the process has worked. they are designed to continue the work. with a few more minutes our guest and some background, the visa waiver program and economic benefits, courtesy of the u.s. travel association, in 2014 alone, about 20.3 million travelers arrived to the visa waiver program, generating about $190 billion in economic support -- output and supporting nearly one million jobs. for example, the k-1 immigrant is for nonimmigrant visa

the foreign-citizen fiance of the you knighted state citizen. ak-one visa permits the foreign citizen fiance to travel to the u.s. and mary his or her u.s. citizen sponsor within 90 days of arrival. marc frey is our guest and joseph is on the phone. democrat line. it wanted. caller: good morning. how wetion is related to can prove -- improve the screening process to anyone coming into the country. why wealways wondered don't employ it may be sophisticated lie detector tests and if the person cannot pass that -- i am not saying the test if we haveut suspicions of someone, he is the lie detector test -- and if they cannot pass a, the late our decision and may be background check that person and all the way up. thank you. the issue is

screening, had we get better information into our systems and working with our partners to do so. technologies that we could do better and i am not sure that polygraph is one of those at the moment, but there are multiple levels of screening, including interactions with u.s. government personnel who are trained to recognize or suspicious behavior, and if you trigger that in an interview, then you are subject to additional questioning and not necessarily correct up to a polygraph machine but otherwise they do do a deep dive into the background. host: let's go back to high keep track of those here and overstate and welcomed in the united states, how do we enforce that contract that?

what mechanisms are in place? guest: let's take the example of folks to come under the visa waiver program. there is a maximum 90 day admission, so when you come in you are given 90 days from that date. if we do not have a record of you having departed by that date, then you are presumed to be an overstay. so you are in the system and depending on your background and whether, as i said, you need a number of -- you meet a number of law enforcement criteria, we will spend more resources to find out what you are doing and where you are. tourism,o are here for or something else and they go expected, if they don't, the system will block them coming next time. host: if you come over, estate for 90 days and go back to your

home country, when can you come back again? can you go for one week and come back for another 90 days? guest: you cannot come here and get a job and they go home for a week and come back and continue to get a paycheck, for example. host: we will go to julia. good morning. caller: good morning. cover the book is sold out, but by michelle marden and john deanna and if anybody wants to know about the situation in the united states about american jobs and the republicans always saying, where are the jobs? this is a scam. the senators in the united states have both democrat and shaved all ofe the visa is down over time so people can come in here and take american jobs.

do not be afraid of the people coming in here and maybe putting a bomb off. there is swiss cheese going on in our jobs are gone. host: two. guest: two are for the question. -- host: thank you. guest: thank you for the question. i guess the short answer is you would not get a permit to work but it is business travel to attend the meeting or conference. it is not to actually come here and do work. host: because security is so tight in israel, my cast this question -- how does the u.s. screening system compare without the israelis screen? guest: very good question. i think that we work closely and our fellow partners they are not a member of the visa waiver program.

it is a different circumstance and i will say that israel freely has one international airport, so perhaps, they can develop resources to do a little more personal hands-on screening. .e have dozens upon dozens from a resource perspective, it goes back to risk assessment and using the technology we have and other technology we get from our partners and mechanisms we use to do that detection. we only spend additional time on travelers who meet certain threshold. host: bottom line, if congress debates changes to the system, which ones do you think they will take? guest: i think there is a pretty good chance that most of what is in the hospital does get implemented and some of them are being done by the ministrations and seems to have bipartisan support. as you know, there is a competing senate bill which has

several similar provisions to the hospital. -- to the house bill. there are other provisions that are frankly unworkable, like the biometric position and i have a hard time seeing that being short term. formally withy the department of homeland security to talk about the visa waiver or ram -- program. thank you. guest: thank you. host: a reminder that we will have live coverage of the president obama -- the to thents addressed nation, only the third time. the last time was in august, 2010. the latest in the investigation in california and expected to bring up issues of gun safety and second amendment rights. our coverage is that 8:00 eastern time, 5:00 on the west coast and live on c-span radio and screened online anytime and www.c-span.org.

what happens if you are in a situation where there is an active shooter? we will talk with a former ,ecret service agent, bill gage as "washington journal" continues. back in a moment. ♪ >> all persons having business before the supreme court of the united states are going out there to give their attentions. >> monday on c-span's landmark cases, we look at the case of basic -- baker v. car, it will that federal courts could interfere in the drawing of election. here is a portion of the argument. >> these 11 tennessee voters

live in five of the largest cities in tennessee. they are the intended an actual victims of a statutory scheme which devalues, reduces their right to vote to about one 20th of the value of the votes given to certain rural residents. >> by the early 20th century, population shifts had people moving to the rural areas, but with smaller populations, they held voting power equal to larger districts, so troops of voters challenged the disparity and took their case all the way to the supreme court. becamee of baker v. carr a major point of activism and -- relevant today. onglas smith, author of

democracies plus the, the inside story about the supreme court brought one person, one vote to the united states. that is live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case, order your copy of the companion 8.95 dollars, for plus shipping, at www.c-span.org /landmarkcases. "washington journal" continues. host: i want to look up bill gage. he is a security consultant now. we wanted to talk about responses to active shooter situation's in public and workplaces. how should we prepare for that potential? guest: good morning and thank you for having me. that is probably the number one question i get asked right members of the public and companies that reach out to me in how should they prepare.

really, the one thing that i tell them is that survival is the mindset. this week, after the events in california, we heard a lot about flight and fight and that has been around for a while. it is sort of a public service announcement along the lines of, if you see something, say something. that is great, but what i tell people, that is the great program to follow, but that is a battle plan. what do we know about battle plans? a member of the military will tell you that no battle plan survives first contact. what i generally tell people is that survival is a mindset. each one of us has to make a decision in our mind that we will survive no matter what. when you extend the survival and talk to people who have committed mount everest and have been in human survival situations like that, you have done trend that those people made the

decision in their mind that they would survive no matter what. this i want to show you map, courtesy of pbs, and gives you a sense of the number of shootings that have taken place this year alone that are identified as mass shootings and the definition is three or four or four more victims either killed or injured. 355 incidentsk, have occurred. the that we have. if you go to shopping malls, work, the movie, grocery store, in a park, in a school. washington post" had a great piece this week on the debate on what makes an active shooter and what does not, even in fbi stated that came up last year, a groundbreaking study, even that would became controversial because of what

actually are the criteria they're using to define an active shooter. there is a debate amongst criminologists, i call it the debate, theylk debate active shooter events on the rise, a or b, or are they , soipitated by social media what i generally tell people is to live your life and do what you want to do, but make that personal decision that you will survive no matter what if you find yourself in one of these situations. host: that meet share with you what the chief of police of washington, d.c., said and she said -- "i always say that if you can get out, getting out is your first option, best option. host: that is kind of

counterintuitive to what cops always tell people. we never told people, take action, this is a different scenario. guest: absolutely. i was very excited to hear her say those words. here is why, when i started consulting with companies when you ago or so, nobody wanted to hear the fight part of the rent part -- of the run and flight part. it was controversial and nobody wanted to publicly talk about the firsthe was public official to come up and say, you can make a difference during these events. when you study some of these after action reports of active shooter prevents, savvy were people lost their lives, we followed that sometimes people went into what i call the crisis lockdown mode where they actually got in the hallway, near an exit that could allow them to escape and simply got in

a fetal position and waited to be killed. in addition, after action reports had a list where individuals had an opportunity to sort of fight back and they so not, and that is very sad i was happy that she came out and said that publicly. in my opinion, that is the first time that has been publicly said. 202 is the area code. democrats.000 for (202)-748-8001 four republicans. our guest is bill gage. ,ur line for independents (202)-748-8002. let me share with you what a member of the judiciary committee said about legislation to deal with this potential, including red flags for employers and employees -- >> i am also working on

legislation to address this workplace violence. it might be workplace related if it is not a terrorist attack, that to make sure when employers hire somebody, they have the most information possible about whether they have had a problem with violence, rage and so on. i want to make sure that when like what the critic my congressional district with the tempos and -- with the television station or reporter that after a while after he was terminated from employment, he committed outrages acts of -- so i so two people went to make sure that when that television station hired an individual, they got more information than name, rank and serial number. more and more employers are not passing on to the next employer useful information that would

help them avoid those types of circumstances, so i want to make sure that we have the incentives to do that, so i am working on legislation to a comp or stop. host: as you hear from the chairman of the judiciary has committee about what happens in this situation as in virginia with the reporter killed live on camera, along with the photographer, when an employee is about to be fired, what are some of the red flags that fellow employees should be aware of? a second.'s back up one of the things i talk to companies about, i talk about steps to security and one of the first things i tell them is security begins at the employment application. the moment somebody applies to work or your company, there should be some sort of ve tting process, regardless of their level of involvement, and i recently did a security review for a large 500 fortune company,

and one of the most sensitive areas of the company and for nondisclosure reasons, i cannot get into the company and what they do, but the point is they have some facilities that are really sensitive. if those facilities were breached or damaged in any way, probably a major impact on the u.s. economy and i asked, those employees that have access to that having sensitive facility, how are they vetted? they say, i trust him. in my mind, i thought, really, you trust them? a person orevel involvement in the company, especially to the most sensitive aspects, should have the highest level of defending -- of vetting. security begins at that employment application. in addition, the second think is security should have a direct role and should be partnered with hr. i recently did that with another company, ask the right

questions, and in my opinion, hr and security should work together. anytime there is an action or an employee is fired. in addition, security should partner with hr when hiring decisions are made. sometimes, people have things in their background, they are not bad, but sometimes people of questionable things in their background and hr are great people, they are professionals, but when it comes to security decisions, they should go out security professionals to make those decisions. i agree with them wholeheartedly that there has to be some action. in my mind, the way to do that is not wait until an employee when you have party discovered went an employee works for you, but it needs to start when they apply and bring security in to partner with hr. those have far-reaching effects to the companies that i have recommended that too. a former secret service

agent, you protected barack obama and george h.w. bush and whenere with barack obama he traveled to sandy hook after the horrific shootings and after the shooting in colorado. what was that like for you? guest: gutwrenching. i remember being in the hospital in colorado with some of the was a short distance away and i could see the anguish on their faces, and i remember talking to some of the police officers with initial responses to the events in colorado and listening to the police radio traffic. week -- i that this remembered that this week watching the horrific events unfold in california, and it sort of brought home to me the fact of how tragic these situations are. they truly are tragic. host: one of our viewers pointing out that liberty

university is advising students to carry concealed guns. is this smart? guest: that is probably the second most received question and the first one is, what can you do to survive? my second one, should business allow me to carry a gun or should i carry a gun? --s is what i tell people the second amendment debate in this country has become sort of a social debate along the lines of abortion and debates like that. what i typically say is, let's .ot get drawn into that debate if you feel so led to carry a gun for your own safety, by own means, and by a local laws, do so. i actually advise citizens against doing that for liability region -- reasons because businesses have to ask themselves certain questions, how will go up and be stored? how is this person trained? a lot of issues

involved in the, so i typically are businesses not to allow their employees to carry firearms on the job. host: this from another viewer, should shooter drills be as common as other drills? guest: i get asked that frequently, in my professional opinion is that active shooter drills, if you will, and in some cases, i called them [indiscernible] drills because some of the drills bring in actors and blank rounds fired, and there has been -- there have been lawsuits, a google search reveals some, one in oregon involving a teacher, in a was a participant security drill with the secret service where we were doing training at the college, and one member of the staff had been

away on vacation and did not check or e-mails or seek signs that were placed throughout campus by the local police department. she was actually good chance it with the president of the universities secretary, and only burst into the office as part of the scenario and found her there, it was very traumatic for her. that is what these lawsuits are about, the trauma these people have experienced. i am not a big fan of those of drills. i think they are more for first responders than the average employee. that is what i reinforced the companies. shows are fine if you want to do that, great, but the main thing you should do is teach survival mindsets. host: our guest is bill gage, graduate of virginia military institute and earned his master's in boston. matt from new york, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. nice day out today. i would like to say about the security and the application process, hello?

host: yes, we can hear you. caller: recently, didn't obama decide that we should not be able to have on employment applications if you are a felon? guest: he did, and several hases, maryland being one, is if they, absolutely. i think that is something that, once again, it should not be a no go for an employee. what if someone committed a felony 30 years ago and now applies within your company and they have a crime free life and reestablish themselves and have not violated any laws? should they be eligible for employment at your company? i think each situation should be taken individually and you to check with your state and local law if you are a corporation or company looking to hire someone

who has been convicted of a crime and check with the legal department and make sure you are following your state and local .aws definitely, security begins at the employment application. host: let's go to nikki in houston, texas. caller: i was curious. i understand that we need to protect ourselves and so forth, but based on what has recently happened, it seems to me that the person who worked in the job had no records. i understand that we want to have guards, but a lot of people -- understandably want to have guns, but a lot of people do not like guns. this is just my analysis, in order to get past, you have to put your gun on the table when you go into your job and it is ridiculous. i think we need to talk about ways to have peace and that we can find ways to embrace each

other's religion. host: thank you. guest: absolutely. i agree wholeheartedly, but caveat is being that there are bad people in this world. i tell businesses and corporations all the time that hope is not a plan, trust is not a plan. you have to plan for bad things and bad people. host: in maryland, good morning. caller: glad i made it on your show. my main reason for calling is to say that i appreciate what he is telling us. i think it is good for us to hear. when you have a lot of information, you have less fear. it reminds me when i was in elementary school and we would have drills and we would get under a desk, so the place right so the place i think

they should after a list schools, and my husband's work like a children's day camp in the summer. i think just being aware. i know you are talking about workplace, but it could be a problem anywhere and it is a this.that it has come to and when we remembered what happened on the plane in 9/11 when they fought back. if they would have been successful, it would have saved a lot of lives. host: joanne, let me ask you personally when you go about your day, to have a greater sense of fear or you do not worry about it? guest: i wasn't afraid until i got more information about what has happened in california, but i feel like it could happen anywhere. radicalized or change their mind.

we hear that muslims are peaceful, [indiscernible] host: thank you. guest: i want to follow up on one thing that joanne said. one thing that i tell people all the time is this concept of premade decisions to prevent panic. i am very appreciative of what she had to say because she said, listen, i have thought about these things and she talked about knowledge and information. i own son, my seven-year-old son, came home from school and started telling me a story about how some kids in his first grade class got in trouble because they were talking during a drill. he is seven years old and you have to sort of pull it out of him, and i was able to get out of him that they did an active drove because there might be a bad man on campus. while the sun, i have had to deal with that personally, but one of the things, when i talk about these decisions of panic, i am reminded of a holocaust

survivor who held the door shut so the active shooter cannot enter in the classroom and told the students to jump out of the window. when you think about the decisions going through his mind at that moment when he was holding the door shut, he had premade decisions already and he realized there were things in life worth living for and dine for and saving others was one of those things. premade decisions are important. host: and that there was a window or door for them to get out. guest: absolutely, that is true. as chief lanier said, if you cannot run and you cannot hide, the next option is to fight. once again, i was excited to find a public official had come out and said, do not forget the fight portion. host: this is form -- this is from jody who had a fire drill -- where she says, our family had a fire to for our house, we

drove but never had to use that info, never had a fire, but it was useful. host: next caller. caller: i think it is dangerous we're telling folks to arm themselves and be a vigilante. you are telling folks to fight when theirives adrenaline is running and everybody is in a panic, so you have two people or three people shooting at one gun shooter and then i come in with my gun and everybody is shooting, so how am i supposed to know who is the bad guy? guest: these situations are hope hedynamic and i was not confused. i am not advocating anybody arming themselves, but what i am saying is that there is a survival mentality in all of us that has been programmed over thousands of years, biology, evolution.

we all have the inside of us. what i am saying, whether it be a teacher, lawyer, doctor, they all have to survival mindset. let me just follow up on something that he said. reports arethe coming out of california, and we know a lot of times first reports are round, i heard several employees of the facility talk about how they began to evacuate and leave the building, and they were told by security professionals to go back inside the building and shelter in place. i do not know if that is come from but those were the initial reports, but that bothered me as a security professional because sometimes as security professionals, firefighters or police are assessed with an evacuation of the building and they need a headcount, they need to ensure that every inch and foot, room, sterile is searched the facility. i understand that as a first responder, i get that, but if i am there and i am almost out of

the building and somebody tells me, wait, do not leave, go back to your office and shelter in place, i will tell him no. host: almost reminiscent of 9/11 with the world trade center's. guest: absolutely. i was in washington, d c, in 9/11, and you think about the gridlock and the chaos and people ended up walking home. host: let's go to patricia in new jersey. caller: good morning. i love my show "washington journal." host: we love you. you are for phoning them. caller: i don't even know where to start. i am going to be 64 and i am really sad. i think what was not in the or what is missing, a lot of times, minorities are mistreated in the workforce. lawsnow they have work

where you can fire them for no reason, and if they want to get rid of us, they can. that makes us angry. we are out here trying to survive. errorey are judging people are muslim people -- arab people are muslim people, so i know what it feels like to be discriminated against. i think we should talk about why these people got upset and angry on their job. what part of the bosses or administrators play? we have to listen to the jokes that are inappropriate and favoritism. i love my country, i am still shocked. host: as i hear you, i almost get the sense that you are just a fine what may end up being workplace violence? caller: i am saying that if they don't look at the -- people are struggling and the continued to

be unfairly fired. host: we will get a response. thank you. guest: i agree with what you are , that initially whe discrimination is wrong, absolutely. employeesloyers and be subject to some sort of sanctioning for proving dissemination? absolutely. somehows commission excuse the fact that people lose their lives? absolutely not. one of the things that i talk about with companies is the concept of employee assistance program or eap, every company has a different name, and when i go places and asked them, it is one of the first questions i asked, physical security is great, but you also made the process for employees to report behavior.

before the fbi study came out last year, the secret service in 2002 released a study in response to columbine called the states code initiative study. they went back and studied active shooter of events from study had02, and the several groundbreaking findings, but one of the findings was in every single instance of a shooting, somebody saw something that did not know who to report it to. one of the things i talk about with businesses and companies is, hey, do have an appointment assistance programs? if the employee is always arguing with his wife on the phone, having anger issues, who do i talk to? when you go talk to your manager and you talk about the present worried to come at the manager does not know what to do and they go to hr. hr does not know what to do, so everyone is worried about the freedom of information and privacy laws, so let your eap

handle that. make sure you have your employees systems programs and make sure it is publicized within the company. the phone number is there. a lot of times, that information is given to people when they are hired and three years later, they do not know where that literature is or number is. i do think it is important and i agree with her in that aspect that there needs to be a program in place and every company should have an employee assistance program. host: one of our viewers is following up on the caller ansys, in my experience, it is true. absolutely is no help in creating the content and productive workplace. guest: that is true. when i talk to them, there is no partnership between hr and security. a lot of times it is because they have not thought about that or they're worried about the viability of a privacy law but you are not filing any privacy law by having a discussion with your security professionals. channelom the fox news

reaction, one of the neighbors in san bernardino, california, saying that he had seen suspicious activity but did not report it. guest: i saw that headline as well. once again, they probably were unaware of where do they reported to. if all this fails and you do not to, reportedeport to the local police department. i think james comey had a great press conference this week, as well as other members of the fbi, and one of the things they said was this would've handled these things confidentially and they will not go bursting down the door. these are handled with follow-up investigations and reports of suspicious behavior and their handled delicately. so people willd not be fearful of what will happen if they are reported. host: let's go to houston,

texas. carl is next. welcome. caller: thank you particular call. -- thank youd of for taking my call. i find it strange or talking about security, but it seems that these security measures only affect americans. who performed the you seem willing to hire them but you will not higher americans. it is crazy. american may have something in his record 10 years ago and that would exclude him from a job, but you go to these same where theor countries people want to kill us, and you hire them all day long. i am in houston, texas, and i see these people and i do not have a problem, but the reality is you all are acting like it is americans, it is not americans

whog that, it is the people have made all the security acts for the people. host: you'll get a response. should be some sort process.g i am not a legal expert, and if somebody has something in their background, some sort of criminal act where they have been convicted or arrested for, i do not necessarily think that that should exclude them from employment but that is not my decision. that is what local and federal levels have to determine. host: of course, that can be determined, but as we saw in virginia shooting, one month, two months, in this case, three months, they came back. guest: absolutely. and there is nothing to prevent that. one of the things i talk about,

regardless of your religious belief, hindu, buddhist, atheist, i think we can all agree that when it is your time to go, it is your time to go. takeesses or citizens can every step to ensure the security and something can still happen. one of the things i tell people, kiss your kids every day, tell them that you love them and live your life to the fullest because you never know. is former secret service agent, 12 years in that agency and is not a private security consultant, and we are talking about what to do if you are in an active shooter situation in the workplace, at home or any public location. kim joins us next from new york. welcome. caller: good morning. commentanted to call to on the comment he made about

vetting people as they are being hired. i believe there should be some in fault, but somebody who had something happen 12 years, 30 years in the past and they do not hire them for that without some kind of research on that because whether it be a misdemeanor or felony, they could have paid for the problem that they had and been rehabilitated and been an active citizen. i am not sure -- i think it really kills jobs or kills employment when you have companies that go to the extreme . if he is a felon, oh, my god, we will not hire him. i believe in vetting. guest: i agree with him wholeheartedly. a copy at should be -- the if someoneld be that has something in the background, especially a filing crime,

regardless of whether or not they paid for that consequence, that should be investigated. how do you investigate that? well, someone needs to read the file and pulled the police report. was it an adolescent mistake or something deeper than that? hardly with the caller that i do not think anybody should be excluded from employment because of something in their background but the incident should be investigated. host: let's go to kathy in new mexico. good morning. caller: thank you, c-span. love the show. i would like to take this to the comment he made recently -- thatg that would there really is no way we can foresee how these situations will be in the end. started based on

christian values. people.ill we need to find out what in the this country so violent as opposed to other westernized and civilized countries. where is the violence coming from? if you called yourself a christian nation, violence against violence. here and they were not immigrants, they were colonizers, and they murdered millions of native americans. now, here we have the situation where innocent people are being killed in the workplaces, in their schools, in restaurants, where is the violence in america coming from? violence.ves its

i do not have any enemies. i do not know anybody. most people want to go to her, live their lives, raise their children and have a future. that is general across all people of all lands and countries. that is what most people want. people do not want the violence, but as one of the previous callers said, we need to go back to the root cause. cane to not bible, kill his brother with a gun. are you going to outlaw clubs or sticks? until we get to the root cause of the violence in this country and what is making everyone so angry to the point where they go to these extremes, if we do not deal with this sickness pervading the nation, i would say we need to look at, very seriously, what we do in these companies, as the previous caller said, what is causing

someone to be this angry? thank you for this gentleman this morning. host: kathy, i went to thank you -- i want to thank you ellie will give him a chance to response. , steve, toe is a lot digest, but once again, as i said earlier in this interview, the second amendment debate in this country has really become a political issue, along the lines of abortion and other debate,. what causes -- debates. what causes these shootings and violent crime? i wish i had answer. if i had the answer, i would be a very rich man. i am reading a book right now about ballet police department -- about the l.a. police department and homicide investigations. one of the underlying trends is that a lot of the violent crime is caused by over and under

urbanng in neighborhoods and i don't necessarily disagree with that. i think those are areas we need to look at. specifically about active shooting events and acts of violence in the workplace, the two competing. , once again by these two prominent knowledges, one at texas and one at northeastern, i do not think -- i do not know if they will stop at the big way or the other. is it an increase in the violent crime because we are becoming more violent as the society? i do not know the answer. all i can do is sort of research what is out there and advise companies on these sort of current research. host: the final point from rick say that the call from new mexico is right because americans do not want to look at ourselves. afraid of what we might see. one quick call, john from illinois.

30 seconds. caller: thank you. my question was, in all the mass shootings that have taken place, how many times has a victim who actively carried a weapon actually stopped issued or defended his life? guest: good question. i get asked that from time to time. the problem in answering that definitively is that there has been a number of editorials about that exact question. excuse me. i do not know the exact answer because i have questions about the exact statistic and about how the game about the statistic -- and how the kim about the statistic. even though i do not jump into the second amendment debate, one of the things i do say is that these events and in a few ways. one, the shooter kills himself, they either surrender or they

are killed by law enforcement. what do law enforcement carry? firearms. i think there is no debate about how these events and and they are usually ended with people with guns. host: bill gage former secret service agent, thank you. a new poll out this weekend showing that donald trump now has believed. -- now has a lead. the piece was written this past week about how they're preparing for the possibility of the trump nomination and he will be joining us tomorrow morning as part of "washington journal." vidino to talk about isis and american sympathizers in the u.s. and caitlin emma of "politico." "newsmakers" is coming up next. live coverage of the president's

speech from the oval office .onight at 8:00 p.m. eastern thank you and enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great weekend. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ here on c-span, newsmakers is next with republican representative bob goodlatte of virginia. then a discussion on u.s. policy in the middle east with john kerry. and later, dick cheney is honored with a marble bust in the u.s. capitol. >> our guest on newsmakers this week is bob goodlatte of virginia's sixth district. he's the chairman of the judiciary committee in the house of representatives. thanks for coming back to newsmakers this week. >> good to be with you, susan, and your viewers. >> let me introducou