fight against isis in iraq and syria. proposed gun legislation and homeland security. and elizabeth grossman discusses her article about lax regulations of toxic chemicals. comment on, i do not what is going on in the presidential election. i will take an exception today. this is not conservatism. what was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for, and more importantly, it is not what this country stands for. ♪ >> speaker of the house paul ryan yesterday responding to donald trump's call for a ban on muslims. ryan's criticisms were echoed for the rest of the gop --

blames the usual party insiders for trying to undermine trunk. toare beginning our program our republican viewers to get your thoughts. if you agree with speaker ryan and what the republican party stands for, phone lines are open if you are a republican in the eastern or central time zone, it is 202-748-8000. if you are a republican in the mounted or pacific time zones, also 202-748-8001, you can catch up with us on twitter. the front pages of most are talking about the story. seriousnicell ignites -- trump sets off a brawl in the gop. the front page of the "washing

call to ban's muslims stars bipartisan anger. several stories in the "new york times," world reaction to a proposal, trump is condemned in many languages. that is the story we are talking about this morning. as a reminder here's what donald trump had to say on monday. j trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our countries representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. [applause] >> we have no choice. we have no choice.

[applause] we have no choice. that was monday, donald trump talking to these reporters. that comment is storing a light of controversy and reactions from others of congress, those in the republican establishment. we are talking about it this morning. republicans, call in, the line is 202-748-8000 for the --ntains, or if you here is the full version of speaker paul rise in -- paul ryan yesterday. >> i made very clear at the time, they were not be a religious tests. it would be a security test. that is because freedom of religion is a fundamental constitutional principle.

it is a founding principle of this country. normally, i do not comment on what is going on in the presidential election. i will take an exception today. this is not conservatism. what was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for, and more importantly, it is not what this country stands for. muslims are there many serving in our armed forces dying for this country, there are muslims serving in the house , working every day to uphold and defend the constitution. some of our best and biggest allies in the struggle and fight against radical islamic terror are muslims. the vast majority of whom are who believe in pluralism, freedom, democracy, individual rights. i called on members this morning to always strive to live up to

our highest ideals. to uphold the constitution on which we swear every two years that we would defend. that is why we are here, and that is why we are going to stay here to be the people's work. host: that is speaker paul ryan yesterday. call in and give your thoughts on his comments and donald trump's comments on monday. roger is up first calling from iowa. good morning. caller: thank you, good morning. noticed that at least with mr. you let him do his entire speech and did not just do clips like they are doing with trump. trump is being misrepresented. he is not a racist, he has a lot of muslims that are working for him. the muslims that are what we in our armedlims

forces, agree with mr. trump also. tell whether it is a terrorist or not, you cannot risk letting them get to the country where they can go out there and find someplace where ths are not allowed and blow e hell out of people. host: you talk about how this debate has taken specifically in iowa, an important state in the presidential primary and caucus this? caller: they keep playing clips of what trump is saying, that he is not being accurately represented. the people that follow trump and are allo what he said, the more for him. , ifs making common sense

you cannot tell a terrorist from a non-terrorist, you cannot risk the american public by letting them into the country where they can go and get themselves a gun and kill a bunch of people. saying,e, mr. trump is i hope mr. president trump is saying, that until such time we can figure out what the difference is, we cannot risk taking the chance of letting them into the country. not only that, if you wanted to reduce the strength of isis by about 50%, every time you get yourself a terrorist, you put their head on a stick and a central park. , a little bit more on what donald trump is saying about this band he talked about on monday.

yesterday, he added a few caveats to what he was talking about. -- never intended to apply to former -- wish to return to the united states said the billionaire businessman and reality tv star. he just wanted to stop a new wave of muslims from moving in, until i will countries representatives can figure what is going on with radical islamic terrorists. host: john is from ohio. we are just talking to republicans in the segment. -- they haverump not been wanting him since he announced he was running for office. they are afraid of him, they cannot control them, he does not

need their money. a lot of it is resonating with american folks because of his down to earth common sense. i believe that when the facts known, he will be exonerated from all of the publicity surrounding him. he should continue with what he is doing, yes thousands of -- he has thousands of people at his town hall meetings. the rest of them, except for mr. cruz and mr. rubio, they hardly have anybody at their outings. majority leader mitch mcconnell talked about this yesterday. he said a band stickley on muslims, banning people by a certain religion, is "completely

inconsistent with american values." what do you think about american values right now? caller: people that do not want to keep our country safe, or they want to have the politically correct answers to to questions and do not want have a forward outlook on the way the world is today. the main thing is, security for .he united states i have muslim friends that are because they do not and all ofgativity the focus being on the radical islamists.

be free of that so they can continue their lives and not have a stigma about them. host: that is john from ohio. also, talking about american values and his interview yesterday, he talked about trumps comments on monday. he said he disagrees with trump's proposal. it is the first time that the party chief is publicly criticized trump. he said we need to aggressively take on radical islamic terrorism, but not at the expense of our american values. we are just talking to republicans. katie, stephen from texas. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that donald trump said what he said.

hello? host: i am listening. caller: yes, donald trump said what he said. he is trying to keep the focus on terrorists. we need to do something. we need to keep focused attention on the terrorist attacks going on in oklahoma, boston, is not good right now. he wants to keep everything focused on that. everybody should be sticking with him. the reason why we are in this situation right now is because the american people voted president obama and he is doing nothing. he is ruining this country. andld trump has good ideas we need somebody with a backbone to do something and keep the american people working and safe and work together. i think donald trump is the man to bring everybody together in this country.

callswe are taking more from just republicans. you can keep calling. we want to turn to billy house, bloomberg news congressional correspondent who wrote a story yesterday about ryan's comments. good morning to you, things for joining us. thanks for having me. host: or speaker ryan's comments unexpected? >> perhaps not unexpected, maybe surprising. we are a long way from that, but most of those voices involved condemning his remarks. they were not flat-out saying they would not back him if he was the republican nominee. host: the house had a vote

yesterday on tightening restrictions when it comes to the visa waiver program. what that vote was about and what happened last night? >> that was a vote on a product of internal house republican committee and grouping of recommendations. requiring other countries to use biometrics, requiring other background checks. it passed overwhelmingly, both parties. 17 or 19 democrats voted against it. there's not much controversy in that particular piece of legislation. host: are there other pieces of legislation moving through right now to put more restrictions on travel? is so far on the

on therm $1.4 trillion spending bill. the measures that the house syrianlast month on the refugee screening. it has not gotten anywhere in the senate. republicans in the house are fighting to have that attached to the bill as a policy. the tickingntioned clock. we have until friday at midnight for either a deal or some search of short-term extension. >> we do have until friday officially. speaker paul ryan yesterday said that the house would pass another one of those short-term handful of days continuance of existing spending levels so that they can hiring out less the fee says, wrinkles in the larger bills. , negotiationsbill

that could drag out all weekend. kevin mccarthy announced were bey that there votes not just friday, but saturday, sunday, and monday. host: what are we hearing from the white house and what are they saying about the measure that is being moved through and the wrinkles that are being worked out. ? ball isg to carry the house democrats in california. what they have said, they are not going to do under the long-term continuance of existing funding. some house conservatives are asking for another six-week extender. that is not going to fly with democrats. , 167ionally, democrats house republicans voted for the

budget -- voted against the budget in october. therefore, you need our votes to pass the spending bill. with that background, they are making demands and have some leverage on everything from environmental riders -- writers, to blocking plant parented funders. they still have about 40 policy how spendingrect is allotted. bill tot pass spending keep government operating, you should not be pressing ideological partisan matters. host: billy house is with bloomberg news. if you want to check out his reporting, it is bloomberg.com also, if you want to follow him on twitter.

viewersalking with our for the next half hour of us because ryan's comments thatrday on the travel ban donald trump imposed is not what the party stands for. republicans of the intro in central time zones, call 202-748-8000. if you are in the mountain and pacific time zones, call 202-748-8001. caller: good morning. called paul ryan's actions is pretty much in line with what donald trump said. i think the republican party is petrified that donald trump has solidified the lead and are taking the opportunity to knock him down. 99% of those refugees are muslim. i think there is an inconsistency and a lot of hypocrisy.

i think republicans are just using this opportunity to knock him down. pat, good morning. outer: i just want to point that unfortunately, although donald trump has an inflammatory tone and the vast majority of things he has said. ultimately, we have to be aware as a nation, united states has 300 million people. the population of the world is 7 billion and with the natural resources doing doing, we have to be concerned about our regarding the current state of affairs in the mindset of these extremists muslims. there is no way of us to obtain their motives and then pushing through the united states. it is somewhat disturbing to me

-- individuals who feel this era of superiority and which they trying -- donald trump is a modern-day andrew jackson in that regard for this ability to reach the modern man. host: mitch mcconnell was talking about american values. are you saying it is not a time to be concerned about debating what american values are? it is a national security question? caller: i believe it is a national security question. the american values is a fine line. you have to realize that we are and wep a certain amount have to the past. war,g the second world

there was a lot of public outcry against german-americans. it is a fine line. i think the most important aspect of this, is not to create an inflammatory heir because it will create more ignorance in the world. ignorance is something we have to to combat as a whole. , i happen to respect the man, but he does walk a tightrope trying to inflame debate to keep himself in the limelight. that is a smart political move. down inof knocks him the respectability fashion with his own party. i do think that we have to be aware of the fact that we can enjoy the freedoms that we have in this country if we allow our way of life to be overrun. even europe, they were the most

tolerant of people in the western culture after the second world war. now, it is backfiring on them. you have countries in eastern europe that are closing of borders. poland, they are not allowing these muslims into their part of your. -- europe. it is scary that ignorance rules. everyone wants an iphone and a gucci bag. they do not care because we are tolerant and loving and peaceful. -- it is frightening that they will allow themselves --be swayed simply because you have to take a strong stance. it is fairly obvious.

it has been different after 9/11. host: speaker ryan is not the only one speaking out yesterday. other party leaders and members of the party speaking out against donald trump. -- he was on the house floor yesterday, this is congressman jolly. call on donald trump to withdraw his candidacy for the white house. test in thisurity nation. a national security test. it is a real and audible threat. i have been most critical of the president foreign policy. i have theea greatest this agreement administration. toave begged him to do more defeat the threat of terrorism. i believe his oval office address sunday night was

forgettable. minutes suggesting he was going to do nothing different to defeat isis. he spent five minutes lecturing congress. he spent five minutes lecturing the american people. test that a security i believe the president's policies have underestimated. a also test, we also face test of our commitment to religious freedom. one of the basic freedoms upon which our nation was founded. to defendher going that religious freedom, or we are not. runner in thet presidential race that suggests it will be a religious test for anybody who wishes to come to our shores. it is a front to the very principles of which are very nation was founded. host: here are other republican forces from 20 yesterday. , whatr lindsey graham

donald trump is doing -- undercutting everything we stand for and how you win the war. marco rubio of florida also running for president, i disagree with donald trump's latest proposal and his habit of making offensive and religious -- outlandish statements when i bring americans together. jeb bush said donald trump policies are not serious. a republican from new jersey, latest remarks insulting muslims are complete opposition to the very vision of our founding fathers who established this great nation. we are getting your thoughts, just republican viewers on this debate. john has been waiting from pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. bushis really funny, jeb who essentially represents the establishment party of

republicans think that donald trump's comments are unhinged. they are out of touch with their voters. this is not about religious freedom, this is about common sense and security concern. we have a state department and president bringing in thousands and plans to bring more than that in the future of undocumented, unknown individuals from islamic in muslim countries who are in terror zones. at the same time, none of the questions have been persecuted -- none of the christians have been persecuted. we are not bringing refugee christians, we are bringing in tens and thousands of muslims from islamic countries were we know terrorism is going on. ,hey are attacking trump whether you should take a step back and look at this it if it makes sense. it is an unhinged publican party and i am a republican voter. they are not going to talk for a

idate.e for a bleak cand if they vote for someone who's going to be democrat, hillary clinton will be the next president. completely out of touch with their voters. this has nothing to do with religious freedom, it is about security issues. host: billy is up next from idaho. i am on board with fromd trump and jolly florida and get our president obama, if they are not on board with donald trump and shutdown reporters -- borders. that, andthey live in

come back and see how they feel about it? it is a shame to know that our president is watching innocent people get slaughtered and killed and he does nothing about it. rights a real leader there. the american people need to wake up. next waitingis up from nebraska. we will try to get as many calls as we can in the 45 minutes. we are just talking to republicans in this debate in the republican party of what donald trump's comments over a muslim travel ban. caller: i believe completely with a couple of callers about the gop. -- gop is absolutely however, if you listen to uae, they are now putting women into

their politics. if you look at egypt, they do not want anything to do with muslim brotherhood. need all our ally, we of these muslim countries who are going to help us get rid of isis. they are going to be the ground troops. we want them as the ground troops. republicans are conservatives, i'm talking about conservatives. they need to understand that it was not that long ago that assaultrump was against weapons. he wanted a ban on them, he was all for abortion. -- you can'ttely change that quickly, this guy is -- we don't want donald trump.

we want a conservative, we don't want a gop, but we have to hang in there. your to the first part of comments, talking about the allies in this fight, is there a concern that comments like what donald trump said on monday alienated those allies and hurt our ability to work with them in syria and iraq? caller: absolutely. it hurts us overseas. thenot trying to say that muslims in america -- they also need to stand up against this, these people, because they know what is going on. those people out in california, there is no way they did all those things without other muslims knowing about it. somebody needs to come forward and start speaking up for the good muslims. if they are not going to do

that, then they are going to get repercussions from americans. that is just the way our country works. parker in today's column in the washington post also making the point about security and what donald trump's comments could mean for national security. she writes -- donald trump is the most dangerous person to emerge on the u.s. political scene in decades. consider we need to help the world take a 1.6 ilion and this nation's -- 1.6 -- we need to help the world's 1.6 billion and this nations 300 million muslims. he is marginalizing our own muslim communities and with rhetoric, we -- joshua is up next, good morning.

caller: how are you doing? host: good, go ahead. caller: donald trump, though his rhetoric can be a little harder sometimes, he is during this debate to what the american people want and that is security. we are concerned about where the nation is going in jobs. old, i haveyears been a republican all my life. i think he brings in some issues up that we have not seen in any other debate. aboutcern of what he said closing down the borders, i understand what he's doing. i work in the corporate world, i worked in an enterprise environment. when a businessman takes over, whether it's a new ceo or anything, he does a risk management and that is what donald trump is asking. or he says until we know what is going on, we need to shut down, we need to find out, because he

is looking at the american people as assets, as a company. any company looks at their employees as assets. what donald trump is trying to do is protect those assets. just like when a new business comes in and does a takeover, they do zero budgeting so they know where every dollar is going, where is being wasted, what is at risk. whether that the data or people in general. that is what the outcome is doing. i agree with the call from nebraska. it is important to have allies, but too long have our politicians worried about foreign affairs and let the mistake -- domestic issues run wild. host: that is joshua in north carolina. place.weets taking salt river rights if we could save just one life in america by

binding -- five banning potential jihadi from coming here, it is the right thing to do, no arguing it. sandy beach says watch the liberal media retreat once they realize ted cruz made rise to become the gop nominee. -- are going to do some trunk trashing this morning, the more you trash them, the higher the goes in the polls. writes they may be pushing back now, but media with its 20 47 -- created the silence -- created this monster, no going back. panwj.he conversation @cs someone just talked about ted cruz, there was a story in the washington times about his reaction to donald trump's comments. that ted cruzs

offered more muted criticism of donald trump yesterday and said in his comments -- i disagree with that specific proposal. in response to a question about that plan he said -- i like donald trump, a lot of our friends have encouraged me to criticize and attack them, i am not interested in doing that. rogers -- roger in kansas city. caller: i am commenting on mr. trump. he is nothing more than a businessman. a good businessman, as you know, and he says the system is broke. everybody seems to be caving in on him. if the system is broke, he says just stop and let's look at what is going on. to go very fare if you go across the pond and asked the people in europe. what have they done wrong? what they did wrong in belgium where the last terrorist came

from, about a two block area where the muslims moved in and ran off the police and said as for sharia law, they could govern themselves. they then locked up the guy that owned the building because he was -- he had a safe house. when you think of what's going on in europe and say, let's bring them here so they can go into new york and takeover does the city blocks and run up the police and say this is sharia law. thatyou have a religion happened about 700 years after christ. mohammed came about and he threed like to -- two or young ladies and stone one of them to death. host: let's focus on the debate that's happening right now as opposed to going room religion and how you see it. what about this debate over american values, what mitch mcconnell has brought up, what -- banning an entire group of people by religion from coming

here is an affront to american values -- american values. caller: you brought up a piece that was written by a lady that talked about radical islam. the middle east itself, they still teach it. there is nothing wrong with sharia law as you can tell, but i will go back to what mr. trump said. his -- he is only bringing up something that is broken and everybody else said it's broken, he just said let's stop doing the broken thing. thank you. a couple of editorial boards commenting about donald trump's statements. washington post, one of them, time for a clean break is the headline of their lead editorial. the board noted that it is not enough for a republican leader just condemned donald trump's comments, but that they should

also make it clear that they -- that is in the washington post. the wall street journal also takes on this topic. the editorial board noting that demagogues flourish in the absence of leadership, a corollary that we have priest -- press -- the failure to fight jihad abroad and to accept limited restraints on privacy at home with me to a far greater assault on liberty there are more mass casualty attacks. donald trump's muslim ban would not be the only proposal if there are more san bernardino's. the other candidates to not need to then -- to announce him as much as explain why he and the president are both wrong. a republican will not win the white house by being the antithesis of president obama. they can win wyatt -- by explaining president obama's failures while offering an antiterrorist reggie based on more than fear -- antiterrorist

strategy based on more than fear. robert, good morning. caller: good morning. some good comments by several people. let's start with ryan. he sounded like he was obama's shill there and he sounded quite hypocritical. with in the last 24 hours, i believe the house just passed a ban of travel to the u.s. from syria, iran, libya and the sudan. that is basically what trump is saying. he does not want travel from these nations. i do not believe, as one gentleman said, some of these

, saudies like jordan arabia, we need them as allies. they should be doing something right now, they tolerate these radical factions. i believe donald trump is right, there is no system that is valuable in any sense of vetting these people and san bernardino is an example of that. something has to be done. heon't believe he said that would stop muslim immigration. we have to have a system by establish who is a good muslim -- i mean that

sounds terrible, and who is a jihadist. we need that way of getting people and we do not have that way of letting people. -- that thing people -- in,e president obama came 8.5 million muslims have come into this country, and we allow 38 countries travel into the united states -- host: the population of american muslims in the u.s. is about 3 million. >> i stand corrected. the other thing i see as a problem, which i just heard about several weeks ago and read this morning. theirntries we allow citizenship to come into this country with no the says at all. free travel for 90 days.

that ludicrous, -- tracking down foreign students, you don't know if they leave in 90 days. host: you are talking about the visa waiver program which the house voted on last night to tighten some of the restrictions on the visa waiver program. we are talking with a republican congressman, from virginia, we can talk about that with him if you want, but i want to get a few more calls and with folks wanting to talk about donald trump's comments and speaker ryan saying that this is not that what -- this is not what the republican party is to -- stands for. go ahead. caller: thank you for having me. i agree with donald trump's decision and we need someone as bold as him, although he lacks control. like flippant and i feel he is going off on a tangent and uneducated about what's going

on. we are in a war, there is nothing fair about war. it is not about religious freedom. we need to shut down our borders to the muslim groups or any that group that is related -- that the terrorists are using to come across the borders and commit these acts. the terrorists are using our own values to distract us. they're using our money in their war while here at home, they are shutting done government. we are in fear of shutting down our own government. i think that it is important --t we not get distracted by people need to not be so insulted by these decisions when there are people dying. there is a greater loss to be had than religious freedom.

tweets fromg a few republicans and democrats talking about this yesterday. senate majority leader rights -- racism has long been prevalent in the look and politics, the only difference now is that donald trump is saying out loud what other republicans milley suggest. -- merely suggest. donald trump's a proposal to ban muslims betrays our constitution and validity that little our public debate -- and belittles our public debate. hillary clinton road -- muslim americans, too. many americans feel the same way. speaking of hillary clinton, the democrat running for president, a story from the ap yesterday, more news coming from another that of e-mails released from

the time that she was secretary of state. the associated press noted that as secretary of state, she intervened in a request awarded by her son-in-law on behalf of a deep-sea mining firm to meet with her or other state department officials after one of the firms investors asked sophie clinton's husband for help setting up such contacts according to those most of that most recently released e-mails. the lobby effort on behalf of --tune that it -- minerals with advocating for an obama administration push to win the senate approval for a sweeping law of the sea treaty that would have aided u.s. mining countries . the republican dominated senate had blocked it. that report coming from the associated press. time for one or two more calls. paul from fort lauderdale, you are up next. caller: i think it is unfortunate, the wording that

donald trump used in his statement, but it is not that different from what paul ryan said about the says for syrian refugees. guess what, syrians are muslims. on the other hand, i think the democratic party needs to change its name to the demagogic party. when are americans going to stop letting the democratic party demagogue everything about what republicans are trying to accomplish without addressing the true facts of what is being discussed? this talk about what donald trump says we need to figure out. why isiso figure out and other groups are able to radicalize americans in the u.s. what is it about what they are doing that allows this to happen?

the other thing that we need to is why a poll that was taking -- taken of 600 muslims in the u.s. found that the 9/11 attacks were justified. host: would pull are you referring to? it was done among muslim americans that stated that 25% of them said that the 9/11 events were justified. here is something that sends chills down my back. on aerate muslim nationally televised show, i cannot river what it was, she -- theyt they went to made a list of demands of what

moderate muslims demand from the muslim religion and went to post it on the door of a mosque in washington, d.c. which was supported by saudi arabia and her comment was that they fear for their lives when they did this. we need to figure out why a moderate muslim in the u.s. fears for her life, when all she is doing is asking for moderation in the muslim religion. this. is a problem, it really is. we need to figure this out and the demagogy people who bring these things up, my we just address them? host: our last caller in this next wegment, but up are joined by house armed services committee member rob wittman, republican from virginia. he will be here to talk about the military campaign against isis and the future of those efforts and later, house democratic caucus vice chair joe crowley will be here to talk gun

control, homeland security and the 9/11 first responders health care bill. especially personal to him as a new york congressman. we will be right back. >> abigail thoma was the first first lady to work outside the home, teaching at a private school. she successfully lobbied congress for funds to create the first white house library. pinke eisenhower's love of and fashion -- stores assault upon banks to women eager to replicate her style. jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the creation of the white house historical association. nancy reagan as a young actress

saw her name mistakenly on the black list suspected communist sympathizers in the late 1940's. she appealed to screen for guilt -- for spring -- to screen actors guild had ronald reagan and later became his wife. stories from the lives of great american women. giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first lady in american history, stories of fascinating women and how to legacies resonate today. the book is based on original interviews on c-span's first lady's series and has received numerous reviews including this , a potentialael historian and author -- a presidential historian and author. judy woodruff, co-anchor and managing editor of the pbs news hour says --

jane hampton cook, first lady's historian and biographer noted --t c-span's first lady's he's and book first lady ladies is available in hardcover or e-book from your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. washington journal continues. host: congressman rob wittman joins us now from the house armed services committee, chairman of the subcommittee on readiness. we are talking about military readiness in this segment of the washington journal. let's go back to that first question that we were having

with our viewers, a discussion about donald trump's comment and speaker ryan's comments yesterday that this is not what the republican party represents. what is your take? agreementm in full with speaker ryan, those enough the comments we need to associate with addressing the issue of american security as it relates to terrorism. we are a nation founded upon religious freedoms and liberties so we do not want to single out a group of religious ideology and say we are going to address the issue through that. we need to be talking about individual actions and what we can do to make sure that we are addressing that, not people's religious believes. we can do many things to effectively address individuals coming to the u.s. for those already here who want to perpetrate acts of terrorism. i don't think creating a religious litmus test will get us where we need to be. it is also a counter to who we are as a nation.

there is a question about the constitutionality of that. i think that every level, it is wrong. the editorial board of the washington post wrote this morning that is not enough for republican leaders to condemn down from's comments, but to make clear that they would oppose him if he were the party's nominee. would you oppose him? guest: i'm not determining who the party nominee is going to be, that will be part of the public debate and part of what republicans in general do in selecting the candidate. i do think it will be part of the debate and i think it will be to -- a decision based on that. as part of that decision making, the debate needs to go back and forth about what candidate trump stands for and the things that he proposes to do and whether believable -- whether people believe that is right or wrong, that it's up to republicans in mass as they make decisions in each state, not the party itself or any one individual. host: military issues and armed

services are your expertise. do you think donald trump's doing isis a favor, doing isis recruiters a favor as thomas friedman right -- wrote in his piece in the new york times, that he is playing into our enemy's hand by adding to this narrative of islamophobia? guest: it will certainly be used that way. how effectively it is at how effective it is, we won't know, but it will certainly be used by extremists to try to recruit and say that infidels are using this to divide muslims from others and that those folks who don't believe in the fundamentalist aspects of islam are there for people that we should go after. this helps them in that narrative. i think it will be used that way. as to how effective it will be, there are other things they used to recruit isis fighters. as we've seen, the recruitment

has more than doubled in recent months. we need to understand that they will use a whole toolbox of things. this will not be the only thing, but it will be used to recruit. host: are you talking about in the u.s. or in general? guest: in general, the number of recruits they have brought to the fight in syria and iraq and the numbers recently here, about 27,000, over double what it was about six months ago. successfuleen very in recruiting, based on a variety of opportunities. they are very effective in social media and getting people take the attention -- peoples attention. how they protect their message, we have to look strategically and say what can we do to counter that and again, they used social media and other ways to motivate people very effectively. we don't want to add to what they are using as recruitment tools. host: let's go back to before when donald trump's comments 30

picking up all the headlines. president obama made a oval office speech on sunday where he laid out a strategy for fighting isis, what the remake of that? guest: the strategies pretty much the same, and we had secretary carter and general dunford and the joints -- joint chiefs of staff and we asked them are we at a nation at war because secretary carter said we were in general comfort said we are not. asked general dunford isis was contained and he said they are not, they continue to spread inouye have a new do is look at the maps -- and all you have to do is look at the maps. if you look at the strategy of isis expanding their scope and the area they hold, that it's obviously not working, you would question why would we continue down the same road? i think we need to use saying -- do things in addition. we asked dunford and the joint chiefs about the current strategy and whether or not we have one that is comprehensive and effective.

his response was that it was not properly resourced. you can read that a number of different ways, i think it says it is on the applicants acted, that it is lacking in some areas. i think there needs to be an overhaul of the current strategy to look at what's happening with the air campaign. there are special operators on the ground, i think that can be very effective, but the u.s. has to leave, especially with coalition partners. only nine partners are actively involved in these efforts. they will not be successful if we don't have the partners involved. most of the arab nations have to get involved as well. host: if this administration were to reverse course for a future administration were to reverse course and put large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground over there, there was a rose up from john mccain this week for upwards of 10,000 u.s. , isps to help take and hold

the u.s. military ready for that? is it ready to move those troops , the logistics and the resources? guest: i don't think they are. we look at writing this all the time and it's making sure the troops are properly trained and whipped. i don't believe at this point that they would have the wherewithal to immediately mobilize and send troops there and effectively pursue the fight. it would take some time to get there, that is why i think that going out and saying we will be putting massive numbers of troops on the ground is not part of an effective strategy. using special operators that are currently trained and resource that can get in there and do the leading andtion to bringing with us other nations to say these are the things that you need to do under a comprehensive strategy. the strategy has to be, not just what the u.s. will do, but what will we do to lead other coalition partners to

effectively take territory and hold it? this is a conventional effort, this is not a insurgency. this is a conventional effort by isis to gain and hold territory, it is much more like a conventional conflict where we are going to take that territory back and hold it, you have to have some presence on the ground and you have to have indigenous forces, that is, the iraqi army, syrian forces, somebody from within the region to hold that territory want to take it back. you don't, you can continue to do airstrikes and not them out, but they move back in and with them successfully recruiting, they are bringing fighters right back into those areas. if you want success in the long-term, there has to be a 6 -- a presence on the ground. guest: republicans, if you want to join in, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we start with independent, tom,

good morning. caller: i think it is wonderful that we are addressing this. ist baffles me tremendously why the leaders of both parties, the media, the pundits -- everybody seems to have forgotten why osama bin laden attacked us in the first place. they do not want american crusader soldiers on muslim land. military having basis in 70 nations around the planet, some people feel that we are an empire. sooner or later, people are not going to like us. in vietnam, they didn't like it. in korea, they didn't like it. they have had enough. theink we keep missing source of all this friction. they don't want christian soldiers come into the nation. i think they have had enough.

any military support we give only fuels the fire. guest: there are moderate islamic nations that do have great relationships with the united states that want our presence there. they want help in creating stability. i think the key is making sure those partners with nations. having an imperialistic viewpoint is not an effective way to work with a muslim nation. but making sure we have partnerships there -- and we have some good ones. the king of jordan, saudi arabia -- i was just there visiting with the crown prince. egypt, i was there visiting with the president. understanding that they value the relationship and they want us to have the right presence there. not an overbearing presence or one that displaces what they do that to be in partnership with them. i think that is the key. not coming in with the idea that we are going to occupy or take over government.

or have an unbalanced influence doh governments because they see the benefit the united states can provide to them. it is about main sure we have the right balance in relationships with arab nations in that area. host: vanessa is waiting on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i am disgusted. the president spoke when he addressed the nation on sunday and he said the same thing. where were the republicans? him, thet stand behind president is correct that we -- for religious freedom. up as soon as that trump got , all of the republicans want to come out and jump on the bandwagon.

just like a bandwagon with the president of the united states -- they do not stand with our president. something is wrong with the republican party. they need to go down, god bless you all. goodbye. guest: vanessa, we do stand with where this nation needs to be and that is not to have religious litmus tests. ashink we can give partisan to who said what. i think the important issue is where do we all stand as a nation. we do not require a religious litmus tests for folks moving to and from the united states. i want to make sure it is based on their actions. i want to make sure that we analyze those people who see karma gets united states. that is the important thing. who said what and when and where gets into a love of the details and you can make arguments on .oth sides about that

but the important thing is that we are addressing the issue. congress had significant debates yesterday in the visa waiver program. we are making efforts with homeland security and understanding the balance we have to strike. making sure we aren't using religious litmus tests. host: -- what happens with the visa waiver program restrictions from here? guest: i think it will go to the senate. i think it should go to -- i think it should pass in the senate. the visa waiver program essentially says that we don't go through the same level of attention to people's background in providing them visas to travel to the united states. there are countries to have aree visa waiver programs people who we understand don't have a threat to terrorism. but now people from other countries are going to those

countries and getting a visa to come in and then traveling from those countries. so closing that loophole is a great way to address that. i do believe it is the right way to go about it and i do believe it will have the necessary some worked in the senate. rose is waiting on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i would like to ask the congressman what the people think about -- i can't even think, i've been on the phone so long -- the emphasis should not be on donald trump. it should be on our president. -- he has done nothing to protect us. the democrats are going to follow the same path that president obama is. addressing the fact that there could be terrorists and they are letting people in.

we cannot do that and we must let them and invest them properly. you.you. -- think -- thank you. is a bill before the congress that is called the american safe act. that would require to confirm those individuals coming from the areas of conflict where we know terrorist extremism is being perpetrated, to ensure that they are not part of that effort. i also have a built in called the international countries of conflict that specifically says we will restrict travel to those areas except for those people on official u.s. business or humanitarian efforts to make sure we don't place undue stress asthe intelligence agencies, they have to track people coming back and forth. we know many of the people

leaving the united states and going to those regions are going there to train to become individuals to perpetrate terrorism. the way we need to address that is to stop that particular type of travel. not based on a litmus test, but talking about the folks who are coming and going and making sure we regulate that through the passports and visas. both of those bills will address those things. it is congress's obligation to pass laws. and provide for the national security. and you are right, that should be at the top of the list of priorities. host: in new orleans, joe is waiting on the line. caller: good morning. this is my opinion. i really believe that the has broughtarty some of this on to our nation. party,ve allowed the tea

which has brought on donald trump. isis to get awed foothold in recruiting individuals in the united states. all because they have not cooperated with our president on anything. the president has gotten more cooperation from some of our allies that he has gotten from his congress. isis sees that the united states is not together, they are not behind our then of course, they can come in and recruit people. of course they can come in and try to plot against the united states. because they see we are not a country who is together.

we are a divided country. and all of a sudden, you are saying congress needs to do this -- do this, congress needs to do that. you all have allowed this. guest: i look at it this way. i think the motivating factors behind isis are separate from the things going on in the united states. we have worked hard to address these issues. i don't think that the tea party's efforts have done anything other than raise the awareness to these folks. i don't think that has anything to do with what isis is doing. there areve that elements of the ideology of radical islam that motivates folks to become members of isis. and they think they have to

perpetrate these acts of terror and barbarian actions. that goesink anything on internal he here in the united states, no matter how you look at the relationship tween the legislative branch and the executive branch -- i don't believe that has a motivating fact. some people can say, we are perpetrating these acts of treachery and barbarism, based on what we are seeing happened between the executive branch and the legislative ranch. in the united states. healthys always been a disagreement between those branches. think that it has a broad international implication? i don't think that is what is behind isis. -- a war vote when it comes to fighting isis, do you agree? guest: i do. i believe we need to have a debate for two purposes. we need to understand the clear

and conference of strategy and force necessary to defeat isis. and it is not to contain isis, it should be to defeat isis. what will it take and how long will it last? we i want to make sure that have a debate so the american people can understand what the obligations this country needs to make. we did have a debate about the iraqi conflict and we need to make sure we understand the resources, not just from a monetary standpoint, but also the human resources. host: is that not explained in what the president said in february? -- it included this, the authority for congress cannot authorize the use of the united date armed force in the ground forces -- it shall terminate three years after the debate -- after the date. that does provide some of

it. but you have to understand, what is the strategy? if you are not putting forces on the ground, what is the strategy to defeat isis? some of the concerns i had about , and itommended a umf lacks detail. a was great that it provided finiteness in a length of time of three years, but in saying that you aren't going to use ground forces, it doesn't address the issue. and i don't think that just saying that provides a proper strategy. as we see now, there are special operators on the ground. is no longerat umf part of what they are pursuing as a strategy. so we need to have a debate about what -- a number of deals have been put in by members of the house and the senate for use of military force. york where go to new

daniel is waiting. go ahead. caller: yes, i have a two-part question. the first one is, during the speech that on trump gave, he mentioned that there needed to be some way to monitor social media and the internet. is anyone worried about the backlash that could have as far as groups like anonymous who are out there, who want to keep those lines of communication open to the world and don't want to see that closed off? that was the first question. guest: i do believe we need to look at the social media avenues that isis is using. i have a strong believer in individual liberties and freedoms so i don't believe you need to cut off that communication. important most aspects of what we are seeing today is that many of these avenues of communication through social media is the higher level

of encryption. you can now have an app that is encrypted. that does make it difficult. it makes it difficult for us to get in and understand those communications. so that is the bigger issue we have to deal with. how do we deal with an ever-growing file of encrypted information. there need to be checks and balances to make sure that intelligence agencies aren't necessarily going after nndividuals but they do have a obligation to go after individuals. and making sure that we are protecting american citizens. back to whatoes intelligence agencies should do. but the big issue is the encrypted messaging. host: we are talking to the representative rob wittman. chair of readiness.

barry called in on the line for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. called, i wanti to say representative rob wittman, you sound so sensible and being an independent seeing nothing but wimps on the left and crazies on the right. but i say that to preface what i am about to say. there are 70 people in the gop that did allower this problem to fester. and now that we have the responsibility of legislating, a lot of them are feeling their way through the dark. used for iraqlogy

was either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. so now we find ourselves divided. i think the lady from louisiana is exactly right. but commonsense security concerns is nothing more than a euphemism for scared out of their minds. when you think about the mass shooting since 9/11 and it took just one mass shooting for americans attitudes to change? that makes me wonder. first of all, as a black person, i live in fear every day of not being just shot by a cop but also by a white guy. they have shot up black schools and churches. and i don't want to denigrate a race of people just like you don't want to denigrate a religion of people. but the reason i mention that is because a lot of the fears that white people have about muslims, us people of color have about cops or a deranged person with a

gun. i don't want to play the race card that it is a conversation that needs to be had. i do believe, looking at what our police forces do -- and i want to be clear, we have many extraordinary law enforcement officers. there are a few who have not acted properly and we need to address that. and the police force members that i have talked to want in the strongest way to address those issues. they want to make sure that all of our population is confident in the application of the laws by our police officers. they don't want the society to feel in danger by the police force. we have an obligation to make sure that our local governments and state governments and to some extent the federal government -- although remember, most of these are local police forces, they need to make sure these issues are addressed.

they need to make sure that they have conversations with communities to understand where the issues are to engage communities to make sure that people do have faith in their police force, fairly and justly in applying the law. there but issue don't want to cast aspersions across the vast majority of our law enforcement who do an extraordinary job. we do need to address the issue where there are communities to have a lack of faith in their police forces or sheriffs departments. that is a real issue. our members in the law enforcement community want in the strongest way to address that. on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing? presidently like the

have i make no mistake, we 23,000 or 32,000 -- have been killed? we have lost a few soldiers. but those are pretty good odds. --ould rather have his plan instead of putting american soldiers on the ground. i would like you to slay to me what the difference is between what this guy did the other day, what them guy, then guy did to planned parenthood or what dylan roofed it? what is the difference to me when it comes to terrorizing somebody? that we have to change the whole constitution? to stipulate muslims? why can't we deal with the problem at hand and get past the muslim and fear mongering?

thank you. have a good morning. i agree, we shouldn't categorize this issue specifically to religion. remember, it is the radical application of religion. it is radical islam that is at issue. we need to address these issues behind the factors. whether it is the individual who decides to go after an organization or whether it is isis orwho is under radical islam or terrorism -- doing those things, they are all important for us to address. there is a given perspective with how we address terrorism, but it should be categorized based on someone's religion. it ought to be based on the ideology and what they are professing that we will do as part of the ideology which ultimately is their actions. it should be all those actions. they are reprehensible and they

are things we have to address. both the congress and the local and state government and every level of homeland security as well as national security -- -- weare issues we most must address. if not, i see them growing larger. we see isis growing in the middle east and i think those efforts will continue towards our shores if we don't address it there. host: let's head out to idaho where dan is waiting on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: can you hear me? from you and getting your commentary. i have a couple of questions regarding, i guess, the government's knowledge of how they use this vetting process. from what i understand, the multiple securities screenings that they do are using biometric and biographic data, including

photos and background information over at-24 months time. thingswo specific referred to basically face , irisition and dna --ognition and retina and that they gather. for the life of me, i can't figure out how this prevents anybody? coming into this country and using these kinds of things when obviously these people have no id,ory, no work history, no nothing. and we are just letting them willy-nilly into our country like this? using this kind of testing or vetting process? there has to be a better way.

of i am a checks and biographical information is limited and it works for those individuals where we have information and countries have databases that provide that background information. providing information about whether they have suspicions about these folks or if they have been identified as part of these efforts. but for those individuals where , likeve no information syria where there is no by -- no background information -- if you don't have background or identifier then you are right. you have no background to be able to understand what will these people do come into the united states. i would argue that if we are not sure about your background or what's been happening with you in your homeland, as you come here to the united states, especially coming from these

countries where we know the complex are going on, where people are being radicalized and they are prosecuting the fight in those areas with these is extremist groups, i think we had to say that if we don't know about you, we are not going to let you come in. that is what my international countries of conflict bill would do. you're not going to come in at this particular point until we can be sure. host: what happens to those people now during the current process? guest: it is an elongated process but they can still come into the country. so if the information is lacking, there is not a hard and fast to say no, you will not come in. they will continue to look at the individual. but what we're saying, is if we don't have the information, we ought to say no until we can gather the information. or demonstrate that they are clearly not part of that.

i think you have to go to that level right now. as you know, the american safe act says that you have to certify that these individuals are not involved. that is a high standard but it is a standard we have to put in place. host: just a few minutes left with representative rob wittman. bloomfield hills, good morning william. caller: good morning c-span and representative. i want to comment on your suggestion that i agree with. preparedness for the united states in terms of other .ountries and the middle east i think they should be vetted. but my concern is, donald trump. trump, to me, for my knowledge of history, is operating on the same method --

except that he is super rich -- that he can say and do anything he wants and he has a certain following. operatingthat he is using the same principles that adolf hitler accused to provoke thateople into believing people who were different, such as the jewish people, would destroy the country. that he is strongly doing more harm to this country, and no matter what the military does, there is a segment of this country that has existed. in terms of religion, the ku klux klan use religion to get its way and it has been used for , including the salem witch

trials and others. thank you for your time. guest: thank you, william. donald and his words will have to be held accountable i those folks making the decision as to who the next republican nominee for president would be. i don't agree with how donald trump tries to put the focus on muslims as the issue here, in creating religious litmus test, i don't think that is who we are as a country. ultimately, he will have to be responsible for what he says and does. that folks will make their decisions likewise. at that my faith in the american people. whileill understand that everybody is frustrated and concerned, they want to make sure that we have individuals who are thoughtful and reasonable and who look at putting forth the right policies, based on who we are as a nation. host: you heard the comparison

that the caller made. in a column in the washington post, donald trump is called the modern mussolini. he writes that he uses many of and --cist tools -- fear assigning blame to alien actors and suggesting that only his powerful personality can transcend the crisis. that is the column in the washington post. host: ben has been waiting in north carolina. go ahead. caller: hello. how are you? guest: i'm doing well, thank you for asking. caller: i would like to say that this last guy was out of his mind. cooperation is a two-way street. president obama has not cooperated one iota to work with the republicans while he has

been there. and there have against have put a lot of stupid hills up about security and you name it. and they know they aren't going anywhere because president obama will veto. so we have a stalemate and when it comes to security, you better look at the mexican border because that is just as bad as allowing refugees in, so-called refugees. because they basically slide through the mexican border and they have the money to pay off certain criminal elements in mexico and they make their way into the united dates. nobody seems to think about that. one other thing i would like to say about donald trump is that he has got his opinion. in the republican party has their opinions. they are doing their best to stop him.

from saying what he believes and it is dead wrong. ronald reagan said it best, you don't eat your own. when i hear republicans badmouthing donald trump, it is because they are afraid of him. they are afraid of policies that would change to make this country better and they like the way it is right now with their lobbies. democrats are the same way. sure, the issue of border security is important. we must do more to severe our borders. is ais key, we know it place that isis and other folks are targeting to come into the country. it is not just those folks coming in through the visa program, but also the people coming across the border. trump, i don'td think anyone is trying to

throttle donald trump. he says what is on his mind. i think everybody needs to understand that where we agree, we talk about that. but where we disagree, we haven't -- we have an obligation to go after that. we know that donald trump is going to say what donald trump is going to say. there is nothing that any of us can do to control that. an obligation to have a public discourse about where we believe things need to be and where we stand. host: i want to thank rob wittman from virginia. thank you. up next we will be joined by the house democratic caucus vice chair, joseph crowley. we will be talking about 9/11 and the first responders health care bill working its way through congress. later, in our weekly spotlight on magazine segments, we will

talk about the science behind regulations and -- chemicals affect on humans. coming up in a little bit in the washington journal. ♪ >> booktv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on c-span two. saturday night at 10:00 eastern, nurse and new york times columnist teresa brown discusses her book, the shift. nurse, 12 hours, for patients lives. it gives readers an experience in patient safety. -- is inspired by --

>> health care is only going to get more and more complex. and we're going to need better nurses to meet all of the complex needs. usthinking about how to keep strong and healthy and encouraging that is huge. really emphasize it. afternoon, -- i havetics, for which been associated with all my life, was not so different from petty criminals and racketeers but it was disguised and therefore less obvious to see. for 25 years, i have looked at america as an idea. i've defended the american principles and dream. and i have looked at american

politics as a debate. the republicans believe in liberty. the democrats believe in equality. publicans want equality of rights, democrats want equality of outcome. it is the point of view of the criminal underclass that this way of looking at american is complete and total nonsense. >> -- examines america and extravagant politics -- and american politics. in his new book. stealing america. at 7:30,y night lawrence lessig talks about his experience running and campaign finance. book, republic lost. >> we have a system where members of congress spend 30%-70% spending money for the

tiniest fraction of the 1%, they can't help but be more focused and concerned with the concerns of the 1%. where this basic equality is basically denied. >> watch booktv all weekend, every weekend on c-span2. announcer: washington journal continues. congressman joe crowley is on the democratic caucus. against the backdrop of donald trump's comments, i want to talk about your recent visit to a mosque in your district and what you're hearing from those individuals about american attitudes towards muslims. guest: it is important as a representative -- we all have an obligation, regardless as to what political persuasion we are or what religion we may be or what our ethnic background is --

to make every effort to reach out to our constituency. there has been a disconnect between elected officials and leaders within the islamic community in the united states. so i felt it was important to go talk with them and to meet with them as well as listen to students in my district who are at the school in woodside, queens. it is the same school that i visited two weeks after 9/11 to hear the concerns of the community. and attempt to get a sense of what they are feeling right now. it was remarkable. to hear how people are feeling, to listen to the children. host: have you been back in touch with some of those folks since donald trump's comments and since we started seeing headlines like this on the front page of usa today -- new attack on a u.s. muslims.

the story quotes the spokesperson for the islamic -- saying, we don't have time to issue a statement on every incident right now because they're coming in so fast and furious. when the leading republican presidential candidate can say, but all muslims coming to america and get support, it is frightening. guest: it is an issue. listening to young children say how they're being teased going to school. how they are being treated rudely. lasten't been back since friday. i came down to washington on monday. i know from this week, one of the questions that was asked to , i was askedeaving why the government hates their religion. i said that our government doesn't hate the religion. it is difficult sometimes to speak to children about what is

happening. during the conversation, a lot of the demagoguery that is coming from the republican party , and the presidential nominees, they were yelling out trump, trump, trump. it is not lost upon them what is being said. and there will be consequences. we are seeing some of the fallout from that now. there is concern for the world safety. host: did you speak to the moms muslimhe role that americans have to stand up and say, this is our religion that's the out against isis and others who try to use as long? -- use islam? guest: yes i did. i think we're missing a chief rabbi like figure or the bishop of canterbury for the community to identify what they're going through.

but i did talk about the need for them to continue to speak up. and they have spoken out. there are folks who have been outspoken but it is a question of who is listening to them. so what i felt was really strong was their desire to cooperate. one of the questions given to me was, will they be monitoring the mosques? during this time, it is important to establish munication and cooperation. there isn't a need to monitor mosques but there is a need for american citizens, if they see something or hear something that they think is wrong that could an act ofy turn into terror, you need to report that. you need to communicate. and that is something we will do by building the trust back and by building the communication connections that aren't as strong as they ought to be. host: joseph crowley is our

guest. if you have questions or isments, (202) 748-8001 republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .nd independent, (202) 748-8002 sadi want to bring up a anniversary. three years since the new town shooting. what do you think is coming in the three years? has there been -- guest: it is remarkable. we have had moments of silence. i made, yesterday at a press conference that our flag has been at half staff more recently than it has been at full staff. and every week there is a new tragedy that occurs. and i think the issue of, what is terrorism -- it is in the eye of the beholder.

if there is a gun in your face, it is terrorism. no matter what the motivation may be. but especially given what happened in san bernardino, there are steps we can take right now. it doesn't have to be everything all inclusive that certainly and 80% of nra members plus of gun owners believe that we need to and access to people who are on the terror watch list, that is a place to start. it is unfortunate that my republican colleagues -- and quite frankly, because of the nra and outside interests -- refused to have a hearing on this. they refused to have a committee to deal with this health issue that is in crisis in the united states. host: let's bring in the callers. frank is in tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing?

what i was trying to find out about the gun control thing is, i have always said, how can a person [indiscernible] only good for killing? is outspokenress and they let republicans be so outspoken about it. how come you guys aren't as outspoken? stand up for him when he says things about gun control? --on't see you putting up like the republicans do? the republicans are really loud. you guys sit back and are so nonchalant. it is really irritating. i was amazed at how you guys don't stick up. frank, i do stick up for

the president when i think he is right. and i think in this issue he is right. we do need to pass legislation the issue in the united states. democrats have been very outspoken. if you patriots -- if you paid houseion yesterday to the floor, there were a series of procedural votes that were taken to bring focus and attention to our attempts to bring up rational gun legislation. with the issue of preventing weapons getting into the hands of people on the no-fly list or on the terrorism watchlist. republican colleagues continue to refuse to even bring that small aspect to the floor. and that is unfortunate. that youthis something could procedurally pushed into the debate over the omnibus spending bill? to hold up that bill?

where a government shutdown would happen if it is not passed? to force those measures in to that legislation? is a motionwe have to discharge. that is to move the king bill, a movement sponsored by peter king from long island, sponsored by , wecrats and republicans begin with the motion to discharge that. we are calling on people of goodwill to sign that to get it off the floor. we don't control the process when it comes to riders and what is included on the omnibus, that is one thing that needs to be done before we break for the end of the year. we are quite frankly fighting against many of the riders that the republicans are putting in. a myriad of issues that they're trying to do to legislate

through the appropriations process. the government doesn't shut down, it will shut down because they are going to shut it down because of their own political reasons. host: lloyd is waiting, good morning. caller: good morning. that it iserstand congress's job to pass laws. i would like to ask the gentleman went good does it do to congress to pass laws? we are a country of laws. immigration laws and everything. and head oft a whole security -- bunch, all they want to do is just pick and choose which laws they want to enforce. and i don't understand that. -- it is not a gun that kills a person.

it is the man holding it. i am a veteran and i have owned a gun since i was eight years old and i have never killed anyone. here in the united states or cause any violence. i don't understand why you folks think we need more gun laws. we have more gun laws then we can deal with. all we have to do is in force them. guest: i appreciate the call. i think there is a way we can instruct commonsense gun control without violating the second amendment. i haven't said that i want to violate or overturn the second amendment. when i want to do is find a rational way to deal with the issues we are facing today. thousands of people are dying each year because of gun violence. and access to guns. you are right, it is not the gun itself that does it. it is the people who have begun. severee people with mental illness or criminal

records or who are on a terrorism watchlist or on a no-fly list -- that is common sense. to deny those individuals legally obtainto weapons and use them to kill people. terms ofnk in listening to your frustration, we are all frustrated. the president is frustrated to that he has a congress and a house and a senate that refuses to address the issue. as you mentioned, immigration reform. the senate, controlled by the democratic party has common comprehensive immigration reform. the house promise to address it but never once brought up any immigration reform at all. so i think the president is recognizing the need to address -- take some action legally

within the confines of the executive orders issued to address the issues that the american people are facing because the american congress continues to not face those issues. host: massachusetts is next, jerry is waiting. yes, hi, thank you for c-span. i want to ask about the vetting process. if you have an individual who has no terrorist ties but claims , whicheve in sharia law i think most people would agree is not compatible to democratic values, would be considered to let that person in if they believe in sharia law? and i guess my second question regarding the vetting process is, is the burden of proof on the government to prove that or is it a terrorist on the individual to prove they

are not a terrorist? it is unclear. when you're republican friend was on, who has the burden? of, who iserms allowed to come into the country or not, there was a vetting process that does exist today to obtain a visa, but i think you may be speaking more directly to refugee status. there is an 18-24 month. in which if there is any question of their loyalty or what their reason is for seeking the asylum or refugee status, they are denied entry. in terms of the burden of proof, we have today the no-fly list. individuals who are placed on that list, when they go to the , our society has

determined that some people may have to be somewhat inconvenienced in order to protect the general flying public and the public at large. and in much the same way, a sustained type of criteria that we use to determine who is on the terrorism watchlist. , an individual may find their name on the no-fly list. in fact, i believe ted kennedy was on the no-fly list. he had to go through a procedure to remove his name and it was removed. host: it was a mistake in the first place? guest: it was. his name was the same as a person who had his name put on. but there is a process by which a person can extract their name from the process and i suggest individuals who are placed on the terrorism watchlist you don't belong on that, they could have their named extracted if they confront

the issues. new bedford,o to massachusetts. good morning, crystal. caller: good morning. i agree with this guide 100%. gun control is needed desperately. around the world. considering all that has gone on, all of the traffic things. gun control is exactly what we need. but the republicans refuse to do because ofout this this thing with president obama and it is not fair to the rest of the country. i want to say that i agree with everything this guy is saying. this guy appreciates your call. [laughter] host: -- said he would speak out against every mass shooting. has that moves the conversation at all? or has that made it more politicized? i think, at some point,

you have to call it what it is. simply ignoring it or not recognizing what i believe is that the root of this, there are a lot of politics at the root of this. up,as these events pile literally, the body's title up. i think more and more americans, including gun owners are looking at this and saying, enough. what happened in oregon, california , myrado -- every week colleagues stand in the building behind you for a moment of silence. -- there is too much silence and inaction on this issue that is killing americans. we need to find our way forward in --ipartisan way. not

way, but anyway we can find a solution to this. doing nothing is not a solution. we have to do something to prevent terrorists from getting weapons. they will try to get them anyway. we should try to cut off as many avenues as possible. we are not doing that. host: texas is next. john is waiting on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. all of this gun legislation is trying to be passed, and the gang bangers and all of the people who use firearms on a daily basis to commit one homicide here or one shooting their. they bring up all of these huge numbers. they don't go through standard channels to get a gun. and by banning an assault weapon, all you will do is used the cartel and their endeavors into this situation. across ourust get

border and get what they can get. that will just make them richer. it is an inconvenience that honest americans want to their arms. there is no question that the issue of gun violence goes beyond terrorism or international terms. terrorism is the -- is in the eye of the beholder. if you are a kid in the inner-city who is confronted by two thugs with a weapon, that is terrorism. no question. we need to find a way to address all of these issues. but we can't even get legislation passed that would address this particular case, people who are on the terrorism watchlist. that is what this bill is all about. -- we can't solve do that if we don't solve this problem first. here, twon one person

people there, how about 14 people in one place, 12 people in another? the numbers are staggering when people have access to semiautomatic weapons and machine guns. they are tearing people's lives apart. and not just the victims themselves but their families. their communities. they are torn apart. and there is the one off here or but some ofhere these are incredibly large events that are unsettling to the community and the entire nation. manassas, virginia, the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i'm doing very well, how are you? caller: i love your calm demeanor. i wish that -- would have such a

calm demeanor. what i would like to say right now is that the democrats are a wrong solution to the present problem. that will make us lose if we don't take care in 2016. is notblem right now about gun control. in control was way back 2010. -- did not do anything about it. innocent kids were killed in a school and we are supposed to do something about it and we don't do anything about it. a representative was shot in arizona, we didn't do anything about it. we should come to the solution that republicans are not willing to do anything about gun control. for now, it is about terrorism.

-- made a couple of good points. people say that christians [indiscernible] the ku klux klan used it as a tool. , it is the issue about religion. muslims are using the ideology to terrorize. --, anytime i go to a [indiscernible] she might blow it up. i might be wrong, but look at the lady in california. you had a woman who left her baby at home. you went to a party to kill innocent people. that is how people are trying to support -- you are saying the right thing.

[indiscernible] you should have put those words in a different way. i want to give the congressman a chance to respond. guest: the caller is talking about -- the american people are concerned. i think with incidents like what happened in san bernardino, americans are frightened and say look to their leaders for answers. responsenk the initial from the republican colleagues, primarily, was to go after the refugee program. women and children and old men and women from coming to the united states who are looking for refuge. and that really is not addressing the issue. i think with the democrats are focusing on, from the get-go it is the visa waiver program which we took action on yesterday in a bipartisan way.

also the issue of addressing the access to weapons by terrorists. by keeping them from getting by using the, terrorism watchlist as a means to discriminate as to who can legally or not purchase weapons. ofy are more thoughtful ways addressing this and that is what democrats have been focusing on and it is what the president has been focusing on. i recognize the fear that is there. the first response ability of the president and the congress is to protect the american people from foreign attack. host: perhaps a good time to bring up the front page today in the new york daily news. for the mexicans, i did not become out as i was not a mexican. when i -- when he came for the muslims, i did not speak out as i was not a muslim. then he came for me.

you can see the picture below that. -- i think it is remarkable we have taken this long to address the hateful rhetoric that mr. trump has been spewing. and i don't think it is enough just to say well, i disagree with him on that, from my republican colleagues. i think many have been thinking about what they would do if he was their nominee. and some, regrettably, support him. it's not enough to say "i disagree with him" when he makes statements about mexicans or how and, ins about women this case, how he speaks about people of the islamic faith and that they should be barred from coming to the united states. that is being resoundingly condemned by "the daily news." i

think even speaker ryan came out yesterday and had some very , that words for mr. trump that language did not represent the gop, the grand old party, the republican party. it's about time. it may be in great -- it may be a little late. i think incredible damage has been done. people around the world have condemned what mr. trump said in the statement that he released, and it's about time. host: and secretary josh earnest -- press secretary josh earnest as well. here is a bit from his press conference yesterday. [video clip] the first thing the president does when he or she takes the office is to swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states. and the fact is that what donald trump said yesterday does not qualify him for serving as president. and for republican candidates

for president to stand by their pledge to support mr. trump, that, in and of itself, is disqualifying. [end videolip -- clip] host: we have about 15 minutes left. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. one thing i wanted to bring up was a poll that was mentioned earlier. you had inquired as to where the info came from. it was february of 2009, pulled opinion,"d public that states 61% of egyptians approve a tax in america -- approve attacks in america, 38% -- 62%ns, 62% 30 in jordanians. being that muslim is the second largest religion in the world

right now, those numbers could be staggering if we have people trying to penetrate our borders to commit acts of terrorism on our own land. i mean, there is a lot of talk about whether or not we should shut down the borders and think of the people and the syrians and everything, but i think we have spent far too much time as a nation thinking of everywhere else in the world and not enough time thinking of what's going on with our own people and what's going on in our own homeland. there's a lot of issues here that we need to address, as opposed to attempting to babysit the entire world. you've got to focus a little attention in. i mean, you have to understand the skepticism of the american people. there has been deceived, there -- there has been deceit. there has been lies.

there have been many reasons for distrust of our government from the things that have happened over our history. -- have to start reconciling the bond between our people and our government before we can start making anything better. guest: i think a lot of what he said is true. athink there is a lack of sense of commonality reflected in the congress today. we do need to work together to solve the issues that we all confront. i think the president would agree with your notion we can't be babysitting all over the world. i think that is reflected in his approach to dealing with daesh or isil or isis. i call them daesh. this cannot solely be united states effort to eliminate them. we will eliminate them. our country will work in conjunction with other nations in the world to destroy daesh

and to eliminate them, but we need to do that in a cohesive way. we need to get our congress and president working together. that's why i'm in favor of a new umf authorization. use of military force. we are working with one that is 13 or 14 years old, post-9/11. a newd to pass the new -- aumf. that will allow the president to work with other countries in the world to eradicate daesh. i don't necessarily disagree with ken, the independent caller. ist: feed is waiting -- pete waiting on our line for republicans. caller: you democrats are very sneaky and how you use your language. for example, when you talk about common sense reform. it automatically shuts down

debate. if you have an opposite view, it means you have no common sense. it is very slick the way you guys play this game, and it is unfortunate, because as shots down any conversation -- because it shuts down any conversation. you also use the term "semiautomatic" and "automatic" in the same sentence. automatic weapons are illegal unless you go through a significant background investigation. people with legal weapons purchased legally. you talk about how the american public is fearful. i'm not fearful. i'm frustrated with our government that you guys can't get people coming in here -- can't vet people coming in here. clearly, that's what has happened. this lady was able to come here. nobody knows anything about here. same with the refugees. guns, myer is to take

ability as a law-abiding citizen to defend by own family -- i don't think that is right. the terrorist watchlist is garbage. there are tons of names on there that shouldn't be on there. there is no due process for putting a name on it. there is no due process for removing a name from it. the terrorist watch lists are classified. we don't want a terrorist to know he is on the watchlist. now all he has to do if you are reform goes through, try to buy a gun, he is denied, i know i'm on a watchlist. it's ridiculous. host: let the congressman jump in. to be sneakyt want about this in any way, shape, or form. i'm going to be very direct. 2000 peoplele on -- who are on the terrorist watchlist purpose -- purchased weapons legally. that's not sneaky.

that's a fact. i'm just letting you know that. there is a first responsibility of our government to protect the american citizens. the no flies is -- the no-fly list is in place because it is believed that the greater threat and the duty that we have to prevent another attack like 9/11 for the flying public as well as for, as i said, the citizens of ar country, is to create no-fly list. it is an inconvenience. there's no question about it. part of life is inconvenience and trying to protect the american people. , as well, using the terrorism watchlist for the purposes of identifying whether someone should have access to legally purchase a gun. you also know guns can be modified. you can buy one gun and modi it into a different style -- and modify it into a different style.

this is not the panacea. it is something logical. our logic may be different. no offense to you or anyone else who disagrees with me, but this seems pretty logical to me. host: randall is here on our line for democrats. good morning. iller: i think one thing never fear mentioned in the debate is the business of guns, and i think that is what republicans are really about is business. and i think that is the real purpose of the nra. it is a cover -- it used the second amendment as a cover for ensuring that the business of guns is in no way affected. on the other hand, if you never made another gun in america, there is a sufficient number of guns for everybody still to have one legally. and i think that's left out of the debate.

and probably the real purpose and drive of the republicans and the nra. and it is never, ever discussed. i don't know if it can be. but i think that is their real concern. and i just hope that there is a way to balance it. i think that that is their real drive and they are only using second amendment as a tool to assist in that purpose. guest: i don't necessarily disagree with you. it doesn't need further comment. i think you are right. host: i want to talk about an issue that is very personal to you, the 9/11 health responders bill. bring folks up to date on where that is and when the money runs out for that bill. guest: i think it's important to talk about who we are talking about. these are men and women who, after the attack of 9/11, went down to the pile, as it was known, ground zero, look for

their brothers and sisters, try to save their lives. to recover their bodies, to restore lower manhattan to some semblance of commerce and business. of course, suffering today as a result of breathing in the air. many of my colleagues were told told --as clean test were told the air was clean. these folks went down to do their job and today they are suffering because of that. they have cancers. i know people with stage four cancers, people who may not live another day, as a result of doing what i think was a very patriotic thing to do, to respond to 9/11. we have an obligation not to forget them. they did not say, "i will only go in if you tell me 14 or 15 years ago the government won't forget me and my family care, --

my family ar." without additional funds, these men and women facing death and certain cancers linked directly to the attack on 9/11 will die. they need the health care coverage. they need to know their government will be there for them. host: the logic behind that original five-year sunset for the law that was passed in 2010 was to allow for a review to see if there was any waste or fraud in the program. has that for you been done -- that review been done? guest: there has been review after review. no one is defrauding the government here. heldey are, they should be accountable to the and stood great -- to the nth degree. without knowing for the government -- without certainty,

without knowing the government will be there as they fight these horrific cancers, it adds a further burden to their health . host: where is the holdup right now? guest: the holdup is we were the legislators who care about this and want to see it extended permanently, were told that it would be in the transportation bill that we passed last week. then it was pulled at the last moment. then we were told it would be in the tax extenders. then we were told it would be in omnibus. there is such uncertainty as to what bill this will be used for as political fodder to get something passed, which i think is disgusting, that we would use the 9/11 bill, heroes of our country -- this is being used in an openly political way to pass other legislation that is much more controversial. i think that is wrong and not in the spirit of our country to do that. host: let's get in one or two

more calls. sheila on the line for independents. caller: hello, guys. i have a different idea on the subject of guns and how we might bring this. i don't know if it will work. but i see one of the greatest men in country music, johnny cash, the man in black, with his guitar strapped on his back, with big, bold words saying, "don't take your guns to town, son. leave your guns at home, son." he went to prison. he performed for the inmates with his meaningful songs. ton they got out, they chose live out the rest of their lives , when they served their time and were welcomed back into society, after they were released -- i'm thinking maybe, just maybe the picture of johnny cash would

flash across the memories, stopping people from inking about becoming radicalized -- from thinking about becoming radicalized or will it erase the desire to kill and instead stop and ask themselves, what was i thinking? this is not what johnny would ever do. and i choose to follow in his footsteps rather than go down the dark path and take the -- never being able being able to rest in peace when my time on earth is done. our brains are like sponges. they absorb goodness as we are developing from birth. and that goodness stays in a person's subconscious throughout their life. maybe they could stop and think. guns and boysour home. i love johnny cash. his music was wonderful.

great thoughts. host: congressman joe crowley. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: up next, in our weekly spotlight on magazines segment, we will be talking about the science of chemical regulation and its effects on humans. we will be right back. ♪ >> she was such an authentic person. >> i've always thought there was more to the story of lady bird than anybody had covered, certainly than when i wrote the book on all first ladies. >> she became the first modern first lady. she had a big staff. she had a very important

project. she wrote a book as she left the white house. she really invented the modern first lady. a sunday night on "q&a," historian discusses her book "l ady bird and lyndon," an inside look at the marriage and political partnership of lady bird and lyndon. >> it is a perfect example of the conclusion i came to, which is those women saw something in those men, the ambition, the opportunity to really climb and make a mark in the world, and they married them in spite of parental objection. she is a good example of that. that's where i decided i had to find out more about her. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern q&a."acific on c-span's " >> all persons having honor -- having business before the

supreme court are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> monday on c-span's "landmark cases." >> anything you say to us can be used in a court of law. is that clear? >> ok. was arrested in phoenix on suspicion of good and raping a young woman. after two hours of police questioning, he confessed and signed a statement saying his confession had been given voluntarily. he was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison. his lawyer argued that he had not been told of both the right to an attorney or the right to remain silent. the case went all the way to the supreme court. follow the case of miranda versus arizona and the evolution americaing practices in with the president and ceo of the national constitution center

and a utah law school professor specializing in victims' rights. night at 9:00 eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case, order your copy of the "landmark cases" companion book, available at www.c-span.org \landmarkcases. "washington journal" continues. host: each week in this segment, we take a moment to spotlight a recent magazine article. this week, we are joined by elliott is a -- by elizabeth grossman, who cowrote this piece , "what we didn't know is killing us," the results of a six-month investigation. why did you conduct the investigation in the first place? what brought you to this topic? guest: thanks for having me on.

what we wanted to know was why so many studies, scientific studies about chemicals that were done by researchers with industry support, were coming to such different conclusions than studies about those same chemicals done by researchers without industry support. and what we discovered was a 30-plus year history and pattern that goes back to the early 1980's and researchers at the a longent of defense and pattern of industry influence of the science behind chemical regulation. host: it was a six-month investigation that you did. let's set up the two sides of this debate. guest: on one side, as i mentioned, are researchers who are primarily in the field which has a kind of wonky name, regulatory toxicology, that looks at the toxicity of chemicals. and a lot of these researchers

over the years have worked both for industry and for government. and on the other side of this debate are scientists who are biologists, andrew can always just -- and/or chronologies -- scientists whos, rely on experiments to look at how chemicals can affect human health and the health of other living animals and the environment. on the other side are the toxicologists who, as we discovered, are relying largely on computer modeling. host: that's the crux of the difference. the modeling that is being done to try to understand how chemicals affect our body. pharma co.ally-based connect -- co-connect. guest: it is a mouthful. it boils down to the type of develop aodeling

researchers working for the department of defense in the 1980's. that was the time when the stock computer technology was coming into play -- when desktop computer technology was coming into play. what they do is follow the path of the chemicals the human -- chemicals through the human or other animal body and look at how it interacts with other organs and the body. what it doesn't tell you is exactly what those chemicals are doing to those parts of the body . and what happened was that these models, it turned out, they can be extremely useful, but they depend on the data and the assumptions you put into them. it turns out you can design those studies to influence their results. host: lets talk about a few examples of chemicals people might encounter in everyday life. there are countless

examples, but a few that we look at in the story that people might be familiar with our chemicals like formaldehyde -- with are chemicals like formaldehyde, which is used in hair care products and plywood and press would -- crestwood -- and presswood products. it was used in those demon trailers.- fema those models can be used to look narrowly at a certain type of health affect to the exclusion of others, when a single chemical, including formaldehyde, can produce a range of health effects. by looking narrowly at a range of effects, you can downplay the chemical hazard. you can downplay the risk of the exposure. what has effectively happened is that these studies have been used to delay the regulation of numerous hazardous chemicals, including formaldehyde.

study showdoes one next to a study that uses live animal testing and other sorts of experiments? guest: an experiment of study could show you a wide range of health effects. it could show you there are different types of cancers that have been associated with formaldehyde. it can show you different types of respiratory effects that are associated with formaldehyde. if you look more narrowly at them using these studies, you could look, for example, at one type of cancer and not the other , and come out with some conclusions that could say, well, we are not being the association between formaldehyde and leukemia, for example, when, in fact, you may have lots of people who are suffering from leukemia who had a formaldehyde exposure. i could therefore lead to downplaying that health affect couldlaying -- that

therefore lead to downplaying that health affect and delaying care. host: this week past story comes .rom "in these times" magazine ust we don't know is killing -- the chemical industry is using its sizable resources, often with financial support from federal agents these -- federal agencies." if you want to call in and ask questions, elizabeth is our guest for the next half-hour or so. republicans, it is (202)748-8001 www.c-span.org. democrats, (202)748-8000. .ndependents, (202)748-8002 bill on the line for republicans, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? guest: i'm fine, thanks for

calling. caller: you're bringing up a subject. i wish i had been chosen a little league or in the order -- in the order. you haven't gotten into the details yet. something that has concerned me from the very beginning is that there is political movement that a correlation between if there is exposure followed by a health affect, therefore the health affect was closed -- caused by the exposure. that seems to me to be only the beginning. that opens the question of whether or not there is causation. directil you can show , having the government

step in and ban the use of otherwise useful substances essentially creates a situation where we are supposed to be in a otherwise usefulbubble, where 'h anything that hasn't proven not to be safe -- safe. that's been my concern for a long time. i wonder if you could address it. guest: i will do my best. you have hit the nail on the head of one of the biggest questions, which is at what point does somebody decide to regulate or restrict the use of a hazardous chemical when, in fact, so many chemical health effects do not result in an immediate and acute affect -- effect? chemicals,covered is

even with direct, acute, immediate effect, for example methylene chloride, which is used in paint and varnish strippers. counted numerous fatalities as a result of these products being used. even that chemical has not been effectively restricted or taken off the market in any way. you can go to your neighborhood hardware store and buy numerous products with methylene chloride. what we discovered is, as a result of using these computer modeling studies, we were able while, papers that said, -- wow, as a result of using this study, we have been able to effectively deliver environmental agency from regulating this product.

it means delaying environmental cleanup and delaying restriction. chemicals, it is sometimes very hard to say this particular exposure immediately causes disease. we can talk about that more later. but even for chemicals with acute, immediate effects, these kinds of studies have been used to effectively delay regulation for 30 years. host: is an epa and other regulatory agencies there to be able to sort through the data and the studies and to try to find the ones that are harmful to humans and separate them from the ones that aren't? guest: yes, that's exactly what they are supposed to be. another thing we uncovered in our investigation was that, as the result of 30 plus years of a constantly revolving door between industry and government and government and industry, people working for consultancies and research institutes with industry ties, enormous numbers

of contracts have gone to consulting firms that have been responsible for selecting not only the scientific literature that goes into the epa's decision-making, but also selecting who, which people sit on these committees, often with very little transparency. and the chemical industry has very successfully promoted these types of studies in the decision-makingto -- into the decision-making process, delaying the regulation. host: this topic is taken on in hem's tangledbig c web of influence." they talk about the agencies themselves, the trade associations, trying to find the connections between them. it's the november issue of "in

these times." taking your calls and questions. ted is waiting on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. my concern is the chemicals that are in the food. if you look at the chemicals in the back of doritos, you will see yellow no. 5 and all this. drug does not seem to regulate these things we are feeding our children. this has been in my system or years -- system for years. and i feel more like a lab rat than a consumer. i think the food and drug needs to step up and make these politicians not get a hand on lobbyists that want to change it the way they want it. a lot of these cancers we've got could be prevented. guest: yes. thanks for that comment.

one of the things that we realized and is covered looking back to this history is that this manipulation and promotion of a certain kind of science that favors chemical industry interests, whether it is chemicals used in food production or in industrial products, it is a history of influence of the science, not just the political process, which goes back to the 1980's, back to exactly the point in time when this country's major environmental laws went into effect. some of the food laws that you are thinking about go back even further. the big environment protection laws, cleaner act, clean water act, toxic substance control act , the laws to set up superfund and things like that -- all of those came into effect in the 1970's and 1980's. it was at this time that the corporate influence of the science really got going.

and the fact that we found details from trade association minutes the say "we've got to start influencing the science and effects." that what has happened. has happened. that's how we end up with a lot of hazardous chemicals in things we encounter every day, including food. host: this is on our twitter feed. bans.luck legislating republicans won't accept science ." is this something that breaks down along party lines? is it within the agencies themselves? guest: is well behind the scenes welle political -- it's behind the scenes of the political lobbying that gets a lot of attention. it is a lot of times a partisan issue of who is accepting which science. it wasn't always this way.

one of the things we do is look back at the revolving door. it seems to be a very bipartisan phenomenon in the history of the epa, as it goes back to the early days of the epa, through administrations republican and democratic. and you found it in a republican administration. guest: exactly. it's not necessarily a partisan issue. at this point in time, acceptance of certain types of science has broken down along the lines. host: the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i've been finding that chemicals are as well as nuclear -- the disappointing thing about humanity and this nuclear aspect is that it seems like when we created the stuff, we would think in the future we had a way of getting rid of the stuff, and it seems like that's not going anywhere. i'm a democrat.

seeing the reagans put a nuclear bomb on holy soil -- i'm wondering where they are putting the waste. i don't understand why we are not working on this chemical and and trusting other chemicals -- and then trusting other chemicals. guest: issue of waste, the environmental impacts to the end of the pipe, so to speak, is an enormous issue. that's, in a lot of ways, why we are in the pickle that we are. the entire system was set up to allow chemicals to be used until they are proven harmful. llers alluded to, proving absolute causation and

harm is extremely hard. the laws we have in place have set extremely high bar. there is a whole new school of thought that is coming up in -- people who make chemicals and people who regulate chemicals -- to look way upstream and asked the question had a time, what kind of impact might this have on the environment or human health before we let these things out into the world and products are in smokestacks or anywhere else? host: are there chemicals allowed under the current regulation in the united states that other countries, other regulatory bodies who have different modeling has banned and don't allow in their countries? guest: the answer is yes. whether it depends on the modeling, not necessarily. but it depends on how the science is read. foodaller who asked about coloring, that's a wonderful example. authorities in the u.s. and in

europe looked at exactly the same science about those food colorings, particularly the red and yellow ones that go into so many foods. reading the exact same studies, in europe, they saw the effects on children's health and said we don't think these should be used, so they aren't used in europe. regulator said -- regulators we are not sure. we think there is some room for doubt. we will let them be used. that's what it boils down. what you are going to look at in the science and what you're going to do as a result, where you put the bar when it is time to protect human health. host: deborah is in texas on the line for republicans. good morning. are you with us? by your phone so we can get your question. ralph, good morning. caller: good morning.

i think this is a great topic. one thing that people underestimate is the total damage that this type of stuff has done to us. scientists were working for the oil companies and discovered that led was being -- that lead was being spread via the exhaustive gasoline. again years later, crime to spike in this country -- crim e began to spike in this country and in every other country where they introduced lead. there were laws. there was huge violence in the city. it's a toxin that caused violent episodes, low iq's. we ended up causing the next 100

ausing 100- c million people -- ruining lives. the epa was supposed to step in -- step in and put an end to it. hundreds of millions of lives lost. guest: is important point of the late effects -- it is an delayedt point of effects. there are a lot of chemicals and -- of chemicals thatcience that show

exposure may not result in absolute, immediate effects, like the people exposed to methylene chloride, but chemical exposures that can upset how hormones work and set the stage for chronic diseases, health problems that show up years later, whether they are metabolic diseases like diabetes and about -- and obesity or infertility problems or neurological problems. these delayed effects are very difficult to deal with in regulation, but they are very real and well-recognized. you bring up an important point about making sure we pay attention to the delayed effect of chemicals as well as those immediate and acute effects. het: watching and tweeting, said, "it's clear that the epa isn't the answer after the

release in colorado. the cleanup should be paid by those who owned stock during pollution." us @cspanwj. mike, good morning. caller: i'm concerned about the amount of fun fair and the calls fanfareraising -- -of and the calls for fundraising to cure cancer when exposure could be regulated. guest: the president's panel on cancer -- i may not be getting the name exactly right -- but they did a report that looked at environmental exposure andributions the cancer that was exactly the conclusion that they came to. yes, research for cures, absolutely essential and vital,

but, at the same time, we could be doing a lot more in prevention and preventing exposures, whether it is through pesticides that end up in foods or exposing agricultural workers and their families or many level public health benefits. go --lly every major medical company and association has come out and said we need to do more prevention and getting these chemicals out of our environment on a daily basis for health benefits. host: in tennessee on our line for democrats, good morning. -- day about: i'm concerned goods that we use on a daily basis that we don't have the

chemical makeup. i wonder why. how can the chemical companies do this, get away with not putting any information out on what they are supplying the public? guest: that's a very good point. it's got a complicated history, like so many things, on why it is that household products don't have chemical ingredient labels the way food products now do or personal care products now do. in fact, there is a move afoot to get a lot more of this information out there. this isn't necessarily what we looked at in our peace, but one of the things that a lot of the scientists we did speak to who are biologists and endocrinologists, it is concerns like yours, from citizens, rather than from corporations or legislators to begin with -- it

is the concern of consumers who are reading about the science, because it is more accessible than ever, who are starting to ask questions and putting pressure on their elected representatives and on the companies they buy things from, and a little bit of this is starting to change. host: who funds this study? what private funds? studies? guest: that is something we looked into. one of the things that seemed disturbing in terms of conflict of interest is that a lot of these studies are funded by millions of dollars from chemical corporations who, themselves, obviously have an interest in these chemicals, because they make them. but at the same time, millions of dollars of government funding , in gone into this research

part because the system has been set up to allow that to happen. it's a very curious wrinkle in this revolving door of influence that some of these research institutes have been set up in a way that they can compete and get millions of dollars in government funding for studies that actually benefit industry. host: the story we are focusing on is the cover story from times."'s "in these fort myers, florida, the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i would like to mention what happened in the 1970's, the government solution to the situation. there were outbreaks of salmonella, botulism, and what the fda decided to do was to incorporate ascorbic acid in multiple forms in everything

that is in a bottle for a jar, which continues to this day. unfortunately, what occurred as has -- who everyone consumed these foods. --may have the abbreviated it may have alleviated an issue, but it created an epidemic. guest: we did not look at the issue of ascorbic acid put into food, but i think one of the points you are bringing up is making sure we have a thorough knowledge of what goes into our products. and one of the problems with how we regulate chemicals in this country is that we don't in fact no very much -- don't in fact know very much about the health and environmental effects of vast numbers of chemicals that are in products and on the markets today.

that is an important point. thanks for that. host: paul is on the line for independents. caller: good morning, elizabeth. if you bear with me a moment, it might take me a minute to get through this, you were just hitting at it. my concern is the lack of research and therefore the combined effect of everyday exposure to chemicals and carcinogens. because of the current world we live in, the everyday experience, living and lifestyles, the food, care everything, our basic everyday living -- there is such a lack of understanding of how all of these chemicals together combine to have an effect in our biology, because, obviously, it changes when it comes into our

body, because our body itself is a chemical lab, essentially. the lack of understanding of what that effect actually is is a concern. because as you said, the research direction is so focused -- the models are so limited, focused on one chemical and one aspect of that chemical. there are entire combined dynamics occurring here. guest: you raise an extremely important point. our chemical regulatory system, the system we were investigating, does indeed regulate one chemical at the time, when, in fact, we are all exposed to mixtures of many, many chemicals from the time before we are born. and the type of study that we were looking at in our peace, these-- in our piece,

pbpk studies, are very narrowly focused and they completely failed to take into account the full range of different health effects that a single chemical could cause and also the fact that, as you point out, not every individual will respond similarly. that is a huge research gap, a huge gap in information that scientists are now rapidly trying to fill. host: about 10 minutes left before the house is scheduled to gavel in. we will be going there. until then, we are talking with elizabeth grossman about her cover piece for the november issue -- for the november science."d gerald is in new hampshire on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. thank you for your research. my comment today is about the corruption and greed in this particular industry. if miss grossman could comment on this. also, if the united states is the number one chemical producer in the world? we are the number one producer of arms in the world. and i think that's a lot of the problem we have also with guns and gun control. the last 40 years running, we have been the number one arms person -- country in the world, and it seems like every time -- we always are having to take guns away from different countries that we give them to. isis is a big example. i don't want to get off track. i really appreciate your research. because i've had people in my family die of everything from -- toxic chemicals in

hydro fracking. thank you for taking my call. guest: thank you for your call. you raised a lot of important points. one of the things that we can say for sure is that our political system and our system for regulating chemicals has allowed political influence to enter into the system of regulation far more effectively than it does in other countries. whether we are the number one chemical producer in time is a little bit hard to say. there is an enormous lack of transparency about those kind of numbers. one of the things that has happened, in part as a result of chemical regulation, is that some of this manufacturing has moved to other places in the world, where environmental oversight is far more lenient, laws are enforced less stringently than they are here.

but it is a global problem. so, you raise a couple of really important points about how our system allows political influence and also alludes to how this is a global problem that we have been pushing other places once we start realizing we have a problem at home. host: the color brings up the department of defense -- the caller brings up the department of defense. there is history that the pbpk modeling -- there is history between the pbpk modeling and the department of defense. guest: we have been able to trace the early days of these pbpk studies to a core group of researchers who were working at an air force base in dayton, ohio. there was a division entirely set up to look at the toxicity of chemicals that were used by the military. if you can -- as you can imagine, military uses lots of

chemicals, in everything from maintaining aircraft and vehicles to making new materials for that equipment. iny have a huge interest this. it just happened that they had a bunch of researchers there who essentially developed this type of computer modeling and then went on over the next several decades to work at research institutes, to work in government agencies, and to fan out into industry as well, doing this type of research. so, it may be coincidental, but there was a lot of effort being --the department of defense being put in at the department of defense at that time to look at toxicity, and it coincided with the clean air act and the clean water act. in the early 1980's, late the government said we are going to keep an eye on your

toxic emissions. you're going to have to tell us what's coming out of your smokestack and how people may be affected by these chemicals. people went to work to look for data. host: brent is waiting on the line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would be curious to know what elizabeth's view is on geo-engineering. all you have to do is look up your window and see what's going on. that's not fog. that's geo-engineering. do you have anything about what they are dropping on its daily in our environment that we are existing in, with their defecated red blood cells and aluminum and bury them -- and barium? all the different things showing up in our rainwater that should not be there. guest: we did not look at geo-engineering in our story,

but a number of the scientists we talked to have pointed out that the environment in which all of us live is now chemically different than it was at any that, asnt in time and a result, we are experiencing chronic health problems that are, again, really hard to link directly to a specific cause, a specific exposure, but there are lots and lots of associations that paint a very convincing picture that we are pushing human health in a certain direction and, in fact, one biologist that we talked to said , if we actually wait for the human data to come out like the animal data are, we may not be reproducing as a species. she feels that strongly about it. host: burton, alabama. the line for democrats. caller: good morning.

i love c-span. you get a lot of information. i was over in vietnam. when i came back and found out i had some of the agent orange in my system -- -- hadd banded here banned it here in america, then sold it to mexico, and used it over in vietnam. the republicans have no common sense. i believe they are being paid by the will companies. now there is fracking. they use all kinds of chemicals. i believe america needs to know what kind of chemicals they use in fracking. these lobbyists are paying politicians. they want to get rid of the epa, the republicans do. i feel like they have shown who is lobbying them. maybe all americans can see. we get a republican in there that doesn't care about clean water, doesn't care about the environment, doesn't believe in

climate change, we are in trouble. ahead.o guest: thanks for those thoughts. i'm sorry to hear about your experience with agent orange. one of the points you raise is something that we grappled with in our research, which was an enormous lack of transparency, whether it is in who is doing the research, what kind of studies are being looked at in making decisions about regulation. there is a terrible lack of transparency, and that makes it very difficult for people to understand what is going into products, what's being used, and, again, what kind of science is behind making these decisions. one of the points you raise about the lack of transparency is an enormous problem. host: montgomery, alabama, alfred. good morning. writtenthere was a book by a biologist, i believe, who

worked for the food and drug administration under kennedy -- i believe she wrote a book called "the silent spring," referring to the environment. environmental conditioning. my goodness, i forgot the title. the book was written by rachel carson. it was talking about environmental poisoning. more thing here, i read an article some time ago about dow chemical and monsanto, who are one of the largest seed producers for farming. they chemically treat to andourage weed growth

abundant harvest. i hope you can talk about that. the book is called "the silent spring." host: we got it. in thisy to get it in in this last minute and a half. guest: rachel carson's "silent considered a landmark event. she was way ahead of her time, pointing to the kind of permanent effects, the delayed effects we are seeing, as well as the acute, immediate effects. and that set off and is credited with, in fact, pushing the federal government to enact some of our landmark environment to laws. that, in fact, set off a whole lot of scientists and research

that has been absolutely instrumental in protecting human health. elizabethnt to thank grossman, contributor to "in these times." "it's what we don't know is killing us." [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., december 9, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable "chuck" fleischmann to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: puran