alzheimer's disease center was in the theater treatment of the disease. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ hundreds of protesters forced donald trump to cancel a massive rally in chicago last night. they called up the event before it started citing security concerns. classes between trump supporters and protesters have grown increasingly hostile. he has sent mixed messages about the violence at his raucous rallies. last night he said he does not take responsibility for the us committee tensions, a republican rivals say he deserves part of the blame. we want to hear from you. 80 you hold responsible for the violence at truck rally -- trump's rallies. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you get sinister thoughts on social media and on twitter. we are on facebook. the new york times calls last night event of malay. thousands of people already packed and music blaring to warm up the crowd, donald j trump canceled his event friday night over security concerns of protesters clashed with his supporters inside an arena where he was to speak. minutes after mr. trump would've taken his podium at a large public university west of downtown, they suddenly pronounced event over before it began. hundreds of protesters who have and promised a presence filled several sections of the arena went out in and on stopping cheer. supporters, many of whom waited hours to see the republican front-runner or stone and solely filed out in anger.

around the country protesters have interrupted virtually every truck rally -- trump rally in the city for decades run by democrats and equal third of blacks, latinos and whites. the rally came on a day that mr. trump sought to move past the primary fight, saying the party needed to come together behind him. the washington post is little more history on some of the events that occurred yesterday before the rally in chicago. he appeared at the peabody opera house in st. louis according to the washington post. protesters there also interrupted him eight times, prompting catcalls and chance in the crowd as security officers removed them. inr were injured or arrested clashes between supporters and critics outside the venue where thousands gathered in an overflow area to listen to the event over about speakers. trump is known for his raucous rallies.

the events have come infused with hostility and violence that are unknown to modern presidential campaigns. the candidate himself off and seems to wink at or encourage rough treatment of protesters. "come on, get them out." he shouted on friday concerning protesters could not be removed more quickly. the hill newspaper also carried this report from the ap which says police say they did not tell trump to cancel the rally. the report says the chicago police department told the associated press the police did not suggest donald trump cancel his rally, contrary to what trump said in an interview. the spokesperson said the decision to shut down the event was made independently by the trump campaign. here is what the trump campaign told its rally goers and

shutting down the event last night. justn said mr. trump arrived in chicago and after meeting with law enforcement is determined that for the safety of all the tens of thousands of evil who have gathered in and around the arena, tonight's rally will be postponed to another date. thank you very much for your attendance and please go in peace." here is what donald trump had to say for himself after last night's event. >> it is politics. we have had some violent people as protesters. they are not people saying, -- these are people that punch. they are violent people. i get the biggest crowds by far. not even a contest. you people don't like to report it. the one thing good about protesters is you have to go into these stadiums with 25,000-30,000 people. the cameras never turn and show the stadium. turn in show the stadium. but there was a protest in the corner it is great.

it's a negative as opposed to a positive so they turn. we have had a couple that were really violent. a particular one when i said -- that was a very -- very loud. and then started swinging at the audience. the audience's one back. -- audience swung back. he was hitting people in the audience hit back. that is what we need a little bit more of. i'm not talking about a protester. this was a guy who should not of been allowed to do it he did. if you want to know the truth, the police were very restrained. the police of been amazing but the police were very restrained. host: just to clarify, that was trump speaking before last night's event in chicago, but also speaking about the violence and some of his rallies. here is a tweet he published just after the campaign event was canceled.

"i just got off the phone with great people of guam. thank you for cr support -- for your support." what do you think about the violence at trump's rallies? rick, good morning to you. caller: good morning. it is my honest opinion that donald trump is completely 100% to blame for the violence at his rallies. really incited the people against thees to go protesters that are there. the protesters that are there are legal and they are viable part of our electoral process. they have a right to express their opinion. but he immediately insights the crowd in the violence against them.

we have not seen a single incident of a protester swinging that one of donald trump's events, but we had video evidence of one of donald trump 's supporters taking a pot shot at one of the demonstrators just as he was leaving. and a big mouth and a demonstrator is just exactly why the demonstrator is there. it is unfortunate that our political system has degraded to the point that it is. host: we hear you this morning. our next color will be ed from georgia on the republican line. ed, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i think the guy it is called in these to go soak his head. you don't see any trump supporters going to a bernie sanders rally and disrupting them. we don't go to hillary's and disrupt them. they come in there.

they act decent like they will go to the rally and listen to what mr. trump has to say. instead, they go in and punch people. they cause all kinds of disruption. is trying to do is bring jobs to america. that is why the people of chicago don't want it. the people of chicago just want to shoot people in the street. host: next color is don from maryland on the independent line. what you think of all of this? go ahead. you are on the air. caller: good morning. the last color was very unintelligent. -- caller was very unintelligent. he's a guy that is very skillful. i would not be surprised to be paid some of those protesters to come there and disrupt the rally. it's just to make him look like a strong man.

that is all trump wants. he wants power. he has fame and fortune in the living that is left is power. host: what do you think about the caller's point that trump supporters are turning up great numbers to other candidates rallies? reason to at is no the other rallies. the other rallies are peaceful. candidates are not inciting people to do harm to other people. they are not disparaging people. don, thank you. williesorry, we have from annapolis, maryland. caller: i have heard different views but trump is 100%

responsible for what he is doing. he has better than what he is doing. -- i'm hearinge these nut jobs talk about what they are doing. what they're not talking about is the spitting, attacking women and stuff like that. he is 100% responsible. host: we hear your thoughts as well this morning. here is what some of trump's rivals has to say. thecruz said this about cancellation of his rally last night. >> this is a sad day. political discourse should occur in this country. without the threat of violence. without anger and rage and hatred directed at each other. we need to learn to have disagreements without being disagreeable. to have disagreements while respecting human beings on the other side. over 30 people were arrested at one rally. and then tonight as violence

broke out the rally was canceled altogether. liesesponsibility for that with protesters who took violence into their own hands. but at any campaign response ability stops -- starts at the top. any candidate is responsible for the culture of the campaign. when you have a campaign that disrespects the voters, when you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence, when you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, thatreate an environment only encourages this sort of nasty discourse. host: cnn conducted an interview with senator marco rubio as well about the events last night.

here is what he had to say according to politico. rubioican rival marco also spoke out friday about the protest saying some chicago residents are professional protesters. they don't have the right to stop an event if they don't like what is being said. "it is clear from watching these images there are people that are processing tonight that are part of organized efforts to disrupt this event. this is not the sort of organic thing that happens in chicago. there are a lot of groups they do this professionally in some instances." he also jabbed his rival's incendiary rhetoric. "i think mr. trump nissan of to the fact the rhetoric he uses at some of its has also contributed to what you see in other rallies he has had. there are consequences to things people say in politics. we are taking your phone calls now. what do you think about who was to blame for the violence that donald trump's rallies.

what you make of all of this? caller: good morning. when i see what happened last night, it's like ted cruz said. you have the right to protest, but you have the right also for free speech. when donald trump went to this university campus he was expecting angry people to protest, but it should not be like that. issue the outside like they were. they should not have gotten into the arena. that is illegal and not acceptable. the media -- cnn was showing pictures with a white person in black person punching each other. this is not about black person against white person. people think donald trump is a racist. if he's a racist, we can challenge him.

fightuld not make a fist in front of the whole world is laughing about america. otherwise ted cruz was right. he said ok, freedom of speech should be the right but donald trump should be accountable. donald trump was accountable yesterday. he suspended his campaign. that was the right thing to do. -- donald trump has won. people havefuture the right to assemble in america -- i commend donald trump for stopping it. the protesters should be civil and send a message that this option is not legal in america. host: we hear you this morning. we also to show you some of the

photos from the protests last night that we have found on twitter. here are a few from some people who were there, some reporters who were there. erese are from paul gotting showing thousands of people marching to protest trump in chicago. there are some overhead shots as well. a photo of asee group of muslim men pray just before trump canceled his rally. he has obviously made incendiary comments about muslims. here is a woman who is a trump supporter who struck this post as she was being asked to leave the rally. our next caller come to new york city on the republican line. tommy, what do you think? caller: i believe all these protests -- marco rubio was right. they are orchestrated by all these people. any political rally, there was always a heckler here and there. these are orchestrated.

they are rabble-rousers and troublemakers. when trump, screams get them out what is the big deal? host: even if they are orchestrated, d you think that calls for physical violence? caller: what violence? they told them to get out. get them out does not mean violence. it is only hurt anybody. violence is hurting people. what is so wrong with that? host: that is tommy from new york city. i want to review the story from cnn that says trump rally attendee charged with assault. a man was arrested and charged thursday after multiple videos posted online showed him punching a protester in the face and later saying the next time we see him we might have to kill him. he was questioned and arrested by the crumbling county sheriff's department. police identified him as the man in the video according to public information officer sergeant

sean swain. he was charged with disorderly conduct. he appears to punch a black protester in the face is using escorted out of the venue with a group of protesters by half dozen police officers. the incident occurred during trump's rally in fayetteville, north carolina. the department has opened an internal investigation to see if the officers that did not detain him on site should have done so. here is bernie sanders on the trail. he was speaking about the need to unify voters after this bruising election cycle. >> we will win this election because the american people are sick and tired of establishment politics. [cheers] tired ofsick and establishment economics. [cheers]

all across this country what people are saying is we demand a government that represents all of us. [cheers] and not just a handful of billionaire campaign contributors. [cheers] what this campaign is about is bringing our people together. [cheers] or letting donald trump anybody else divide us up. [boos] >> no, we're not going to hate mexicans. [cheers] we are not going to hate muslims. [cheers] we are not going to insult women. [cheers]

we are not going to insult that it runs. -- veterans. we are not going to insult african-americans. [cheers] we are going to bring our people together. host: back your phone calls now. on the democratic line, julie from omaha, nebraska. caller: hi. i think trump enjoys this. this is like a reality show for him. he knew what he was getting into. he knew that is what is going to be all about. he just enjoys it. he thinks he can say anything he wants because it's -- he has as much money as he wants. other people are paying for his -- all of this stuff he is doing. he keeps saying he is not getting a penny.

why doesn't anybody say think about how he is loaning his money and then he would get it back at the end of his term? host: do you think the protesters share any part of the blame here? how the crowds of been very large. maybe some people have been overly aggressive. caller: no, i don't because of one reason. saying racist things alter his campaign. he has been saying, i would like to punch them. i will build this big giant wall. there is nobody better than what i am. he wanted to be like this. he wanted to be a race war. host: julie from omaha, nebraska. ryan from the independent line. what you think?

caller: i think it is -- well, the premise. whoever decided to lead up your fine show i think is ridiculous. in this land we have free will. the make your choices. that is the beauty and the strength of all of it. if people would act like idiots, and even your show i'm disappointed. you are making it out like this violencegliness and and this is the worst thing in the world. we have veterans committing suicide at such a high rate. let's lead off with that. let's dig into that. that should be on prime time. this is nothing. this is people disagreeing. big deal. if you really want to learn about this, the late glenn frey just passed away. take out a song called "dirty laundry." i always thought that song applied directly to the media. and now it's getting into your show. you get brian lamb back and get

his sound advice on how c-span should be operating. not in this. host: i do encourage you to stick around for the rest of the show. we will be covering other topics beyond donald trump. the next caller is tom from fort lauderdale, florida. go ahead. caller: hello. sure the purpose of these protests was to shut down that rally. let me back up a minute. i find it interesting this is all happening in illinois. illinois is virtually ruled by the democratic party. democrats blame republicans for not enough funding for schools. they can do whatever they want to with schools funding in the city of chicago. ruled bynd illinois is

the democratic party. why are these people so unhappy? isn't the democratic party their answer? what is the democratic party done for them? nothing to turn them into a loons. -- a crowd of vera, what are your thoughts? caller: i want to just say this some -- the one best lesson i ever learned growing up was when my brother public when i go to the pump to get some water, being i'm from nigeria, i should never get into any altercations. he punished me. he didn't take me there to fight it out because violence begets violence.

when you sew love, you reap love. hate, you repay. any time you do your work, whether you are an artist and you do it with love, it is so beautiful. if you are a cook and you cook with love, it is so different when you cook with hate. host: who do you think is spawning the hate and violence? caller: is obviously what i am saying. when something stands, something will stand here it. you cannot sew hate and expect to reap love. when you sew love, you will reap love. it is so obvious. host: we hear you this morning. if you, turn twitter. stoking --.gressive aggressive stoking just want to suppress other view." what responsible for

somebody else says or does. liberals are being -- brainwashed by blamer obama." " the reason behind violence is the trump promotion of hate, and divide and rule policies." now going to baton rouge, louisiana. doc? caller: good morning. what you are seeing here is the result of bolshevikism in america. this is the democratic party, the new bolshevik party of the democrats. 1900s, thesearly are the people that destroyed a great country like russia. the result was 100 million people killed. this is the democratic bolshevik party led by hillary clinton,

sanders. bernie "fife" host: you say this is a reaction to president obama's policies? the democratic party policies? caller: yes. it is free speech. bolsheviks do not like free speech. they hate free speech. host: all right. here is president obama. he was speaking recently about the political rhetoric and the tone of this year's presidential election cycle. here is what he had to say about it. [video clip] president obama: it is fair to say that the republican political elites in many of the information outlets, social media, news outlets, talk radio,

television stations have been feeding the republican base for notiont seven years a that everything i do to be opposed. compromiseation or somehow is of the trail -- is a betrayal. issuesist positions on are politically advantageous. "them" and ina "us," and they are causing whatever problems you are experiencing. politics, which

i certainly have not contributed to. i don't think i was the one to prompt questions about my birth certificate for example. i don't remember saying, why don't you ask me about that? [laughter] question whether i am american whether i am loyal to whether i have american interests at heart? those are not things prompted by any actions of mine. seeing within the republican party is to some degree all those efforts over a course of time creating an environment where summary like a donald trump can thrive. host: the washington times

covered that speech with this headline. "obama blames gop for trump's rise." a close him as saying mr. obama rejected the suggestion his policies had led to a hardening on the right. "validate some notion that the republican crackup that has been taking place is a consequence of actions i have taken." we are turning to your phone calls. who do you think is to blame? what are the reasons for the violence at trump's rallies. we are turning to the a hill, california where don is calling. early morning -- good early morning to you. caller: i was just calling to express my feelings as far as this riot goes. people know why these are incited to go in and try to start a riot, start fights of these people when donald trump seems like he's trying to bring

people together by getting rid andll these foreign deals bringing in money and jobs and stuff like that back to america. these people seem to think he is talking against racists. -- races. he is trying to bring people together. he wants everybody to have a job. i am a democrat. host: caller: i'm a democrat, and i see that the man -- a year where he is coming from. a lot of people don't know how to think no further than their nose. the first thing they think about is just because he said for the people, he's not saying it for blacks or this or that, he doesn't have to say that if you have cents. you would know that he's talking about everybody. not just white people. but then you have that audience out there who is confused.

i think he's talking about only white people. but he's not talking about only white people. he is talking about everybody. host: all right, we hear you this morning. on friday, trump did address this issue of gop unity and said that he is the one who can bring the party back together. [video clip] donald trump: is a big disconnection between the so-called leadership -- i don't even know what the leadership is. i can't define the leadership, no one knows what it is. there's a big disconnect between the so-called leadership and the people. the people to me are much more important. they're the ones doing the voting. that's why i'm standing up here today. >> one of the not understanding? donald trump: the republican party lost their way. they lost to elections that they should have won easily. it should've been an easy victory, much easier than the one we have coming up. and they lost. and the republican party lost its way. the republican party now,

something's happened. itl it a miracle, call whatever you want, but they are talking about it all over. it's the biggest story all of politics. the millions and millions of into theat are pouring republican party, not the democrats, to the republican party. people who were disenfranchised, and these are people who haven't had a pay increase in 20 years. these are people who have seen their jobs go to china and to mexico. vietnam,pan, and the and every other country in the world but us. that's going to all land. .- to all end host: john from spring, texas on the republican line. think donald is responsible for at least 90% of this. he tells them to get them out of here, i'd like to come down there and punch them, i will pay for your legal fees if you get

arrested or whatever. i think it was crazy for him to for that a day after the 78-year-old guy punch that guy in the face. i don't know if he's trying to provoke something. i think you just try to provoke the situation. i just don't know what to think. that's what it appears to me, he's just trying to provoke a race war. i think he's trying to start something. host: you are calling on the republican line. who do you plan to support in this election? caller: could you repeat that? host: who do you plan to support? you are calling on the republican line. it looks like donald trump might secure the nomination. apologize,needs to

that i shouldn't have said it and i will tell the rhetoric down. that's what i think you should do. host: we vote for him if he does that? caller: maybe yeah. but he's gone wacko. host: john from spring, texas. next caller is paul from akron, ohio on the independent line. obviously, the trouble last night was all caused by the thugs up there who went there to cause trouble. obama has obviously been a divider, division type person who divides the country. guys keep showing that one show, one time when that old guy ask did something stupid and punch somebody. he was rightfully charged with it and arrested. i didn't watch 5, 10 minutes of the garbage last night, and saw

several punches thrown, and you guys act like that's no big deal. i don't understand. one punch and it's a horrible thing that happened because of trump, and all of those punches thrown last night, no problem. i really don't understand it. i think if my party affiliation changes for the election, i will end up voting for trump instead of bernie. it's unbelievable. lot moreused to be a honest, but i guess that's impossible to expect of the media anymore. host: paul from akron. next up is billy from las vegas, nevada on the democratic line. go ahead. i think who's to blame for this really is the people who showed up to protest the events as well as moveon.org, they have a link and a button that basically encourages them to go and act out, to revolt. you don't see this happening at any of the other republican

candidates debates. you only see it at trump rallies because i think they know that he's going to win. that's my opinion. host: all right, we hear you, billy. this is the front page of cnn.com. drop tensions erupt is what the headline says. it shows to officers of been hurt and five people have been after the canceled chicago rally. there is the photo of police and protesters. my next caller comes from new jersey, lewis is on the republican line. go ahead, lewis. caller: good morning. for one thing, c-span is very fair. another thing, this has been going on long before trump came to light. it's been going on before obama became president. liberals and democrats have always disrupted or bullied

people from engagement on college campuses like condoleezza rice and princeton wasn't allowed. california, they had the antiabortion poster that one of the protesters ripped on their hands and tore up. onstage the guy who ran through a pie at her. this has been going on forever. it has nothing to do with the president situation. liberals and democrats, like the gentleman said before, do not want free speech. tried to figure out a way to stop facebook in times of crisis. so the government can take over. that's all i got to say. thank you. host: thank you, lewis. the next caller's jackie from tallahassee, florida on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think the person to blame is george burroughs, you just had a

special on it i think last week. society, i and his respect everyone's right to their first amendment right to protest, but i have no respect for people that use the first amendment to shut down the first amendment of whoever they oppose. that's in my mind a small form of tyranny. and also, as far as bernie sanders, he's very hypocritical. i was going to vote for him, but it's very hypocritical of him to act like he is not a demagogue. but all of them, including republicans and democrats, that's why i'm an independent -- they divide us all up into little parcels. to get us to vote. i think it's very hypocritical to say it's all about americans break us up as they

please and give special rights to other people when we are all supposed to be equal. he plan toaid that support bernie sanders. are you switching your allegiance to trap now? -- to trump now? caller: i made. i'm appalled about the whole thing. i don't want any violence anywhere inside or outside or any of that stuff. but there seems to be more going on on the protester side then there is on the trunk -- on the trump side. andink it's george soros that whole conglomerate of millionaires that are a bunch of socialist. i didn't have a big problem with bernie, i was considering it. but after this, i'm just totally appalled by the whole thing. people'sid, i respect rights to protest, but i don't respect people that use the first amendment to shut down the

first amendment for the people that they disagree with. host: jackie, we hear your thoughts this morning. a few more comments now from twitter. one person writes the postponed truck rally was a marketing ploy huge and up earlier in the day in st. louis. cbd did not advise him to shut it down. another person tweets trump knew exactly what to expect, you probably never left the plane knowing the media circus would follow. the next caller from houston, texas, ashley is on the democratic line. what do you make of all of this? caller: i really don't know what to make of that. but i'm old enough to remember the 60's and the 70's in this country. and i do not want to see this repeated. bigot, and heist is playing on other people's emotions. this stuff can get out of hand. we can have buildings being

burned things going on in the 60's in this country. i think it's horrible. i think he needs to calm himself down, talk to his people, and not try to ride the country. i would never vote for him. because i don't think he's qualified. i think, as i said, he's a racist and a bigot. but he's doing this on purpose. he is playing with this. this is nothing to play with. ,his is a very diverse country and you just can't go around saying who you don't like and who you don't want here, and who doesn't deserve to be here. he's a racist, i repeat, and a bigot. host: we hear it, ashley. we do want to let you know the donald trump will be holding another rally today at 10:00 a.m. in vidalia, ohio.

we'll be covering that live. we will also be following hillary clinton as she hits the trail in st. louis at noon eastern later on today. our next caller comes from burlington, vermont on the republican line. israel is on the phone. go ahead. caller: good morning. what happened last night over in chicago -- is no different than what happened in puerto rico. i've been in elections as a kid, and over there, it's real crazy. a lot of fights, a lot of flag-waving around. the same thing that happened last night happens just about every day. there's a problem with this. people are trying to stop trump, i see that ted cruz and marco rubio are trying to push trump farther away from reality. be our nextout to president, and they are trying to stop them. and that's not fair. they are creating all the situations. host: all right, israel, we hear

you. next caller's robin from louisville, kentucky on independent line. no ahead, robin. caller: one of the few things i wanted to put out there, a few points that some of your other callers touched on some. this man has let the fuse on a powder keg. the results will not be good. in to give all the candidates consideration, i believe donald trump is an oath in an empty suit. this popularity is the fault of the american media, he tries to me -- tries to play kingmaker. he's as lowbrow as the ataxia is made -- as the attacks he has made, and he is famous like madonna. brings coverage. he has a mr. controversy. and yet you guys keep following him up. thehe's done is exploit

needs of a people by promoting promises.g the more people should ask themselves questions. trump has disavowed david duke, but not ben carson, a black man who appears is involved in exclusionary elitists secret society. both of them are wrong. and once again, he lit the fuse on a powder keg. host: ok, robin. we have time for one more caller for the segment. and that will be david from flint, michigan on the democratic line. david, you have the last word. caller: good morning. i do like the violence happening , but i know everybody watched the violence they did to the black girl in kentucky. i know what i go to the circles of black people, i'm black. that's the talk of the city of

flint, how the trump people let those older guys my age were pushing that girl, hitting her in the back and he was hollering get her out of here. all of our races in the u.s. need more love. we need to come together. we need to understand -- i had a chance this summer to go to chicago, i had problems with my car and i stopped in a hispanic neighborhood. those people were so nice to me. otherou get to know people, you can open up and all this hatred and all this bigotry that in this country will leave once you get to know the other people. host: david, we will leave it on that note. coming up next, the pentagon admitted it deployed drones to spy over u.s. territory for nonmilitary missions. we are going to get reaction from the aclu's chris anders, and later on, daniel ikenson will join us. stay tuned.

i don't know, because i haven't come to that point yet. consider where we are today. compared to where we were four years ago. mitt romney had basically -- he didn't have the total delegate count, but he had pretty much sewn up the nomination at this .4 years ago. it was only really one contender against him, that was rick, who was last in the race. he really didn't have the money were the organization to go the distance, but he fought a valiant fight. this is a different situation. right now, as of this weekend, you will only have 100 delegates -- a little less, 99, think, separating donald trump and ted cruz. funds, heuz has the has the infrastructure across the country to go the distance. i think we could very well be on our way to a brokered convention, where the outcome may not be decided until july in cleveland, ohio.

>> i appreciate that. if i could follow up with this question -- assuming for a moment, that we get past the brokered convention and donald trump is the nominee, i think you said you had quite decided yet whether you would back him. >> really haven't pondered that, because i don't think that our only option. hardll am working very campaigning across the country for ted cruz. helping his candidacy. i'm not going to give blanket endorsements or words of support. if we came to that point, it would require sitting down with donald trump to see what his pathway forward was in terms of the supreme court. who would be vetting his judicial nominees, who would be his running mates, who would be involved in his cabinet, what type of policies we advocate? i'm not a lackey for the republican party. just because it's a republican

candidate, i'm not going to fall in line. it's got to be someone who is committed to the core values that we represent at the family research council, and i don't advocate evangelicals and christians not participating in the process, but i'm not going to back someone who would be adding to the moral or cultural decline of our country, regardless of what party they are in. host: that was tony perkins, president of the family research council, he is our guest on "newsmakers," this week. catch the show sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. us now is christopher anders, the senior legislative council for the american civil liberties union. he is here to talk with the pentagon's use of spy drones in the u.s.. good morning. guest: good morning. host: i wanted to start with this headline in "usa today," which says pentagon deployed spy drones over usa. that sounds pretty significant.

what exactly were they doing and how often were they doing it? guest: this was news to us. and inspector general's report that was completed by the defense department last year that went through all of the incidents since 2006 where drones were used over u.s. airspace. not drones in iraq or syria, this is drones right here in the united states being operated by the military. the military has about 11,000 drones, these are at least according to the report, all surveillance drones, that weren't armed. they are being used for surveillance. there were 20 incidents during this time where drones were being used by the military for civilian purposes. them, they through don't list out all of them, but they do give some of the examples, some of them look like search and rescue kinds of missions. some of them look like they were looking for fires, forest fires surveillance. there was one that was a request

that was rejected by the mayor of a town who asked for military drones to be used to search for potholes in the city. they actually considered it and rejected it. host: that might be the best use of a drones yet but i've heard. guest: really the most benevolent use. host: when you say surveillance missions, is there any indication that these drones are being used to actually monitor the behavior, the actions? guest: inspector general's report doesn't have anything in it leading to that conclusion. is -- itit does say does point out shortcomings in the program on how these things are approved. say -- there's a document that also is linked to in the "usa today," story this week that the defense department last year put out new guidelines

on how military drones will be used over the united states. it does require the secretary of defense to personally approve any such use, it says that no armed drones can be used over u.s. airspace except for testing and exercises. maybe asays -- which is sentence that should be disturbing to all of us, it says no military drones cannot be used to surveillance united unless approved by the secretary and authorized by law. host: so there's a loophole. loophole, and a especially when you contrast it with a clear statement that armed drones cannot be used in the united states except for testing and training, and then you contrast that with a statement saying that if authorized by the secretary and authorized by law, there could be spying on united states citizens. are there currently any

laws on the books that would open up that loophole to use my approval from the secretary of defense? butt: there shouldn't be, some of the protections that have been used historically to prevent the military from engaging in law enforcement in the united states are sometimes read by the military has riddled with loopholes and exceptions. the main law, passed in the 1800s, has become a really strong protection from u.s.-based of becoming a military state. -- from thely united states becoming a military state. it basically says the military cannot be used for law enforcement purposes domestic labor. so here in washington, d.c., the military can't be stopping cars, doing searches. it can't be catching people for alleged robberies or muggings or anything else.

they can't be serving law enforcement purposes. now, with the military has done with that though is something things they do in the united states are not actually law enforcement. there are places in the united states where the military has engaged in what most of us would consider law enforcement kind of operations particularly along the border. raises questions as to what kinds of protections americans actually have. we want to let our viewers know they can join in the conversation with chris anderson the aclu as well. we are dividing the phone lines up by again for this segment. ,emocrats, call (202) 748-8000 republicans, call (202) 748-8001 . independents, call (202) 748-8002. we are also reading your tweets, you can send us a tweet at @cspanwj.

our guest is christopher anders from the aclu. tell us a little about about the drones. he said armed drones are not allowed to fly over u.s. airspace. what are the drones that are allowed? guest: some of the drones are the same drones, whether they are armed or not armed. there are some drones that have the capacity to be armed and they also have the capacity to just have surveillance cameras on them. these are drones that have been used in iraq, afghanistan, other parts of the world. sometimes a surveillance drones, sometimes as armed drones. prettyacity though is intense. ,he ability of these drones they can fly for long times, and can hover in specific areas, which is one of the reasons the military uses them as providing advantage over traditional man to winged aircraft, they can

stay over particular area for hours at a time. and do their surveillance. the quality of the cameras and their surveillance has also increased dramatically. that's not a drones specific issue, you could do the same thing by helicopter. but the ability to -- if i have this be the -- this piece of paper outside, at least the heading could be read by the camera on a drone. host: how high up as this drone? would the average american know there's a drone above me? guest: we've met with people who lived under drones in places like yemen. they will talk about the constant buzz that they hear. these drones aren't that big. or 30 feet long, sometimes some of them are longer than that. but they can hear the buzz of

the drones. they actually can be, even at 1000 feet, difficult to see. host: here's the pentagon statement on domestic drone missions. since two thousand six the dod has had very specific and stringent guidance of the domestic use of unmanned aircraft systems, what they call drones. on rare occasion, they operate domestically in support of a request of federal, state, or civilian authorities. conducts these operations with approval of the secretary of defense. look at some phone calls and for our guest, crystal parameters of the aclu. gary is our first caller from portland, oregon on the democrat line. caller: i want to thank all of at the civil liberties union for the job that you do. my question is -- what percentage of these drones are on the border, the mix can,

compared to the rest of the united states -- the mexican border, compared to the rest of the united states? criticizedas been for being weak on immigration at the border, but a lot of this is excellent pretty strong. i think if he is enforcing it more than any other president he, and i would think that would be able to make sure that this was ok. was in control of these drones, would it make it any different? guest: those are some good questions. in terms of the border, it in the inspector general's report where these drones are being used, other than generically, there are a couple of talk about california. so you have some idea of where they are being used. but it doesn't go into border activities specifically. there are drones being used at

the border, surveillance drones. there often other parts of government, including the department of homeland security that uses drones. we don't know for sure which drones are being used at the border. we do know from the inspector general's report that that is not where the inspector general is finding them to be used. raiserder though does some very significant civil liberties issues. whatever you might think about immigration issues generally, and with the debate that's going this government, this administration has a very broad view of what border security means, and has a pretty minimal view of what civil liberties meme. -- mean, within a pretty broad area with emphasis to the border. that's both the southern border

and the northern border. if you were in those areas that are near the border with canada or with mexico, your civil liberties are diminished and your chances of being stopped by ice and otherand related immigration services is pretty high. and then, of course, with additional surveillance coming from the air, that does raise additional concerns. host: i want to be clear on the 20 missions that were included or roughly 20 missions that were included in this. agency, state, federal, etc., that must use a drone have to seek the permission of the secretary of defense? guest: this is for the use of military drones. so the department of agriculture, you don't need permission. guest: not from the secretary of defense.

there are other regulatory agencies, certainly the faa has control over civilian airspace. the faa has been struggling for a long time with this question of how to regular drones and airspace. there are significant safety issues, which is referenced in the inspector general's report with these military drones, they are very large compared to most drones that other people, certainly there used commercially. so being able to transport the drones from a military base across the united states to a war zone is something that requires faa notifications. women, arms of safety drone is not equipped with the same kind of safety clement that an airliner is equipped with. in terms of avoidance for accidents. for another area of concern both the defense department and

the faa. the same kinds of issues come up in civilian use of drones, whether by private persons or by government entities. if a government agency requests to use a military drone, who operates it? guest: for military drone, it should be -- doesn't distinguish that in this inspector general's report out of the military drones are generally run and piloted by military pilots. that is taken place in terms of overseas, where we had armed use of drones, where the orders are coming to fire the drone from the cia, even though those are considered a cia operation, the actual drone is almost always an air force drone in the pilot is remote pilot, of course. these are drones, so they are

not mandatory but the person is still call the pilot. the pilot is an air force pilot. host: get a few more calls and now. sal from california is on the independent line. good morning. i completely agree that we shouldn't be flying any drones over any american cities, ever. i think that is completely to the all fairness citizens of this country. the other thing i wanted to ask was is there any objection to fly the drones -- and get her to say flying drones over the , affect the civil liberties. we talking about the civil liberties of illegal immigrants or americans? that is kind of a wasteland there. thirdly, this american civil liberties organization is funded from outside sources, specifically, do you receive any money from george soros or any other groups linked to george soros?

thank you, c-span for everything you do. guest: a couple of different questions there. to start out with flying drones over interstate cities and other places, there are obviously surveillance concerns, privacy concerns about that. there are safety concerns have been raised by many. , i thinkn area where with drones commit similar to other areas. similar to cell phones and location tracking that can be attached to cell phones. the use of e-mail and other places. our technology in many places has gotten ahead of our laws and our capacity as a country to keep some of these technologies in check. i think that's one of the things that comes through with this inspector general's report. these particular incidents might be one that don't raise a lot of concerns about surveillance and civil liberties, but what they

do give you is a sense of the power of that the military has if they want to make use of it, to really invade private spaces that we all take for granted as being private spaces. they can do that very easily without us knowing that you read in terms of -- the second question was the aclu's own funding. fundingt most of our from individual contributors, we get no government funding whatsoever. never have, never will. and would reject it if offered. we do get some foundation money, including foundation money from the open society foundation, which is funded largely by george soros. who has funded a number of around thefforts world to protect civil liberties and civil rights. host: next up come on the

republican line, luanne is calling. that morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't know if you are familiar with what's going on in oregon with the mondays -- with the bundy's. but drones were used there all the time. roadblock to stop them from going. drones were used. we were told by a police officer there was a drone to hundred , and onee the other was full of ammunition. we have heard. the trouble of it is -- the truth is coming out these drones, they're going to be used about the american people. in burns oregon, january 8, they hope toote mine yellowcake uranium from the southeast high desert. this is such a cover-up. you are drones against the american people.

and this is scary. we don't have sanders here in oregon that wants to protect the land or the people. what can we do to protect ourselves against this? it's going on only in oregon, but in other parts of the state. thank you for taking my call. host: all right, luanne. christopher anders. guest: this point that a lot of the concern that out there in the country. don't know ways, we exactly what's happening. we don't know what's real and what's not real. in part, the reason we don't know that is because there hasn't been much oversight over drones. whether it's surveillance drones were armed drones, drones being used in the united states are drones being used overseas. the fact that here we have an inspector general's report, not a very long report, to be year to get this report out. it was completed a year ago. there is nothing in it in terms of the actual incidents that's overly damming of what the defense department was doing, but it also leads us to believe that the action don't know what

it is they are doing. even with the secretary of defense making these approvals, we don't know how he's making these approvals. and what the criteria are. thelso don't know what exception of this really silly example of a mayor looking for potholes to be found by a drone -- we don't know what's been requested and rejected either. but one of the things you mentioned, you mentioned members of congress, oregon has actually two of the senators we are most interested in and the issues of drones. particularly interested in more oversight over them. , veryount of oversight little oversight that been done with drones both domestic and internationally is amazing that we have this big program, with this new use of technology that has been around for 7, 8, 9 years in a fairly big way. the united states senate has

exactly one hearing ever dedicated to those overseas use of drones, armed drones. there have been no hearings dedicated to the use of surveillance drones in the united states senate, ever. closed-door hearings are classified hearings are places like that where there could be some oversight -- in terms of engaging the public in a discussion about how this new technology is affecting our lives in terms of civil liberties, our life in terms of safety and security -- those kinds of discussions are taking place. meanwhile, we ask that have this encouraging of this big new technology nor lives and into places where law enforcement generally has been using other tools and tactics. it might be, at the end of the day, we are more couple with some of those places where it's being used. a drone being used to pinpoints where forest fire is is probably a much better idea than sending

a pilot in a small plane out to pinpoint that fire. but it's a very different thing when you are talking about using drones as part of law enforcement operation. host: i want to ask you about something you just brought up, which is the use of armed drones overseas, particularly as we look to battle isis and al qaeda . as another report in usa today this week that said the white house is going to release its first ever accounting of drone strike casualties. what do we know so far about how many people have been killed in lethal drone attacks? guest: we know very little in terms of actual information out of her own government. we have information that has been compiled by people who have been on the ground, by reporters and journalists. the closest we know of a real number is senator lindsey graham on the senate armed services

committee about three years ago during the confirmation hearing for john brennan to be cia director, that the roma's 5000 people who would been killed by u.s. drones overseas. that number matched up with some numbers that were coming out of different journalists organizations. the president's counterterrorist advisor last week that the white house will be releasing the actual numbers of casualties, i believe they will also be breaking down between combatant and noncombatant. host: 5000, is that militants are does that include everyone? guest: i think they're going to be breaking it down between what they are viewing as combatants and noncombatants. of it theyre, a lot don't know who these people actually are. they almost mean an additional category with a question mark next to it.

three years ago during the confirmation hearing for john brennan to be cia director, you thedianne feinstein in chairman of the senate intelligence facility seeing their were no civil in from the drone program. which would have met at that time, 5000 people have been killed by the united states and a single one of them was a mistake. we know that's not true. everyone knows that's not true. feinsteinen senator started to back away from that statement. but that's the kind of misinformation that was being put out. it was probably being put out to her by the intelligence community. they could be doing that because this drug program, whether it's to mystically or overseas, is wrapped in so much secrecy conga -- so much secrecy, congress has shown so little effort to engage the american people in this conversation about what this technology means, where we should be using it, how we should be using it, that we don't even know basic questions

like how many people are being killed and were these people being targeted or were these people who were being killed wrongly for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or civilly by mistake. next caller from san diego, california. ralph is on the democratic line. caller: good morning. one of your callers asked where your money comes from, some of your money comes from me every year. i'm a big supporter of the aclu. guest: thank you. caller: i'm also a member of the nra. i'm for all of our freedoms of people who represented. i'm 17 miles from the mexican border, i've seen military drones, but we also have a lot of military bases here. i do know what they are doing. but my bigger concern, because drones are just taking my picture, that's ok. just like google does when they drive down my street. my concern is the other planes that are spraying the air and leaving with a common word is geo engineering, chem trails.

i've written my countrymen and senators, always get some generic answer back. they don't really admit to what's going on. but we see the spraying going on, and then they are changing the actual temperature here in san diego county. we have total cloud coverage and from my understanding, they are injecting particles into the air. what isparticles, and the aclu doing about this. don't tell me you haven't seen this. guest: i am personally far from the border here in washington, d.c., and i asked the don't know. this is the first time i personally have heard about it. i don't know whether the aclu has been engaged. the aclu is organized as a national organization, the national aclu. we also have an affiliate with paid staff in every state in the country. in california, we actually have

not just one state affiliate, we have three. including one in san diego. contact then is to aclu of san diego with that question, and they have a very big focus on the border and border issues and protecting the civil liberties of people who are living, working, and traveling through the border areas, whether you are a citizen or not a citizen. when you're in the united states, you have the protection of the constitution. and the protection of the constitution applies at the border to. i think there's been a big impact in places like san diego, places along the southern border. it's the northern border to. there's a story that senator , whererom vermont tells he was in his car with his wife, from thebout an hour

canadian border near his home in vermont. he was stopped by border patrol agent for basically what seemed like random questioning. apparently he asked the border patrol agent what authority you stopping me under, and the border patrol agent pointed to his gun and said this is all the authority i need. is emblematic of the concern that we have about what's happening at the border. it is something that has turned the a zone where department: security and other government agencies have this and that civil liberties the protection of the constitution don't apply there for some reason. just that physical very narrow border that extends out dozens of miles into united states, states the border than other -- the northern and

southern borders. host: the next caller, joaquin from washington. caller: good morning. i don't believe our government is interested in our safety. it's ea saying mrs. 57 of 60 fake weapons and bombs. there are 13 million potential terrorists that are legal in this country, which are government allows to be here. the drones over this country have been -- it's legal to have them nonlethal he armed. in midwest eight said as long as they carry tasers or chemicals like pepper spray, they are perfectly legal. as far as i'm concerned, drones create more terrorists than they kill. this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy for the military. approximately 90% of the people killed by drones are perfectly innocent. when people come to blow up this country, maybe it's their cousin that was killed.

the government is not interested in our safety. it's a fascist government and i don't believe there isn't even a constitution and the state any longer. i will answer off-line. up an interest in quite, which is the accuracy of lethal drone attacks. part, they have been a big of our campaign against terrorism. but is there a trade-off that we are making? guest: i think there is. one of the problems is even just as a technical matter, and an operational matter is that when these drones are being used away from truthful battlefields and ,laces like yemen or somalia they are often being used in places where the united states has very poor intelligence. intelligence might be gathered by surveillance drones. or sometimes some help from the ground. the united states very often has very little idea of who these people actually are or who they are targeting. there are some really terrific

mistakes that have been -- horrific mistakes that have been document it caused by drones, where people have been killed who had nothing to do whatsoever with terrorism. as the caller said -- host: an accurate strike on inaccurate intelligence. guest: it can be. but the really big problem. the only time that there was a hearing on the drone issue in hearing, was open in the senate judiciary committee a couple of years ago. one of the witnesses there was a democracy activist from yemen who talked about how the u.s. use of drones was turning the people in yemen away from the united states, and towards al qaeda of the arabian peninsula. it's having the exact opposite effect of what we were trying to accomplish. the reason for that was it was

creating an environment of , including inn very remote villages where people were living under this reign of terror, with a could constantly hear the drone. i think it's one of the questions that really needs to be addressed as a country. we really haven't had that conversation. what is it that we are gaining by the use of this technology? what are we gaining with this use of technology to kill people far away from any battlefield with weapons that are manned by people who might be sitting in a booth in nevada while the drone is being fired literally on the other side of the world. and what is it that we are gaining and what is it that we are losing? our reaction to gaining new security and better security for the united states? or is that security worsening?

we have the advantage technologically right now over most of the rest of the world. and theg these drones ability to use them. but the rest of the world is catching up. other countries now have drones. we are rules that basically making up as we go along for ourselves are rules that other countries are going to be following too. if we think these rules are good enough for us, we think there are also rules that other countries, whether it's russia or china or other countries that had significant military capacity to be using against their neighbors and their allies. host: the next caller is conrad from ocala, florida. caller: i would like to ask a question of the gentleman was just saying the drones cannot be used to help assist police officers and the fbi. when to the police department and said we have reports of you might have some guy who's going to blow up the

police department, good they call the military and asked them can we use spy drones to help us assist us in this operation? i was just wondering, it is american money that pays for the drones, those drones should be used to fight crime inside united states, not only outside. if you are not doing anything you don't have no business doing, you should have no problem with the drones. if a drone is following a young man and says this guy in the car has in hand grenades, but since this is not a military operation, we cannot arrest them because this drone is not a police officer. shouldn't it be used to help the police officers fight crime from the air? court do you think and be turned down of the police department asked for military help. we need three drones in arizona, because we have a terrorist plot , and american terrorism plot, not terrorists from somewhere else.

got it, conrad. we hear your question. let's take one more caller from also ocala, florida. george on the independent line. caller: hello, excuse me. tv, onetiest girl on question. conrad isll, absolutely correct. common sense. to go into over analytical mumbo-jumbo. but here's the big question. i don't know if he was using drones or whatever, but what is your take on this hillary clinton giving out civil across national borders, international borders. we think that she has given out national secrets across the world. on for see you taking instance, left-wing subversive extremist groups, or communist

groups. but forget about that. can you just answer me what should be done with this hillary clinton investigation, please? host: george, we hear you. guest: i guess with the first caller's question about if we have these military drones here and there is a crime going on, why shouldn't we just use the military drones to help solve the crime. it's a question the united states wrestled with over 150 years ago. thatcided as a country will want to become a military state. we don't want military police running the streets, we don't has an the military important role in the united states in protecting us against attacks from outside. and we don't want within the united states to have the military running our law enforcement.

become a separation between the role of the military and the role of to messick law enforcement. i think it's afford to the safety of americans. -- the role of domestic law enforcement. the military is trained for bowel overseas. that's a very different way that they are trained that our police , state and local police are. to protect americans here at home and carry out law-enforcement activities. so there is this break between the two. there are places where law enforcement resources are even with be used, the act that says it can be used for law enforcement. where there are special needs, such as during a natural disaster, where can be used not

for law enforcement, but to help , or the cause of the fire help put out a fire or locate a ship that has gone missing. if ank in terms of particular area or particular state or city sees what they believe is a need for additional surveillance cameras, for the use of drones, rather than turning to the military for that, they should be making their own decision about whether they want to be doing that there at home. the aclu says it's generally a bad idea. but that's a question that should be addressed at the state and local level, and not turned to the military to say we want you to come in. in terms of the investigation of hillary clinton females, at this point, i don't think that there is a civil liberties issue that

i see they are one way or the other, certainly the investigation that she and her campaign are dealing with. at this point, i'm not sure if i see anything there that civil liberties issue at this point. host: the next caller is roger from alabama on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. a question for that fella. he said that guy was an hour away from the border and the border patrol pulled him over to check as a border patrol does. i have crossed both borders hundreds of times. it's always been that way. he's acting like it's something new. it isn't new. they've always done that. i don't know where he lives, but our law enforcement does that to you here. pulls you over for anything. what kind of white bread world is he living in? i don't know, but it's not the real world. that happens everywhere, grow up. what's the difference in a

helicopter warplane flying over looking for marijuana and chasing criminals than a drone doing it? there's a difference. theou're saying if military, its military pilots or at least retired military pilots that are flying all of those things that are going over now. y'all are complaining about nonissues. the things that are important in this country, you don't even care. ok, thank you. i think it's important, and i think is a country, we view it as important to keep the military in its role of protecting the country from attack. and not letting that power that the military has bleed into operations internally within the united states and law enforcement. there are lots of good reasons to do that. including that the military operates by chain of command that goes from the president on down. it's not a matter of local control, it's a matter of chain of command that extends from the

president down to a private. implicates civil liberties, it implicates protections that people have. trainingheer amount of that law enforcement gats to operates and carry out their duties domestically for law enforcement is very different from the training that a military pilot would get, or any kind of military officer or list a person gets. all of their training is really geared towards their roles in supporting or carrying out combat missions overseas. host: last caller for the segment will be rob from west virginia on the republican line. go ahead. caller: i just think the current legislation is too broad. i think it should be more specific to exposing terrorism

and national security. guest: i think this is really kind of the big question that you hit on, which is our technology has really exploded in ways that have been often times very beneficial for the united states and for american citizens. but our laws really haven't kept up with that. and so across all the areas of technological developments, we have laws that are sometimes 20, 30 years old that are being applied. sometimes much older than that. to how laws that apply cell phones are dealt with how the internet is still with that were written in a time when the internet didn't even exist. and then we are trying to use those laws to apply to the technology that we have now and provide the same level of civil liberties protections, same

level of privacy protections that americans have provisionally -- traditionally enjoyed prior to the vulnerable these technologies. it really does require some real conversations and hearings and oversights and eventually new legislation to make sure we are able to keep the privacy protections been american citizens have always enjoyed even as this new technology has developed. host: the senior legislative counsel for the aclu. thank you for being here. we will talk to daniel ikenson about the issue of trade and how it is playing out. later on, the passing of nancy reagan. a renewed focus on alzheimer's disease. we will talk to the program director at the nih's national institute of aging. she was laid to rest yesterday

in the presidential library in simi valley, california. during the service, her son had this to say. >> my father was confident but not an arrogant man. of hoos a great deal tspah to run for president or governor of california. him that. in him gave i do not know you would have done it otherwise. my mother provided the encouragement he needed and guided him. she provided a refuge into which he could repair and gather his strength. she guarded his privacy and protected him. both possessed great individual talents. as a couple, they were more than the sum of their parts. it would be a mistake to consider her as subordinate to

him because he was the one usually taking center stage. they were co-equals, they complemented one another. individually, they may have gone far, but together they could and did go anywhere. my father was inclined to believe that everyone was basically good and that certainly, anyone who worked for him, was pure of heart and could never be nursing a private agenda. my mother did not share that inclination. [laughter] she did not have that luxury. in her world, you are either helpful to her husband or you are not. we all know what site of the equation you would want to be on. since we are among friends, i think we can admit she was not always the easiest person to deal with. she could be difficult. she could be demanding.

she could be a bit obsessive. she could be a royal pain in the ass when she wanted to be. usually, only so, so my father did not have to be. you did not want to get on mom's at sign, particularly why hurting her husband. if you did that, you would earn yourself a foe. happen to run into the ghost of don regan, you can ask him. host: our guest is daniel ikenson, the trade policy studies director at the cato institute. thank you for being here. guest: my pleasure. host: take us -- tell us about your stance on free trade. where do you see it? guest: the mission for center of trade policy is to inform the public and policymakers about the benefits of free trade and the costs of protectionism. a lot of institutions in

washington that say they are for free trade, what they really mean is free-trade over there, opening export markets, open export markets keep ours closed. we recognize the benefits of trade liberalization, on the import side, what you can consume without having to produce that stimulates the economy. ,he choices consumers are given the price competition and innovation that inspires. that is how the benefits of trade are manifested. is the flipside, in trade negotiations, i like to say the foreign negotiators are my best friends. for tried to open up the u.s. markets and get rid of terrorists that are taxes on americans, trying to open up our procurement markets to foreign competition. that is good for us. our take is different, more of a classic take. agreementshink trade are free-trade.

they are managed trade agreements but it does not mean we oppose them. isis moving us -- if it moving us incrementally in the right direction and the positives outweigh the negatives. written on the cato website that many of the republican and democratic presidential campaigns -- candidates do not see in the way you do. a commentary piece with the headline why candidates prefer bashing trade to kissing babies. why did you title it that? best: kissing babies used to the way to win the affections of the electric, during primary favorable seems to be to bash trade, and great -- and immigration. comerimary voters tend to from the extremes of the parties and on the extremes are rampant anti-trade and anti-globalization and anticorporate sentiments. among republicans, there is a

tendency to engage in nationalism and xenophobia. on the left, anti-corporate, prolabor, proenvironment sentiment and it resonates with the electorate. not new this year. in previous elections, we have seen is, hillary clinton and barack obama were going for the nomination in 2008, they were tripping over one another to see who would reopen the nafta, our wto agreements to make it fairer for americans. it is not new, what is different this go around is the tenor is more strident. there isn't anybody really taking the other side. you would expect republicans to point out the benefits of trade to some extent. i imagine that will happen once the nominations are wrapped up. the general, there is a pivot toward the center.

i would imagine the rhetoric will be toned down. host: have you seen a shift within the republican party from stronger support of free trade to less now, as evidenced by rhetoric we have been seeing lately? guest: in u.s. history, from the civil war, until 1934, republicans were the protectionists. the terrorists is the mother of the trust, big business did not want competition from abroad and democrats approved -- after the war, a bipartisan consensus emerged and that persisted until the time of the nafta vote in the early 1990's. the democratic party has become much more skeptical of trade and republicans have embraced it. dirge -- during george w. bush's tenure, past many bilateral trade agreements with reports -- support from republicans and few democrats.

,f you look at the polling data people who identify with the democratic party tend to have more favorable views portrayed -- toward trade. people with the republican party, find fault with trade or are becoming increasingly skeptical. i am not sure why that is. if it is the association with lower educated, former manufacturing workers who are upset about the impact of the trade agreements and outsourcing. looking for some sort of bludgeon. we need more trade liberalization, nothing we can do to go back to the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's. we need to allow this creative destruction to take hold. if we impose trade barriers, demonize foreign investment, it will slow the process. host: here are a few comments

from the campaign trail. donald trump spoke at a recent debate and he said the u.s. has lost out on every trade deal i have ever made. we doump: every country business with, we are getting crushed on trade. he said free trade, i say, free-trade great, but not when they are beating us, with china we are going to lose $505 billion in terms of trades, you cannot do it. mexico, $58 billion. $109, probably about billion. every country we lose money with. .e have to reduce redo our trade deals 100%. i have the greatest business people in the world lined up to do it. we will make great trade deals. underlying problem with his view is that he thinks

of trade as an us versus them proposition. a team sport, team usa against team china or team mexico. exportsare team usa and are the foreign teams. and we have a deficit, it means we are losing a trade because the foreign team is cheating. that is the wrong way to think about trade. countries do not trade come individuals are trying to optimize value who engage in transactions. notion thathat, the we are losing the deficit. deficits intrade the united states for 41 straight years. grew,f that, the economy more and more jobs, between 1983 and 2007, that 25 years before the great recession, the trade deficit increased fourfold and

imports increased are medically in real terms. 1.8 million net new jobs per year. that engine seems to have broken down. -- more friction in the labor market. i do not attribute that to trade, that is a function of what is happening with domestic policy, regulations, taxes, impediments to investments. we need to revisit how the economy works. we need to liberalize in a variety of other areas to reduce red tape and the hurdle cost of starting a business. host: we are taking your phone calls, if you have a question or comment for daniel ikenson you can call us, democratic line 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independence, 202-748-8002. taking your tweets, our handle

is @cspanwj. our first caller is john from rapid city, south dakota. go ahead. are you there? caller: yes, hello. host: go ahead. caller: i would like -- my question is -- i would like your ofst to speak to the voice ex-president eisenhower, when he left office, he asked the world not to escalate the military industrial complex. it seems no one listens. even john f. kennedy followed up with that. in -- how do you put it -- he was -- it was not a

good thing this was destroyed. there has been a lot of chaos over the world. i would imagine that america armaments toot many places in the world. arabiawe helped saudi with airplanes, infrastructure, president makes an winter. i do not -- president nixon went there. paid inyou will not get gold, you will take our dollars. i wonder what does back our dollar. guest: i found a reference to president eisenhower's parting words about beware of the military-industrial complex, it resonates with me. it does not have a lot to do

with trade policy. although, presidents and general , regardless of party, have embraced trade liberalization over the years. interestingly, now, president obama, a democrat who is swimming against the tide of democrats in congress, having a difficult time to convince them to support the transpacific partnership. over the years, presidents from both parties have supported it. the reason is because trade policy is viewed by them as an adjunct of foreign policy. there is a relationship between this military-industrial complex, geopolitics, and trade. with respect to trade, we need to remain open. the only way is for the u.s. economy to grow and for the rest of the world to grow, which is in our best interest, is to remain open. host: elizabeth in pennsylvania, democrat line. caller: he made a statement that

said, what we consume is important, not what we produce, i would like for him to expand on that. on the macroeconomic level i can understand but explain on a consume if ii can am not producing, i need to produce in order to have goods to trade and consume. you mention creative destruction, i would like your opinion, the anger we are seen among the population. could that be a result of the creative destruction that you talked about earlier. one final point, you mentioned regulations and taxation and that is what is causing the issue. i have a question about that, if we reduced all taxes 204 corporations, took away all the regulations, do you think that would convince the business world to pay a living wage?

guest: excellent questions. all of them. , will ask you to think about when you go to the grocery store, or to the hardware store, you want to maximize the amount of product you can purchase with a given dollar appeared you want to part with as few dollars as possible to purchase your products. the same applies in trade. there is something called the terms of trade, which is how much import value a unit of export can purchase for you. exports are the things we produce and do not get to consume, imports are the things we get to consume without having to produce. it does not mean we are not producing. when we run a trade deficit because americans are purchasing more from foreigners than they are selling, we are running a capital account surplus, investment coming into the united states from abroad, either in equity investment or indirect investment in manufacturing plants, or

corporate debt or government debt. each of those forms of investment create value. purchasing government debt is the worst -- the least efficient way of doing it. the economy has continued to grow and expand despite these trade deficits which you just --t we do not need to export if we run a trade deficit, it does not mean we are not producing enough. we produce and consume it here. that -- this myth nationalding of -- the income identity, where output is equal to be -- is disposed of by the assumption, government spending, business spending, or m,orting, then we see minus where imports are subtracted and he gives people the thought that -- the reason imports are subtracted is because they are indebted and what we consume,

what businesses and government consumes and what we export. there is a lot of misunderstanding. creative destruction is about creating the opportunity. envisioned 20 not years ago, perhaps by anybody other than steve jobs. there are breakthroughs in technology enabled when resources are freed up from old ways of doing things. i understand the angst and concerns people have when they lose their job, we need to find a way to make it more frictionless for new businesses to arrive in their place. history has been propelled by this creative dynamism. , i am notregulations saying we should have zero taxes or zero regulation, i think there is a lot of superfluous regulation that does not serve any purpose other than a political purpose. it does not help achieve safety

or health outcomes, it is an extra cost. we need to revisit that and president obama has expressed interest in doing that. the epa and other regular three agencies have not gotten around to doing what he asked them to do. i am not saying no taxes. few trillion dollars parked overseas because corporations do not want to bring them back to face a second set of taxation's. we should do something about that. that money could be used to invest in new industries here in the united states. we need to examine our policies. host: about creative destruction, i think some of the concern is that a new industry -- the new industries that are now cropping up to replace the old manufacturing industries that the country once relied on, do not employ as many people as the old-line industries, and not as many in the united states as some of the industries once did.

here is bernie sanders speaking on the campaign trail earlier this week, at a cnn presidential debate, he talked about the impact of jobs. senator sanders: nafta, supported by the secretary, causes it hundred thousand jobs nationwide and tens of thousands of jobs in the midwest, permanent normal trade relations with china cost us jobs. i was on a picket line in the early 1990's against nafta because you did not need a phd in economics to understand that american workers should not be forced to compete against people in mexico making $.25 an hour. [applause] reason i was one of the first, not one of the last, to be in opposition to the tpp, is that american workers should not be forced to compete against , makingn vietnam today

a minimum wage today of $.65 an hour. of senatorhe heart sanders'argument, is the idea that lower prices for consumers versus a job is a no-brainer. we should be able to forgo lower prices because it is better to have a job. i understand that argument. however, what is lost in the equation is that when consumers are paying lower prices for a particular product, it is not just that they are benefiting that they can expand their budgets, but there is more resources available for them to you to save, or to purchase other products in other industries. support newgoes to industries or other industries. the numbers that are cited with respect to job losses during -- as a result of trade agreements are very much blown out of proportion. what are we trying to do?

we are trying to increase gdp, increased value, there are two different objectives we are conflating. one is, you want to create value, or do you want a jobs program? you can have five people on the assembly line, on the production line to make a ton of steel, most efficiently, but if you wanted to be a jobs program you can put 10 people or 20 people on the line. theirave jobs but this is opportunity costs, they could be working in another industry, adding value. we have a problem with this -- how people are getting retrained and the pace of technology is such that when you acquire new skills, there are most redundant pretty quickly. i think we need to have producers and manufacturers incentivize to have a program where they hire people to train them. they will pay them to train them in exchange for some sort of commitment to work.

host: next caller is tony from connecticut on the independent line. go ahead, tony. tony? you are on the air. caller: this is oregon calling. host: you are from oregon? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: my name is john. host: we have a different phone system this morning, i apologize. caller: that is ok, it threw me for a loop when it rang through and i did not get the screener. i have been listening to the discussion. with all that aside, thank you for the discussion. i would like to ask the manufacturing and consumption, i will try to keep this real simple for you. something as simple as an oreo cookie.

nabisco announced they are moving the factory that used to make oreo cookies here in america out of the country. those workers used to be manufacturing oreo cookies. they will not have a job. so they will no longer have the money to consume those oreo cookies that they used to make. please explain how that is good for this nation. thank you. guest: look, what you see in this situation is becoming moving operations abroad. what you do not see is this company saving money, reinvesting in other u.s. operations, or providing products at lower prices, which are then sold in the united states and elsewhere. most of this outsourcing, 90% of the output of u.s. companies that manufacture abroad is sold abroad, not shipped back to the united states.

, out is this sense that sources or shipping jobs abroad means taking down a factory in raptor,est, rafter by both by bolt, and reassembling it in mexico or china. that is not what happens, 90% of the time it is a reduction -- production for other markets. companies that outsource tend to be the same companies that expand production in the united states. i have looked at a lot of data points. there is a fairly positive relationship between h managers of companies -- capital expenditures of companies. the research and development at home and abroad and their complement your he. --t's complement during complementrt, y.

for the job growth in the united states happens, we have a federalist system, where we have states competing with very is policies. maybe the policies that have been adopted in the south, with right to work states, where the regulatory and tax environment is less onerous for business, a lot of investment there and jobs are going there. maybe the midwest, maybe they need to learn from the other states, what policies work and which do not. what you don't see, to finish the metaphor, are the new jobs that are going to be created as a result of the savings from producing part of the operation abroad. oreo cookies are not all that simple. a lot of ingredients in oreo cookies. that are exchange and a lot of international trade. with respect to the sugar, saccharine, chocolate. host: laguna hills, california,

thomas, democratic line. we are looking at steve from florida on the republican line. caller: yes. carrier -- thee 2100 carrier employees, first ball carrier reduce their rates they charge for air conditioners, or whether company complement desk profits increase and what will be 2100 employees realistically be retrained for? tradericardo, dr. of free , free trade is based on comparative advantage, i grow oranges in florida, i move them to washington, they send me apples, what comparative advantage does china and mexico have except low slave labor safetyno environmental

or lady -- labor safety measures. company.n example of a the iphone, 1.2 million employees in china, 47,000, mostly salesman for apple iphones in america. tell me how that will benefit america, and tell me what the rust belt people are realistically supposed to do? you can talk about data points, but it is gobbledygook and you know what is going on and i think that is why mr. trump will be president. host: that is steve from florida. this recent study that was cited in a wall street journal story, the study is called the china shock, learning from the liquor mart just the labor market adjustment to large changes in trade. it it -- is found exposed workers, exposed to free-trade agreements, experience greater

job training and reduced lifetime income at a national level, and placement has fallen in u.s. industry, more exposed to import competition but offsetting employment gains and other industries have yet to materialize. related to the caller's point about what happens to jobs in an hasronment where free-trade caused many of them to move to other parts of the world. guest: i do not think free-trade is to blame for this. technology, i mentioned the iphone, has supplanted more jobs than trade has. the productivity gains, adapting we do not need as many workers than we did before, a fundamental problem. frictiono reduce the that make it more difficult for people to get retrained and to have places to be employed. we need more and more investment

in the united states. one thing that is overlooked in the debate, if the united states has no advantages, no comparative advantage, why are we the world's number one magnet for we have over a trillion dollars invested in the manufacturing sector. this idea that there is a race to the bottom, that investment will flow to countries with standards is really nonsense. are outsourced. functions that we should not be outperforming in the united states anymore. in environments where there are the labor standards and wages, the cost of production tends to be high. the workers are not as efficient, and the products are shoddier. our competitive advantage is not in just products anymore.

i look at competitive advantage as not an advantage in producing particular products, it is a function on the global power .hain the u.s. economy is at the top of the u.s. global power chain. we do a lot of the higher end manufacturing. for low-endt manufacturing in other countries, in order to produce something ultimately. -- aloptimally. we should not demonize trade. you know, kodak, in upstate new york used to employ a lot of people, but no one buys film anymore. is that because of trade or technology? you don't hear trump railing , medicalevices devices, and also the products that make our lives better. we need to continue to move

forward, and find ways to eliminate these frictions in the labor market. host: our next caller is finally thomas from california. thank you for your patience. i have all the patients in the world. can you hear me? host: we can hear you. caller: there are couple of problems. to keep your costs down, you have to have extremely high volume. you cannot let someone make a thousand pieces in the united states, and someone somewhere else make 50,000 pieces an hour. up, has to tolol automation, and have high volume. second of all, the prisons are overloaded. you could pay the national debt if the prison was empty. if you are going to keep on doing what you are doing, then the united states is going to end up where?

if you brought all the soldiers from the military home, and everybody from the prisons home, where would they find a job? host: we hear you. let's pick up one more caller, and we will let our guest respond. mike from michigan is on the line. i am really concerned with my children, and their children, and my grandchildren, with trying to find a job after , and gained college such good skills, then they go to this computer factory, and work for two years. then, all of a sudden, they china.they will go to

what do we do to keep our businesses here? we don't have $.65 an hour being paid for workers, but how do we keep our businesses here? thanks. excellent question from both colors. cost, youo reduce need to have a big raise, a big production base. you need to achieve economies of scale. the arguments for trade liberalization. the purpose of tearing down barriers is so that you have larger markets and a larger base over which to divide functions. oppose new trade agreements, we are saying, we want to limit the market over which we can spread these costs. you're making a case for trade liberalization, and i agree with you.

on keeping companies in the u.s., i think that global competition, even in trade policy, is not about eating export market access. we are in and in a national competition for investment. every country is trying to attract investment because that is what creates value, jobs, and the united states is still the number one destination for foreign investment. in the year 2000, we counted for 39% of global inflows, or stock. now we are down to about 17%. part of that is because the rest of the world is coming online, they have rule of law, they were skills, bigger markets. part of it is that companies here in the united states are -- the government here

in the united states is chasing companies away. these policymakers need to recognize that companies have choices, they can go wherever they want. we have to recognize we're competing with the rest of the world, and we need sensible policies. we are still caught in the old paradigm. we need to really have some more open-mindedness about how to grow the economy. host: we barely even talked about the transpacific partnership so far. update as on the status of this trade deal, and its likelihood of getting past. guest: it is looking doubtful at the moment. interestingly, this is an agreement with 12 countries. it was negotiate for about six years. it was signed about a month or ago.

it has to be ratified by congress. the international trade commission needs to publish a report that identifies the of agreement,osts and a variety of things before congress discusses it. it appears the leadership is adverse to discuss cap before the election. president obama, in my opinion, had a bit of an uphill battle here in the sense that he is a democratic president, democrats opposed to are pose trade. he needs some democratic support to make him feel good about the deal. the deal could have gone through without much democratic support, but at the end of the negotiations, there were some provisions that were a bit of a slight to the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry.

the provisions that were put into the agreement have alienated, to some extent, orrin hatch, mitch mcconnell, two of the most important senders, with respect to trade. i think president obama did that to try to woo some democratic support. i don't think he picked up any democratic support, but he pushed it away. ironically, i think this deal ifld pass in a heartbeat hillary clinton were to come out and endorse it, which is something i can she will do, if and when she becomes president. she will reopen the agreement, tweak it, and say, now i am happy. host: you say she would only do that if she were to become president in november. on the campaign trail, she is sounding a different tune. guest: i think she is following

sanders' at a trade position -- anti-trade position. she was an architect of the tpp. i'm convinced that she will change her mind. the president recognizes the .mportance of these agreements as secretary of state, this is part of foreign policy. view i have a very cynical of her approach, but she could endorse the agreement, get it passed, but she's not going to do that. she is the beneficiary of that because she knows if she does not endorse it, it is pushed into the next the administration, she is president, and it is her deal, her legacy. host: we have lee on the line, go ahead. caller: i have a question for you.

trade abroad would bring more money to the company's. that does not say they will invest in us. are they just going to build another plant their? the reason that people have so much turmoil and unrest is because you took wages of $15-$20 an hour, down to five dollars an hour. i watched yesterday when they -- even you are speaking about hillary clinton p she is not the president yet. what happens if they find someone with her, and invite her. willurse, president obama harden her. they will be stuck with her anyhow. if companiessay -- keep money overseas, they will invest overseas and another

plant. host: we got your question. guest: the evidence o suggests there is a positive relationship between and best the abroad an investment at home . when a u.s. multinational purchases a plant, or expand the plant, or establishes a presence in a foreign market, there is more activity at home. whether it is because the home operation needs to broaden it , or in recognizing there will be savings in producing a highly labor-intensive product or some function on the supply chain that is better done abroad, that savings could -- i'm not saying they always do -- could be used to reinvest in production capacity at home. it could be used to return dollars to shareholders who then used to invest in other

companies. it is this whole idea, and i mention this a few times, what is seen and what is not seen. what you see is a plant closing and moving abroad. what you don't see is what or year fromonths now. the positive consequences are disseminated. heard anye you support for tpp or for free trade more broadly from any of the president? guest: i would say, probably leasthas expressed the opposition. ted cruz does not oppose the tpp

. this us versus policy. it benefits smaller producers. that heard.firms tears are -- tariffs are low on average. we have peaks on clothing, footwear, housing.

regressiveolicy is a .ax wouldggest beneficiaries be lower income and middle income americans. host: we have time for one last caller. that will be michael from new jersey. , i intendrst of all to say that i will vote for trump. i don't think anything get guest valid.id is if the whole industry moves off

shore, whatever advances jobs, they nowe paycheck.heck to trade with china is not fair. any foreign company that makes anything interesting --

corporate executives want to lower costs. host: unfortunately we have to leave it there. guest: chamber china has been very controversial -- trade with china has been very controversial. we are not producing the same stuff. we're working together on supply chains. i would go back to the apple iphone example. apple iphones are registered as an import from china for about $300 per pop.

it exacerbates trade with china. $400-$500.ree telfer .hat markup benefits retailers the price point has been such that they are ubiquitous, and as a result, do industries have spawned. we have to mechanize there is a complementarity relationship with china. we have cheated in some cases. we have a system that works. abuses,ains the worst and that is the world trade

organization. i think we should continue to support that institution. host: think you so much for joining us. coming up next, we will talk about an issue that former first lady national rate nancy reagan was passionate about, alzheimer's disease. will join us.ps in 1999, c-span toward the reagan light -- toured the reagan library in simi valley, california. [video clip] >> something not easy to talk about, alzheimer's letter. when was that picture taken? >> i don't know. >> would be around 1994? >> i think so.

>> when did you first notice the present was having a memory problem? >> i didn't. you forget, i forget, don't you? >> absolutely. >> [laughter] remembernot be able to somebody's name, but i cannot remember some people's names. i did not notice anything. in august of that year, 19i-4, he was diagnosed. letter written on the board, is that the actual letter? >> yes. >> november 5, 1994. how did you decide to do that? publicave always gone with whatever we had -- i had

wo cancere had t operations. we both went public with it, thinking it would help people. he felt very strongly about it. embarrassed and self-conscious about alzheimer's. they did not know that it was a disease. there was an embarrassment about it. they should not have been -- there should not have been. he had to dispel that. now, it is amazing how may people come up and say to me that their mother, their father, their husband, somebody in the family, has alzheimer's. now they feel free to talk about it.

he did a great thing. >> what have you learned about the disease? >> that is probably the worst disease you could ever have. >> why? >> you lose contact. you're not able to share -- in our case, not able to share all the wonderful memories that we had. we had a wonderful life. >> can you have a conversation that makes sense with the president? >> not now, no. >> "washington journal" continues. host: with the passing of former first lady nancy reagan, who was a tireless advocate for alzheimer's disease research, we're looking at the state of the disease and treatment in the u.s. phelps,t is creighton

of the national institute on aging. how common is alzheimer's? what are some of the symptoms that people should be on the look out for? guest: alzheimer's is very common. it is getting more, because the population is growing older. every day, baby boomers -- 10,000 of them -- turn 65. that means the population will double by 2050. we see more and more older people. that is one of the main risk .actors for alzheimer's disease we expect more and more, if we can find a way to intervene. the research is going on at a very fast pace. fortunately, the government has recognized and commerce has appropriated very generous

support to us, and we're trying to spend it wisely. te sthell expedie cure finding. we don't have a cure. treatingays of patients, but we cannot intervene to stop the disease yet. host: what are some of the treatments that are most popular to manage the disease? guest: there are several. the memory is one of the first things to go with alzheimer's, usually -- not always the case, but usually the case. one of the main chemicals in the brain is diminished with the disease. this is what causes the memory problems.

done -- scientists have there are several treatments, but most of them are related to boosting back the lost that is caused by the disease by blocking the enzyme that makes molecule.wn that it means the properties can be boosted, and that will bring back some memory functions for a while. host: how effective are they? what is a while? guest: it varies from patient to patient, depending on what stage of the disease they might be in, and how they react to the drugs. every patient is a little different. they are not one homogeneous mix. there are a lot of variations. some respond, some don't. those who respond well can

expect about two years of better memory function. it rarely goes beyond that. host: to remind our viewers, some of the symptoms and signs of alzheimer's disease include decline in non-memory assets of finding, such as word finding, vision, spatial issues, impaired judgment, memory problems and mild cognitive impairment. the disease can range from mild, to moderate, to severe. we have any understanding of what exactly causes it? guest: not in most cases. there are genetic cases. these are rare subsets. maybe as few as 1%-2%. host: this is not hereditary disease? not in the standard sense of hereditary. genesare risks f factor

that people inherit that may guide whether the disease will develop or not develop. we are rapidly understanding now , and finding these new genes, that maybe we boost the thoseted genes and reduce that are negative. they are not causal, they modified the disease course. host: when someone is diagnosed alzheimer's, today start on one of these treatment courses? someonethe outlook for once they have been diagnosed? guest: it depends on where and who diagnoses them. if they go to a specialty center, a memory disorders clinic, usually in a university

setting, they will probably -- and if they have a certain diagnosis, sometimes it is not all that clear that it is alzheimer's because there are and cognitives problems that can mimic it like ,rugs, using pharmaceuticals pharmaceuticals. two major for drugs can start to brainthe way the works. this has to be eliminated. it can be other dementias. some of them are treatable. host: how do you make a diagnosis that it is actually alzheimer's versus another type of m dementia? guest: by using bureau

psychologi -- by using neuropsychological testing. in recent years, we are using more imaging techniques. discovered anthat abnormal protein speculates in the brain, you can see that with scanning. that is becoming more routine. we also know that the brain shrinks with alzheimer's disease . there is also magnetic resonance imaging that can be used as well. even ct scans, old-fashioned scans are still used. those can also see shrinkage. host: we want to let our viewers know they can call in with their thoughts and questions with creighton phelps of the national institute on aging.

we are breaking up the phone lines by region. central and eastern, (202) 748-8000. from outnumbered us of, (202) 748-8001. you can also send us a tweet, @cspanwj. we turn now to our first caller, roger from mobile, alabama. go ahead. and getting on in age, and have some issues with my memory, pretty serious issues. i have kind of them looking at aging, as natural opposed to alzheimer's. i have a good enough memory to remember trump is good, and that is just about it. host: what should people do if

they are concerned they are suffering from alzheimer's? guest: if it is normal aging, there are a few memory deficits that can occur, like trying to remember people's names, or forgetful, however, if you are reminded, you remember them. if there is a problem, even after being reminded, you still don't remember them, it is probably time to have an evaluation. in alabama, they are very good resources, in birmingham, in particular, there is a clinic that we are very much aware of. there is a possibility for this gentleman to be evaluated, if you want to do that. host: is there a typical age of onset? guest: the average patient would be about 65. it becomes more common, as you get older.

almosttime you are 85, 50%. host: next is susan in florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. diagnosed with small cell lung cancer. one of the characteristics is chemo controls it from the neck down, which it did in my case, but it migrates to the brain, and most people who have it die of lung cancer cells which are actually in the brain. i had brain radiation for three weeks, all over my head. i asked if there were going to be any side effects to this, and the radiologist said, in 15 years, if you are still alive, you could have some problems with your short-term memory.

it would not take 15 years. thankfully, i'm still alive. almost immediately, i and everyone around me noticed the screen. you had in your inability to find words. words that i have used all my life. ordinary things like, what is the name for this thing in the straw -- a pipe.a i have to figure that out, every time i think of it. impaired.t is i don't think thoroughly. i can't focus. i know this is related -- it is

but, ital, i know that -- want to know if anyone has studied this sudden onset brain lost due to radiation. guest: that is a very complicated question. i'm not sure i have the capacity thenswer correctly because m of lung cancer to the brain is not going to be specific. it will go different parts in the brain. we don't know how that will play out, as far as symptoms go. maybe i missed it, by did not hear your age. if you are above 65, then there are concerns that maybe you have more than one think going on. you may have mild cognitive

impairment. they are probably not related, at least we don't think they are related, at this point. other.n confound each if taken together, they are not good. host: our next caller is curtis from celtic city, utah. caller: thanks for having me. usedally, the medications excitedcountry to treat , they are commonly used, and it says on them that can lead to alzheimer's. thisu believe that medication should be used when it are sent reaches the age of -- over the hill, so to speak -- 50. guest: i think that is a question for the physicians who are treating the patient's.

they have to know the circumstances for those individual patients. there are behavioral problems that can occur with dementia that are unrelated to the cognitive problems, or may be related, but different. some of those are sometimes treated with some of these other drugs. whether these drugs themselves are causing any kind of cognitive decline, it is questionable. i still say you should check, if you are concerned or your family is concerned, you should check with your own doctor. are behavioral problems, maybe a psychiatrist, who can then decide whether it is good for you to have these drugs are not. sometimes they have been used badly to sedate patients when

they happen acting out. we don't want that to happen. have to be used very cautiously. host: a few questions here from twitter. research the benefits of cannabis in treating alzheimer's? is there a connection between alzheimer's and sugar? guest: sugar, no. diabetes might be a risk factor sometimes for alzheimer's. the way the brain handles glucose, a component of sugar, can be modified in alzheimer's. sugar as a cause, i don't think so. some,have been, i think cannabis canad

studies, but nothing we would recommend. host: what are the risk factors for alzheimer's? , for one. older age are there other factors, perhaps avoidable ones? guest: family history is important. if it runs in your family, even if it is not genetic, it might mean there is a risk factor in your family. , if you had midlife hypertension, that seems to relate to later life often with disease in many cases. that can be controlled. if it is controlled, that would be preventable. that almost anything to prevent heart disease also has

some influence on whether alzheimer's develops. exercise, diet, and these kinds of things are probably very helpful, although there are more by association than direct prevention. host: here is one more possible link for you. time magazine said there is a link.-alzheimer's what you say about that study? guest: that has cropped up several times. when followed up, it has usually proven to not be provable. there is indication that might have some affect in causing alzheimer's, but usually -- herpes is so widespread, then why does everyone have a? that is not the case. morenk it is probably

something that occurs that is there, that they can measure, but it is not necessarily causal. host: turning back now to the phone lines. kathleen is next. good morning. caller: good morning. streethbor across the had a condition similar to icks.imer's called t it was so sad and devastating. her mother also had it. they died -- the daughter died next to her mother in the nursing home, and her own mother did not know that she lost her daughter. later thear grandmother died of it. i had two questions. what is the difference between

alzheimer's and tix? alzheimer's has been linked to heavy metal poisoning such as aluminum. i have heard there is a country, and i'm not sure which country, that outlawed aluminum cookware. i learned about the connection with aluminum, and i stopped using deodorant that contained aluminum. with the flint, michigan of these, we know most until do not come b about 30-40 years later. is there a connection between heavy metals, lead poisoning, aluminum? guest: i think heard you say ticks?

it is definitely a disease,, called temporal dementia, very devastating. it can be confused with alzheimer's sometimes. it tends to go much quicker though. they have a lot of behavioral problems that cause the difficulty in the community. common,another, not as but we certainly deal with it a lot. yes, that is another possibility for late life dementia. ks can usually occur midlife, not always late life. to get your question about heavy metals, this has been looked at so may times over the years. years ago, i used to be the scientific director of the national alzheimer's association. i was taking questions on aluminum back in the 1980's. it had aid think

connection. as it turns out, aluminum is everywhere in the environment. it is in the water you drink, all the food, everywhere. you cannot get away from it. what happens is it does accumulate in the brain, once the brain is damaged because there are barriers to keep it out of the brain normally, but some aluminum can creep in. they had some but contamination on the water. strong evidence of heavy metals causing the disease, but there is an association because of the barriers that can break down to allow some of the metals in.

host: the alzheimer's association published a fact only 45 of those who were diagnosed with alzheimer's say they were aware of it, and it shows that two thirds of those are women. is there something gender related that we should know about? guest: there are two things going gone. one, women live longer, so they have more time to get the disease. that is part of it. there also seems to be some gender specificity. slightly more women have the disease, when you control for longevity in life expectancy. these can obviously be incredibly devastating, not only

for those suffering, but for the family members involved. q talk about care, the importance of that, and options have loved ones with the disease. guest: early on, the patient and the family can live normally. as it progresses, they need to know what to expect. it is good to prepare. there are support groups for patients. sometimes patients and families together. they learn from what other through.ve gone the things you can do are the understanding of the patient, and any kind of abnormal

behaviors that might develop, not to condone them necessarily, but the kind about it. they will occur. the other thing is to prepare for what is going to happen, financial, legal, health, powers of attorney, all of these kinds of things. they should be put in place early. .t is usually too late the idea you cannot live a good life after diagnosis is wrong.

it takes more work. it can be stressful for family caregivers.other raisingge women who are children and have an elderly parent with air also taking care of, that can be stressful. there are things like respite can facilities where you send a patient for day care, and then you can take care of yourself what you family member is in day care. eventually, you have to think about assisted living, and perhaps, a nursing home. host: our next caller is sherilyn from anaheim, california. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a question.

my grandmother suffers from all summers disease. it kind of escalated really fast. -- he mentioned -- i'm nervous -- my mother, she fromys suffered hypertension. after my mother's death, my grandmother's alzheimer's came out of nowhere. here we are, 13 years later, and i just want to know what stage level if she at now? she has no memory. she does not remember her grandkids. she does not remember anybody. she is going back to childhood, to remember her mother and brothers and sisters, when they were young. i'm wondering what stage level is she at at this point? fairlythat sounds advance. this idea of old memories coming

back is not unusual. it is usually with more recent memory that they have a problem with. in fact, you can trigger old memories with things like music. you can play songs, records, or cds, and this might bring them back even to the present temporarily. it has been known to occur on occasion that will trigger something more recent, and they almost seem normal again. it is not a cure or anything. music therapy is often used in nursing homes. our work can also do the same thing. you can trigger whatever they were involved with in the early life. it will not do a thing for recent memories. they are probably still not going to remember their grandchildren, and so forth because those are more recent.

i'm not sure if i answered all of your questions. that is part of it, anyway. host: i have seen some reports, in regard to former reagan, questioning if he even remembered being president and his final years. you think that is possible? can this disease be so aggressive that you lose such an important life experience? guest: i hesitate to talk about that. that is a little more political. .t is possible, yes with him, i cannot say. i next caller is john for massachusetts. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for calling. . have a question instantly, alzheimer's affects my life greatly. my father passed away on halloween 2008.

happenede things that toi have been very attuned rainwater, richard and taking his money -- we had a very aggressive kind of and then set up a private 503 c. i want to ask if you think the national institute of health ucks the bank for their bun on resources. for people who don't know who richard rainwater was, he is one of the people who worked with the bass brothers to set up the scratch to get lottery powerball.

those government tax situations. i am in theto know, position now to start a 503 c, to it through the universities. i think the risky system, and national institute of health is very inefficient. host: we hear your question and comment. a little bit more information for you. here are some facts around research and federal funding. there was $936 million proposed in the 2016 federal budget. a 60% boost from the previous year. it expands total funding for nih by $2 billion. there is an additional $15 million for the dod research. can you talk about your focus in

research, and how you allocate these research dollars. guest: our program is where most of this money is being allocated. grants to universities. centersa network of around the country. we have a number of different areas that we are most interested in. what is happening in the brain, as the disease starts and progressives. region point one we can actually see a change in the behavior of the patient? ?ow do you diagnose

until recently, 3-4 years ago, we were using criteria for diagnosis that were developed back in the 1980's. we put together a panel, several panels, and reformulated diagnosis guidelines. those have been published. those now to find the fact that alzheimer's is a continuum. even though you may have some changes in the brain already occurring, but they are not measured yet, all the way to dementia, we can no longer , as you did.ociety it is continual. we recognize that now. it was thought before, but now we have proof. because he see the changes in the brain with imaging, and we taps. spinal willully at some point we

have a blood test, but we don't have one yet. these changes are measurable. much of our research is trying to find how you would intervene. what are the targets for drug development? if you know the protein is important, and it seems to be right in the middle of the disease process, if you it, or stop it from being there, will that make a difference? much of the research is trying formation of the these proteins. host: one of the measures the former first lady nancy reagan proposed, and it was somewhat controversial, was embryonic stem cell research. she felt that could find a cure for alzheimer's disease. is that important in the work

that you do? cells the embryonic stem are not quite as actively being pursued as they once were. we can induce stem cells from other non-and the attic cells -- cells.the embryonic cell,n ask a take a skin and turn it into a nerve cell. we think this is where the future will be. lisa our next caller is from california. go ahead. caller: thank you. thank you for your research. i have a question for you. mentioned medicines for alzheimer's. taken one for sjogren's

syndrome. i took it for only three days, and it was working really well, but then i ended up in the because i had an allergic reaction. in thence then, i was hospital for a couple of days, and ever since then, i have had memory.with my possibly it could i notice on the internet it is used for alzheimer's. i wondered if it was possibly the cause of my memory loss. yes, i'm not actually

sure what drug you are mentioning. emline. cez it is commonly used or in trials for all service. guest: i'm not aware of the drug. sorry. host: let's move on to pittsburgh, pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: yes. questionstatement at a , concern. my niece is 54 years old. a year and a half ago, she was acting strange for about 2-3 days. then, all of a sudden, she completely lost her memory. she is currently being treated in a nursing home. they diagnosed her with dementia

. advanced dementia, getting ready to be all summers. i don't have any understanding of how that could happen in the matter of a couple of days p she goes off on these tyrants, where she becomes very verbally aggressive and violent towards her mother. she does not even remember it hours later. they are treating her for dementia. is there any other possibility of an illness that she could have, other than dementia. guest: that is confiscated. a physician, treating patients like that. i don't think i could answer that well. what you are describing as early onset rapid aggression does not,

call timers. i'm not sure what it could be, but alzheimer's normally comes on gradually. the behavior also something temporal dimension where the violence and acting out occurs. i could not say that. i would assume that you would a specialist see her and make the diagnosis before putting her in a nursing home. if it were treatable, they would have done so, i think. host: is alzheimer's the most common mental disorder affecting americans or others that are equally common. guest: it is the most common dimension. i would not say mental disorder. .epression is very common they can overlap. host: the last caller will be jan from jacksonville, florida. caller: thank you.

i'm here in jacksonville, florida. 2014. my mother in she was a patient here in jacksonville. they mentione anything about memory, she was doing fantastically. she was 96, and they said she 26 years younger than her chronic logical age. she was placed in the hospital to do an mri. it was very traumatic. when we got home that afternoon, all of a sudden, she said, no, i don't want to sit in the hospital. and herin the next day, primary care physician said, this is amnestic memory loss. my question is, how is that