agency responsible for investigating and overseeing firearm sales. boot will talk about donald trump's foreign policy. you can [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] host: office primary day. republicans will vote nebraska and republicans and democrats in west virginia. look for results on c-span at 8:00 tonight, also, hillary clinton and bernie sanders will have rallies tonight. go to c-span.org for more information. on capitol hill, ted cruz expected back. on facebook, marco rubio saying he does not want to be donald trump's vice presidential candidate. both the justice department and the state of north carolina are suing each other over that state's bath room law.

the federal government is overreaching. loretta lynch saying it offers protection. what do you think about the law and the lawsuit? and here's your chance to let us know. for democrats, 202-748-8000. for republicans, 202-748-8001. and for independents, 202-748-8002. also north carolina residents, 02-748-8003. host: joining us to set up the current cases that were lobbied at each other yesterday is michael gordon. he's with the "charlotte observer." mr. gordon, good morning. could you give us a brief sketch that the legal arguments of both sides are taking?

guest: sure. overnor pat -- pat macquarie's lawsuit accuses the justice department and by extension, the obama conversation of a "radical reinterpretation of the civil rights act." 2 is nothat house bill discriminatory. it is a common sense law that basically basks traditional restrictions on bathroom access. he focuses in on employment law that says non-transgender employees of the state of north carolina required to use a bathroom of their biological sex then transgender employees cannot be discriminated again if they're required to the same

thing. on the other hand, attorney loretta lynch in a sort of a remarkable address to the -- directly to the state yesterday, the lawsuit by the justice accuses the bill of a variety of violations from title ix of the civil rights act which restricts or prohibits discrimination and education. title vii which is a discrimination of the employment law and the violence of women act to include gender identity s a protected class. host: is that because of the scope that she laid out? why did you use that term? guest: it was remarkable to me, pedro, because she's a north carolina native and she seems to speak around the political

leaders who have been the face to is debate and directly the north carolina residents saying they've been misled. she seems to be speaking to a higher calling from her native state. it was striking the tone she took in going directly to the people of north carolina. host: the paper say this morning that this case has been assigned to judge terrence boyle. what do we know about him and what might we gain from his judicial experience about how he'll deal with this matter? guest: it's a good question. judge boyle is a highly respected jurist in the state. if i may go one step ahead, there's a legal precedent that

might preempt him of eventually whatever he rules in this case, the fourth circuit is already weighted in -- the fourth circuit court of appeals which has precedent over north carolina has already weighted in on a virginia case involving a transgender high school student and bathroom access. so where this case eventually goes and most people say it will inevitably end up in richmond at the fourth circuit. the fourth circuit has already given a pretty clear indication of what its feelings are about this. host: from someone who covers these affairs, if you wouldn't mind, who has the stronger case here? guest: i would say that's a very but the legaltion experts believe that just as in

same-sex marriage, the fourth quarter -- fourth circuit of appeals have not ruled on whether or not restricting bathroom access is discrimination. however, they have ruled in a 2-1 decision that the justice department can define discrimination. it has a legal authority to do that and that -- that has to be taken into account in these lawsuits. h.b.e indications are that 2 will not get a favorable response when it goes to the fourth circuit court of appeals. host: michael gordon talking about north carolina and the justice department suing each other over these so-called bathroom laws. mr. gordon, thank you for your

time. guest: thank you. any time. host: if you want to make comments about the law, the lawsuits that have been filed, here's your chance to do so. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. for independents, 202-748-8002. if you live in north carolina, 202-748-8003. and you could always post --@ghts on twitter at cspanwj. let's start with jerry. caller: good morning, pedro. my comments about the north carolina law and the legal wrangle with the justice department, i think governor mccrory, i think the fear, the paranoia and i think in my opinion, the hatred of some especially on the republican line and you're going to be hearing from them shortly know

about transgender people. they buy into all of the stereotypes that, you know, oh, my god, you know, my child is going to be sexually abused by a transgender person. and i don't think that's really the case. i think people who are comfortable being who they are, you know, and being secure won't -- don't have to worry about some transgender person bothering them. all they want to do is just do their business in the bathroom. that's pretty much about it. and on the republican line, you're going to be hearing a lot of stereotypes and a lots of hatred coming from some of the people you're going to be hearing from on this line. host: matthew is next. and matthew is on our line for ins this morning from oak park, illinois. you're next up. go ahead. caller: yeah, good morning. host: good morning. caller: the justice department

is definitely concerned with the law in north carolina. i just think it's pretty sad that the obama administration and the justice department have not been concerned with the racist police department in chicago, illinois. they didn't say they were going to pull federal funding just to get them to stop shooting innocent black young men. ut for people to piss, their concern, which i think is deplorable. because in the morning now, we're talking about people being able to piss, but just this past weekend, almost 50 black people were shot in chicago. and they just step over these bodies like they're meaningless. host: ok. ben from elk creek, nebraska. republican line. hi. caller: hi. yeah, we discussed that in our

non-partisan legislature in nebraska. and i want to tell people that we got 49 senators and non-partisan means that you can't take sides and you cannot e a member of a party. and there's one person, bernie chambers who is a true non-partisan and i wouldn't recommend that to any state because now today, you cannot vote for, you know, you don't have a choice unless you're a democrat. host: ben, how ultimately did the legislature deal with this? what did they come up with?

caller: well, there was such an argument about it. i think it lasted a couple of days. and i doubt if it passed because , you know, ernie chambers, for example, he is a person that believes that homosexuals and the other ones -- they call them, you know, gays, lesbians and then trans sex. but anything he's for in that legislature needs, neither manor beast is safe. so i doubt in it passed. i can't honestly say whether it did or did not. host: what do you think about the law itself? what do you think about the lawsuits? where do you stand? caller: you don't know whether -- you could turn out to be one of the three and it's not a choice, i guess they're born

that way. so i have no hard feelings toward any one of them groups. and i think that the government should stand up and give them the same rights as everybody gotten e majority has and thank you for your time. host: that's ben from nebraska. governor mccrory addressed about the lawsuit that he filed or the state filed. this was before the announcement yesterday by the justice department. here's a little bit from that preference yesterday, talking about the basis of his lawsuit. >> i do not agree with their interpretation of federal law. that is why this morning, i have asked a federal court to clarify what the law actually is. now i anticipate our own legislature, other private sector entities from throughout the united states and possibly

other states to join us in seeking this clarification. because this is not just a north carolina issue. this is now a national issue and an issue which imposes new law on every private sector employer throughout the united states of america with over 15 employees. host: john lives in westwood, new jersey, independent line. hi, john. caller: thank you and good morning. the problem is not so much transgender. the problem is convicted sex felons who have already -- many have already been caught taking cell phone videos in the ladies' rooms and it is outrageous that this failed president is pushing this because he does not care about the safety of women and

girls'n, specifically in bathrooms in the public schools also. parents should not have to worry about who is going to walk in to their daughter's bathrooms either in the public school or places like target, which is why over a million people just gone -- go online are boycotting target stores. they are pushing this, and they do not care about the safety of women and children. again, it's men or predators taking advantage of this. host: don't forget, if you live in north carolina, we've set aside a line for you to give your thoughts, 202-748-8003. diane is -- sorry, dane, from lansing, north carolina, on our democrats line. dane, good morning. caller: hey. we don't need all that bathroom

change. host: why not? caller: well, why not? well, do you want to go in and send one of your kids in the them m and some -- grab and one of your daughters or one of your sons? we don't need that. we need the death sentence on that junk. i have a niece that is a lesbian. host: that's dane giving our thought this morning. loretta lynch in response yesterday. the attorney general, to the initial lawsuit or the law itself in north carolina, came out, talking about the justice department's lawsuit giving their legal banning or at least what they think is their legal standing in putting the countersuit together. here is her yesterday at a preference. >> this is about the dignity and the respect that we accord our fellow citizens and the law that we as a people and as a country

have enacted to protect them, indeed to protect all of us. and it's about the founding ideals that have led to this country, haltingly in the direction of fairness, inclusion and equality for all americans. this is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation. we saw it in the jim crow laws that follow the emancipation proclamation. we saw it in the fears and widespread resistance to brown v board of education and we saw it in the proliferation of state that gayse sex unions and lesbians might one day be afforded to marry.

host: you can also post on twitter as well that some people have done this morning. jody saying this is nothing more than getting out the hate toffel the polls. without their hate, there never has been any problem but as a sea of tranquility as he identifies herself. this has nothing to do with discrimination, adding the ack anyone shaking my head. you can post there and post on the web page as well. the "new york times" saying mr. mccrory's lawsuit left little doubts that republicans here gard with open contempt --

host: you can give us a call if you want to give your thoughts on not only the lawsuit, but also the law itself as it was initially passed. some members of congress weighing in. this is the north carolina senator richard burr from the hill this morning saying he sidestepped saying it's up for the courts to decide. when things get into the court's system, that's how it has to play out, he told "the hill."

host: again, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001 and 202-748-8002 and if you live in north carolina, 202-748-8003. senator burr, not the only member of congress giving his thought this morning. g.k. butterfield, the democratic representative from north carolina on a tweet saying disappointing! north carolina stands to lose millions in federal education fund for our children if we

don't repeal hb2 now. this connected to concerns about title ix funding as its known by the education department. so continue calling in on those thoughts as well. if you want to give your thoughts on those topics, a couple of other stories to show you. facebook in the news. concerning specifically about their news coverage. this is jessica ginn saying they denying or at least denying sensoring conservative use. gives -- the --

host: let's go to tom, line two. good morning. you're on next. caller: hello? >> hi. you're on. caller: yeah. i just like to comment on that law they're trying to come out with. host: yeah, go ahead. caller: in my opinion, i don't think a grown man have no business going in the bathroom with -- if you're born a grown man and you want to turn out to be a transgender, that's your business but you have no business going in the bathroom with little young girls.

i mean, loretta mentioned, i mean, they should have more ethics than what they have. they ought to know better than that. i just think grown men shouldn't go in bathroom with kids. host: what do you think about the obama administration's lawsuit, then? caller: it's ridiculous. it's just ridiculous. what that look like? a grown man going in the bathroom with a little girl. you know what i think -- how is she going to feel? that's going to scare the crap out of that kid. host: daniel from the republican line. you are next. good morning. caller: yep. how is it going? i just wanted to talk about how hb2 affects schools because that's really the only part of the law that i feel, you know, is really important. you know, i just think that locker rooms are, you know, based on your birth certificate

as well. you know, i just feel like it's stuff that has high school age kids in locker rooms, guys and girls. so, you know, i think that's really what people are more concerned about, you know, changing areas in different areas where people are naked. so, you know, that's my point. host: daniel on the republican line. the "washington times" adding to set the state's public universities which could be affected by the lawsuits that are involved. get about 1.4 billion from washington and the students receive $800 million in federally backed loans. the white house refused to rule out the threat calling the north carolina law mean-spirited --

host: let's talk to george from the independent line. caller: all that bathroom stuff is really just a scare tactic. it's a typical republican operation thing. where it's just to scare people. but the real problem is the rest of this bill is to stop gays and transgender people from being allowed to sue for discrimination. republicans, they always put a scare thing in there. this bathroom stuff is nonsense. if you listen to mccrory talk, he will always throw in there this is a leftist that's doing it. in my opinion, a transsexual person is not going to go swloo a woman who is really born a man is not going to go into a shower because she thinks she's a woman but she's born a man. she's not going to expose herself like that. i mean, it's just nonsense. it's a scare tactic.

so the bill will pass and if you look into it, you'll see that the whole bill stops gay people and transsexuals from being allowed to sue for discrimination, from being hired or fired or getting a place to rent or stuff like that. this is a typical republican thing. it's a scare tactic. thank you so much. host: do you find people agreeing with you or disagreeing with you about this topic? what are you finding? caller: old people, they're all scared. they think they're going to go in a shower and a man's going to dress up as a woman just to get in there. that's nonsense. young people, they don't seem to give a rat's behind about it. but these old people, they're the ones who -- it's a generational thing. they're the ones who seem be all scared because they listen to it. they don't look at what the whole bill is about. and republicans are always doing -- republican politicians are always doing this.

they'll throw something in there that's scary sounding and they always ask mccrory can you name an incident where something like that has happened? you can't because no one can come up with an incident writ has happened. host: did your legislature in north carolina support this bill or oppose it? caller: it looks like they all support it. because the republicans are prejudice. if you're not like me, they're against you. host: let's hear from david on our line for republicans. he's in oakdale, new york. david, you are next on this issue. go ahead. caller: yes. good morning. i'm not sure what the word trans means. i think it's transitional gender. they're not quite any gender. if they're not believing the

gender that is on their birth certificate, then i guess they're transitioning to another gender but they're not quiet there. -- quite there. i believe that's what it means. i don't want men whether they have sexual problems or transitioning from one gender to the other going into a public bathroom in their school or a shower in the university or a locker room. r even in the gym at home. i don't want them showering with different sexes because one sex is transitioning to the other sex. didn't quite make the transition. there's a lot of room for sexual predators. i don't think that the gay people are sexual predators. there could be. but that's what i'm afraid of is sexual predators taking advantage of this law. thank you. host: as we show you front page

of "the charlotte observer" this morning which highlights the lawsuits that were filed. victor is in cartersville, georgia, democrats line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i think that this is ust absolutely terrible. the law should have been filed -- should not have been filed. the law shouldn't even been written. when are we going to grow up and quit worrying about sex and out what people feel about themselves? t's just ridiculous.

they're very shy. there is no way they would ever try to bother a member of the other sex. it's just ridiculous. and besides, how are you going to -- how are you going to tell? are you going to put somebody at the door and pull up their dresses or pull down their pants to see? mean, it's just ridiculous. host: there are a couple of events to keep you involved of. hillary clinton campaigning in louisville, kentucky, too. hat will be live at 6:00, 6:15 this evening. you can see that on c-span2. and bernie sanders. he is in salem, oregon. his event, you'll be able to see

live at 10:00 this evening. go to c-span.org for more information. lois, youngville, north carolina, on our republican line . lois what, do you think about this case and what you've heard about it? caller: good morning, pedro. pedro, i'm a 75-year-old retired -- and i have a degree in public health education. and my thinking is that this is absolutely ridiculous. this has nothing to do with psychology and who you think you are or who you want to be. it's about biology that disposing of human waste when we take in nutrition, we don't absorb to that and we dispose what we don't use as waste and

it's smelly and unpleasant and ou do it in privacy. and as we become more civilized and less humane, we did it in privacy. so the whole argument is ridiculous as far as i'm concerned. host: allen next up. stanley, virginia, independent line. caller: hey. thanks for taking my call. good morning the only comment i have is this is absolutely ridiculous. i just can't believe we've got this in the country. one comment that i might like to make about solving this issue. turn it over to local government. local, local this. -- localities. let the people make the

ecision. host: what do you mean by ridiculous? caller: everything. i mean, why is the federal government sticking their nose in this? they've got their nose in everything. they want to dictate everything that most people don't want. you know, and it seems to me if we leave it up to the localities of the people who live it every day, let them make the decision and keep the attorney generals and keep the governors out of it. people's not stupid in this country. we know what we need and know what we need to do. maryland. e from caller: the last man was right. the federal government has their nose in everything and they're not getting anything done. and to me, this -- letting people -- i'm 72. this is not generational. i do not want a grown man to go in the bathroom with my

13-year-old granddaughter. and think about it. do you want bruce jenner to go in from the waste up, he likes men, from the waste down, he still likes women? this is what we've got. it's one day, they like men and the next day, they like women. you go into a bathroom and you can see in the stalls. these men are going to be looking at our grandchildren and it shouldn't be like that. and for the government to threaten to take money away from north carolina because they won't let these grown men go in and peek at my granddaughter, they should be ashamed. all the people should be ashamed. these people we're teaching our kids, one day you can be a man and the next day, you can be a woman. what's that teaching our children? it's sad. thank you. host: bonnie from street, maryland, giving her thoughts this morning. calling on the lines that best

represent you. but went to take a few minutes to talk about primary day. it is a tuesday. nebraska and west virginia, participating in the process today. republicans in nebraska and republicans and democrats in west virginia. papers from west virginia talking about how election day has come to the mountain state and here to join us in and talk out what's expected there is david gutman. what's expected today and who will come up on top according to polling? guest: well, as we're looking at the mt.ial race, i would expect a big victory for donald trump o is -- who's led by significant margins in every oll. he's looking at a big victory although on the republican side,

the process is a little bit confusing, that you do vote for a presidential candidate but that vote is pretty much entirely symbolic. farther down the ballot, republican voters will choose the specific delegates to the republican national convention. and those votes, they'll choose i think 22 of them, each open court. those votes are the ones that actually matter. but mr. trump has a full slate f delegates. and i think he can win 31 out of the 34 possible delegates. over the on democratic side, probably going to be much closer. bernie sanders has led most of the polling recently although there haven't been that much polling. i think just two polls or so in the last two months. and they both been within, i would say five to eight points. so he's probably a slight

favorite, but it's anyone's guess over on the democratic side. host: what do you think are the driving issues in west virginia and who they'll choose? guest: well, the polling industry is a huge issue here in west virginia. all three candidates had campaign rallies here last week. hillary clinton and bill clinton both saw big protests at the campaign events they had in southern west virginia. protests are partly organized by the coal industry but a lot of people upset over comments she made a month or two ago where in a question about -- in a question about what was going to happen to kind of lower income white workers, she talked about her plan to transition away from

coal and to reinvest in coal communities with a multi-billion plan but she also said we're going to put a lot of coal miners and a lot of coal companies out of business and that did not go well here. when donald trump was in town, much of his rally was spent talking about how much he loves coal miners and he's going to put coal miners back to work. although he doesn't have any plan how to do so but he did promise to do so. i guess despite most every industry analysis which says that no, the coal industry is not going back to boom times in west virginia. host: and even mr. trump getting endorsements came out on stage with a hard hat, if i remember. guest: yeah, the leadership of the state coal association came out to -- for a little photo on

on stage with mr. trump and handed him a hard hat. he's saying the shoveling and the crowd went wild. behind him during his speech -- miners and they waved trump digs coal signs. that's absolutely a driving issue in the election. we've got a 10-day early voting period and they are way up. the highest we've ever seen. 106,000 people have already voted, which is close to 10% of the voting population.

that was like way back in 2008. that was only 66,000 people. so an increase of 40,000 over the last time we saw a contested primary in the presidential race here in west virginia. host: that was david gutman talking about today's primary and the importance of coal. mr. gutman, thank you. guest: thank you. host: the headline for "the washington post" today talks about these countersuits that were filed yesterday. north carolina and the justice department over that state's bathroom bill. your chance to talk about it. larry is from north carolina. silva, north carolina. you're next, larry. ood morning. ller: everything we turn around, they want to sue someone, the lawyers. they're always suing. i would like to know how much money the government stands on

lawsuits. host: don, up next. oakridge, new jersey. democrats line. caller: hello? host: don from new jersey, hello. caller: hi. i have a different take on this issue. i think the republicans are baiting liberal democrats to make that is major issue which it certainly not. they are squandering their influence which they need have for getting votes in the future on a cause that is trivial and not very important. host: and you think the republicans are baiting them? caller: of course they are. this is a trivial issue. it doesn't amount to anything. it's not like war and peace and getting jobs. host: do you think it's a trivial issue in the sense that not only was this filed from the state's perspective but the justice department responded in the way it did? caller: i think that the justice department acted foolishly and stupidly on this particular

case. it isn't worth their time to worry about. and in the ultimate part of it is that they're going to lose votes for the democrats in the future because they're firing up a lot of southerners. host: brian from maryland, independent line. hi, there. caller: hi, good morning. thank you for taking my call. i agree with the previous caller to a certain extent and then you had an older woman, 72 woman that says this is not generational. it's really not an important issue for the justice department to get involved in. i would rather see them get involved in something like sanctuary cities where we have illegal immigrants committing crimes and not being held accountable. in addition to that, i do believe it is generational. older, particularly older caucasian individuals who are usually conservative and from the south don't particularly care for the issue simply because of their values and how

they were raised. on the other hand, you have the ber berks new generational individual who is are beyond millennial. they don't care and put that much work into certain values that older individuals do. and this is a generational type of thing. and then the other idiot who called and talked about transitional, like the individuals have a choice about their sexuality and this is something that you could just kick off of a shelf and decide what you want to do one morning. just really don't understand. and that's pretty much what i have to say. i appreciate you taking my call. i would just ask everybody to really just think about what they say because i does have influence. we really need to get back to the heart and soul of why we are all americans. i've served for 29 years in the u.s. military. i'm still on active duty but the pragmatic part about it is every single day, i get up and i'm proud to be an american to and

defend my country. thank you. host: randy from republican. caller: good morning, pedro. you're doing such a good service for the nation. thank you. i think what the governor of north carolina is doing is just -- is beyond pail for america. we've heard all these people talk about the federal government should stay out. the federal government should stay out. ok. well, let's have the federal stay out of north carolina. pull all that federal money out of north carolina. because that's everybody's money. and i don't want my money going to that kind of a state. and let's find out just how well, they can support themself. they're a state that has lived off my hard work. working on that assembly line my whole life, paying off taxes when i work. so i can keep them states down there fed. they can't even feed their own people. so now they want to decide, i think, fine.

you want to may that game, let's play that game. but we'll just pull back all the federal money and i'll give you six months before you go under. that's what got to be taught to these idiots down there. thank you, pedro, and i'm sorry i used the word idiot. that one got to me. but thank you very much for allowing me to talk. host: in our independent line is where mike is. good morning, mike. caller: thank you. hank you for taking my call. it's time that we should look at the infrastructure. look at countries like japan, china are using school children to do -- to manufacture cell and we're here thinking about bathrooms. we have to set our priorities -- ight

host: in other legal news, the supreme court back in the papers this morning saying the white house monday announced that the supreme court nominee merrick garland has committed the questionnaire about his qualifications. he's returning the document to lawmakers today and "the hill" learned from a spokesman, chief judge garland will submit his questionnaire to the judiciary mmittee -- host: las vegas, nevada. paul, good morning. how are you? caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i just like to make a statement and then i'll be off the air. i believe that loretta lynch is a political hack just like eric holer was. they both swore to up hold the federal law and they do anything about any other laws thasme just pick and choose the ones they like. thank you. host: one more call. this will be lydia, on the republican line. caller: hi. yes. i think this is a ridiculous law and as a woman, i'm really angered by the use of rape in order perpetrate this. i would like to know what do north carolina cities do about testing rape kits since thousands and thousands go untested. how about north carolina college campuses? do they believe women when they say that they've been sexuality assaulted and take their story seriously if this is nonsense. one last point. what is not being talked about is they also included that no north carolina municipality

could raise the minimum wage. and in full disclosure, i screwed up. i meant to call on the independent line but i got the numbers mixed up. sorry. thank you. host: lydia will be the last call this morning on the topic. two guests joining us. first up, we're going to be joining us virginia representative, don beyer talking about legislation that would keep congress from limiting the power of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives. later on, a look at donald trump's approach to foreign policy with max boot of the council on foreign relations. all that when "washington journal" continues after this. ♪ >> this sunday night on q&a.

talk about the war in the late 1930's. >> this coo happened when right wing army officers tried to seize power in 1936. it sent a shock wave of alarm throughout the world because here was a major country in europe. the right wing military quickly backed by hitler and mousse leaney who sent arms, airplanes, and mousse linney sent 80,000 ground troops. here was the spanish people making a grab for power and people felt it ought to be resisted. if not here, where? otherwise, we're next. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> madam secretary, we proudly

give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. cheers and applause] host: our guest of the morning is representative don beyer, democrat from west virginia, serve in the eighth district, here to talk about the role of guns and the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives . good morning. guest: good morning, pedro. host: could you give a sense of

how much control congress currently has over the a.t.f.? guest: quite a lot. first of all, we give the authorizing legislation for a.t.f. and then we funded every year through the appropriations bill. host: tell us about from that authorization, from the funding, what the a.t.f. able do with that currently if guest: well, it's a dilemma that so many of us are trying to find ways for it on gun safety. you're looking at 30,000 deaths year, roughly 10,000 and 11,000 homicide. there's a terrible statistic about the number of toddlers killed in the last couple of weeks by guns in america. and we have this sad tradition in congress where seems like every week, it's probably only every other week where we have the moment of silence for the latest mass shooting. and we struggle for ways to go forward especially the majority of the members, at least in the

house, are paid great attention to what the n.r.a. says. so the things that democrats typically would like to do, you know, closing the gun show loophole on background checks and things like that aren't going to go forward in this congress. if you listen carefully to the n.r.a., they say we don't need new gun laws. we just need to enforce the ones that we have. the congress has been famous for saying no new law but just enforce to what we already have. the other side is we gutted the that have that. we've made the director of the a.t.f. subject to senate confirmation. a great way to keep an ganization out of sync is to -- leave it leaderless. and they've cot back on what the a.t.f. can do.

let's enforce the gun laws and make sure the a.t.f. is robust. host: what does robust mean to you? guest: we give adequate funding. we have a tendency to have fewer and fewer a.t.f. agents out there. one of the remarkable things is that we have more federal allianced arms dealers in the united states than we have mcdonald's. i think the number is something like 137,500. i can't remember the number exactly but it's a really big number. and there are a number of things put in place recently. it's called the t.r. amendments written a dozen years ago like having things like -- prohibited tray isclosing -- the state are things that allow others to trade with firearms. the kinds of things that you see on tv when you watch "law & order" and "c.s.i.."

we host: we saw the ability to track with that. guest: one of the things years ago as lieutenant of governor in irginia, we passed a gun law and we found there was a huge link between gun sales in virginia and those guns being used in crimes in new york city. and people would come down and trade massive drugs for big supplies of guns and take them back. another big piece, pedro is just inventories. my family's in the retail automobile business and we're counting our parts and counting our cars every day to make sure we have the right number. but there's no requirement that the firearms dealer keep inventory. so we want to make sure that at least the guns that are out there are being controlled by the people that we have given licenses to control them. host: but if you want to talk to our guest about his thoughts on

a.t.f. and gun safety overall, here's your chance to do so. representative don beyer calling us. democrats can call 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. and independents, 202-748-8002. and you could post on twitter too at twitter.com/cspanwj. you talked about budgets. the last standing about $1 billion for the a.t.f. you're saying that's not enough. guest: you figure the f.b.i. is eight times that. he d.e.a. is six times that. we're not able to obey to our own standard because of different and financing and to -- not to be fair or machiavellian, but if you're anti-government interference in gun ownership, the best way to

do is to bankrupt the a.t.f., just deprive them in funds. that's what we've done with the i.r.s. right now. so the i.r.s. can't do its job very well but collecting taxes from americans because we keep starving it to death. host: what is your personal thought on gun ownership is? guest: i very much respect the fact that this nation's been built on a commitment to gun ownership. we have the number they hear bandied around is 350 million guns and 62 million households. and this myth that president obama or democrats want to take away everyone's guns is just that. no one is planning to do that. that's crazy. that would be 100-year project and very much not in sync with our culture and who we are. and in fact, the statistic from third wave was that last year, there were a less than one 10 of 1% of the guns in american were used in the crime. and 99.9% of the guns are held

and owned by responsible people using them in responsible ways. what we want to try to get to have that last 1%. once again, let me use the n.r.a. language. it's criminals and the dangerously or mentally ill. anything that we could do to keep them them from criminals. one of the topics on that front is gun shows and what's being sold as far as sales on gun shows. loopholeove to see the has closed which includes the internet and also private sales. that's not going to happen right now. host: one of the things that president obama last november, november and december was putting state police and others that can do background checks into gun shows voluntarily so that individuals can say well, this guy bought a gun from me. i don't really know whether

you've involuntarily committed a couple of times. hey, go get your background checked. bring it back to me and then i'll sell you a gun. we were using seat beats long before they were mandated. so there will be many responsible gun sellers who would going to go through -- would like to go through that process too. in some gun shows, they do have the background checks there. one of the things that the president did was a background check should take like 60 seconds, up to two minutes. mostly they do. sometimes they take two days. so what he's tried to do is put more money into the background check systems to make it in fact, a faster, more responsive to get away from the argument that it just takes too long and it denies people to buy a gun when they want to buy it. host: we have calls lined up for

you. our first call is from wisconsin, berlin. this is thomas on our independent line. for representative don beyer of virginia. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i've got just a couple -- well, i guess you could call questions on the a.t.f. now they've added alcohol, firearms, tobacco and explosives. it was my understanding that ammunition based on gun powder is an explosive. so the a.t.f. could have really regulated that years ago if they wanted to or if they had the power. the second one is on trade, because when you look at these magazines, you know, guns and that, overwhelmingly, they're coming from outside the united states. so is that -- does that have to directly do with a trade deal that leads to a much larger question and jobs program? so if you could comment on those, i would appreciate it and

i will take my answer off the air. thank you, sir. guest: thanks, thomas. i don't know if i could give you an answer on either one. i think it is important where you point out that the a.t.f. is not just firearms. it's also alcohol, tobacco and it's explosives. so they're deeply involved any time there's a bomb threat around the country or an explosion. so they don't just have to monitor gun dealers and gun sales. they've got lots else on their plate. but i don't know if any particular initiative on the explosive powder in the bullets themselves. on trade, i've been deeply involved in my mere 17 months in congress and in the new trade agreement with the pacific. and i've not heard guns brought up even a single time. we tend to talk about labor and environmental standards and tobacco and milk and things like that, but i confess that i haven't heard guns being a part of that debate. so i'll ask my wonderful legislative staff to look into

that. host: from alexander city, alabama, patricia, you're next with our guest. hello. caller: good morning. i have a question about gun shows. we have gun shows here and all around especially in the south where you don't have to have any kind of i.d. or anything, as long as you have cash money, you can buy 100 guns. i mean, i went and to get a gun for home safety. and i just told them just to see what i just told them just to see what would happen, somebody stole my purse, i do not have my license, and i cash. no problem, i bought a gun. guest: the statistics range all over the place. gun safety advocates argue up to 40% of the guns purchased in america are done without a background check. other folks say it could be as small as 12%. somewhere in the range, there is a significant plurality, that

they don't have a background check. we're worried that is where criminals will go. one of the interesting initiatives around the country is when people are judged to be dangerously mentally ill, it is to make sure they get on the background list right away. trying to takeaway away the guns they have for a short time to get mentally healthy or safe again. host: have they been able to get about themation mentally os far as background checks go? background checklist is put together state-by-state. you have to look through all the different ones. the states vary. virginia, if you have been hospitalized, you do not automatically go on the

background check list. if you have been voluntarily committed, you go on the list. is that for privacy issues? guest: it is just the law catching up and resistance. there is always another side to it, a in and a yang. case, when they do not like someone in the soviet union, they -- they do not do that here, but that -- a dilemma they should not feel the get a gun. host: u.s. ambassador to switzerland, don, our guest, democrat from virginia. hello. new york. i would like to ask a question of credibility versus

the obama administration's allowing the fast and furious to go really unquestioned under eric holder's leadership from the justice department. how can they question other people's motives to own guns? this is ridiculous. they have a gun the atf allowed into the hand of druglords which killed an atf agent caret what is up with that? -- agent. what is up with that? guest: you pointed out fast and furious did not work well. a tragedy that is very much to be regretted. congress made it abundantly clear and the administration, that that is not a program that

should be continued. to overall idea was understand how weapons are flowing across the border and getting in the hands, who was .roviding them and why it had a noble purpose that could have made more patrol agents much safer. it did not turn out that way. we moved on. administration, there were things that worked well and things that did not. we need to learn from them and not dam the rest of the efforts. i think a lot by congress and a lot by the administration. the dilemma is we have tied the atf's hands, including by poor funding paired if we will be credible, gun laws, at least for the time being, let's make sure

the atf can to the job. if $1 billion is the current budget, what is your ideal number that comes to mind? guest: i do not have a specific number. oro not know if it is 1.1 1.2. we are not talking about w or something crazy. we have to realize we're living in a post sequestration environment where everybody cares about the level of debt and doing our best to make the government more he issued. all discretionary spending is only -- defense is only 15% of the budget. new jersey up next, democrat line. you are on with our guest. caller: a couple of things. it did not start with the obama administration. it is amazing that so many -- le

thank you for clarifying that. caller: one thing that bothers me is the consumer product expressly prohibited the consumer product safety commission from overseeing the safety of guns, which to me is a big part of the problem. technology is making it possible for me to create guns only fired by -- et cetera, et cetera. that could being done to perhaps amend the consumer product safety ?ommission 76

-- of 1976? guns or safe, guns would still be guns. is there something we can do going forward? guest: these are good ideas. amend in the consumer product safety act is a great start. -- that amends the gun manufacturers community for many loss right now. manufacturer, a drug manufacturer, but you cannot sue a gun manufacturer. you do not want to sue them because you used the gun in a manner for which it was intended to use, but you look at irresponsible behavior.

we'll probably have to have a congress that is more moderate and more guns safety oriented than what we have now. we are playing a long game here. we have to move in the forward direction. one thing we have to work hard to understand is perspectives on gun safety differ greatly depending on where you live. if you are in montana or bernie sanders from vermont, you will have a different perspective that you will in downtown new york or chicago or washington dc, where we are much more concerned about people shooting each other on the street, or that day-to-day violence is much more a part of our lives. somehow, we have to find a way to reconcile those differences in a responsible way. host: you serve in northern virginia to the royal parts.

guest: there is a more significant culture, a rifle. in my congressional district, the interest rate -- the eighth district is pro-gun measures. independent line, james is up next. caller: hello to both of you. i wanted tuesday to the fact that when i first saw on the tv, it was talking about the atf and i forget what the title was. i did not get this guy's's name. i thought he might be someone representing the atf but i just covered he is a democratic politician from virginia and it is basically the same. he says the myth is we believe the government wants to take my the guns. he said that is a myth.

it is not a myth. hillary clinton said she would like to explore the same thing they did australia, mandatory -- they give united states to turn it in and after that, you are a felon. barack obama was to make sure no one contrast for a firearm so if i want to sell my brother-in-law is firearm and there is no if i want toeck, sell him that and i want to leave in my will my firearms to my nephew, i am not going to be able to do that with executive orders and everything they are doing. the myth that the government wants to disarm the public is not a myth. fact.a the fact that you're sitting there as a democrat saying it is not just its planes why we do not like politicians. i will hang up and let you

respond. i do not know quite how to respond. i can tell you i know many democratic friends and republican friends and no one is out there talking about disarming the american people. almost silly to think 350 million guns, how would you even begin? why would you want to do that? barack obama, i attended his town hall meeting and read his executive orders are nothing in there keeps you from selling your gun or giving your gun to your brother. with him with a gun permit already, he has passed the background check. nothing in the executive order keeps you from leaving your guns to your nephew upon your death. these are exaggerations and misunderstandings of the executive order as issued, and certainly, i do not see any legislation or executive order or anything that is the guns are many american. -- any -- from any american.

my commitment is this is just a myth. the technology committee, natural resources committee, why take on this issue? a lot of it is feedback from the folks in the congressional district paired a time we do a moment of silence because eight more people had been killed someplace, there is a sense of, we should do more standing up and honoring the it -- the innocent. i am not positive that closing the loophole by itself will make that big a difference. let's look at what we can do and hopefully let's look at something that will perhaps make a difference. fact that soto the people like ine the drug business killing each other.

had to --apons, i went out and bought a gun and shot himself the same day. i wouldn't loved to have been able to put them on a background check list for the shirt -- for the short term because of the depression they were in that may have saved their lives. we are trying to look at small, meaningful measures that really without -- deaths host: legislation you have introduced, has any republican signed on or expressed interest? guest: no one has expressed a commitment yet. when you stray too far from party ideology, you have a great fear it will come down like a ton of bricks on your facebook site.

think some republicans are scared that they end up with a primary do not want to have. host: this is guy from glen bernie, maryland. democrats line. caller: two questions for your guest. i do not believe gun many factors intended their products do harm. when will they allow the average individual to own a gun? why were there not some type of , that wouldce actually locate law enforcement to the person who has it, and my when aquestion is,

person passes a background check and are able to purchase a firearm, and maybe they would like to collect them, and they go through a crises in their life and they are 45 years old and they lost their job or whatever, their wife has left them, now, the individual who is not too stable mind has all of the firearms. do they ever have to go through a background check? i do not believe so. once you purchased it legally, you can keep it. judged emotionally unstable, involuntarily hospitalized for psychotic breaks, they can take the guns for a short time until your stable again. is we do notcture

have tracking devices on guns for the same reason we cannot keep the background list. if we knew where we were, we could go get them. myth we want. usincreases paranoia among rather than bring together what we hope our -- host: virginia is part of where our guest represents. christopher, independent line. toler: i would like complement the congressman on his thoughtful approach to try to reconcile legitimate interest , gun ownership versus safety issues. it underscores the point i was going to make, which is i think the real problem here is the

divisiveness that has arisen because of extremes on both sides and emotional, knee-jerk to gun issues. if more people focused on the types of issues the congressman is trying to solve, we would get a lot further. the previous republican caller i think reflects some of the , that every move is calculated to remove guns from gun owners. i think some of the rhetoric gives support to that, but i would hope not. i want to underscore and get the comments as to the real underlying problem here, the divisiveness that has risen and gridlock in congress. thanks for bringing that up. i heartily agree. i think all political effectiveness is a relationship.

of my goals is to understand the perspective of republicans -- with me and hope they do the same. it is difficult to argue somebody into agreeing with you. you have to more understand them into agreeing with you or you agreeing with them. -- a lot of heat about the issue of honoring concealed weapons permits from other states. virginia has a high standard for a weapons permit. we will not honor another state with lower standards for the concealed weapons permits. the governor worked a trade-off for the nra would support something like taking guns away from people with temporary and permanent restraining orders.

cases wherelence the wife knows the husband is a danger and he somehow can still get his guns, there is a conversation between democrats and republicans and a liberal governor and the nra that worked out a compromise that upset people in the gun community and the gun safety community, but it was a compromise that hopefully move the conversation forward and we have to keep looking for those kinds of deals. give us thoughts on this issue, we have seen the vice president has given thoughts on the issue. democrats in the house and senate made the case to build that relationship to get these thoughts as far as republicans. guest: we have a long way to go. is making it to the floor. one a month or two ago where democrats were trying to make sure if you're on the terrorist

background check list, that you cannot get on an airplane, and that you also could not buy a -- that thatt that would put you on the list. probably because republicans did looking to vote on -- for a tv ad that says republican x voted to let people on the background list get guns. host: do you think this issue is being discussed enough? guest: it showed up on the trail a lot. bernie had been endorsed a number of times. gun violence,tle i understand, and hillary from new york with a different perspective on it. that was a good debate. i do not know how much it will

play in the trunk versus clinton race. i do not remember hearing trump talk about it much at all and it is not the centerpiece of hillary's campaign. the hillary clinton campaign will be much more about her prepared best president in history. host: republican line, this is jeff. caller: thanks for taking my call. the representative mission you could sue a pharmaceutical company or automobile name facture for a defective product. it is not the case that the gun is defective. it is the person using the gun. it is not an issue of the product, but the person behind the product. i also wanted to ask the representative what he thought harris has the strictest gun laws, people were slaughtered in paris and they had no way to defend themselves.

i wish people would leave our constitutional rights as they are and leave everything be when it comes to gun rights. thank you. have: paris does relatively strict gun laws, or france does. i went and visited the restaurants or the theater where they were killed, very sad. you also have to look at how many people were killed by guns and france in the course of a given year, and it is not a lot higher than those killed in the attack are the differences 30,000 versus a much smaller number. i am not sure that is a fair comparison. uso, i do not think any of are trying to interfere with the second amendment or constitutional rights. we are trying to do something appropriate and within the law. you consume an automobile manufacturer and say that airbags are bad. you consume a pharmaceutical company. defective person

using a gun, but what if the gun itself is defective or manufactured in a way or allowed to be used in a way that was not intended? that is what we are trying to get to. host: democrats line. caller: how are you doing, representative don beyer? i moved up there for seven years and live along columbia bike. the place where i lived had good security. they had electronic and human security. tend to come down somewhat on the side of the pro-gun side. i am not an extremist on it, but ie thing that bothers me is do not hear anyone talking about home security systems, if i can mention the name, like adt, for oftance, there are a lot older people around who are

arthritic and need to be protected, and they cannot really protect themselves. they probably cannot even fire a gun because of the condition of their hands. i was wondering why congress -- rather than what happens if the wrong person gets a gun type argument, which i think conservatives are against as well. i would like to hear some comments on that. you for that. i am not aware of any congressional initiative to help fund or jumpstart home security systems. i will ask my legislative staff to look at that. we have a home security system at home, and it is always my wife's last comment, did you set the alarm. the first thing you're do in the morning is unset it to a the dog out.

it gives you a greater sense of security and rural areas. safe worldive in a but occasionally, we do not. host: washington state, you're next. caller: good morning. i get up early to tyler for myself out of my home and start at 1:30 in the morning. adjacent to my computer and i have enjoyed it for years. a couple of questions. i want to point out york inconsistency -- your inconsistency comparing a car manufacturer,drug -- a car manufacturer and drug manufacturer has no right bearings. gun manufacturers do. said you -- you consume for defectiveness. of course.

you consume a gun manufacturer. if their product is defective and causes injury, but you cannot sue them just because you are manufacturing something someone is using a wrong contest are the same racing you cannot sue an automobile manufacturer if someone decided to mow down people in a public square. that is a decision of the individual. you touched on gun confiscation and how no one is trying to confiscate your guns. i want the listening public to understand that in this election cycle, hillary clinton was asked a question about the australian gun compensation -- confiscation and how she felt and she said i think we should take a serious look at that. which essentially is saying i agree with it. how do you enforce a gun ban on a country of 250 million guns? you simply pass a law, a federal law that says you have to turn in your guns like they did in australia. questions i would like to

ask is, the background check, can you say that the federal government without a doubt does not detain the records like myself legally buy a firearm, that there is not a computer database recording who the individuals are? what you also advocate that every representative put their stock disclosures that they own on their website by law so maybe we can see democrats on a lot of stock organ manufacturers, and hypothetically, ammunition manufacturers, because they know tory time a democrat gets up the podium to talk about gun confiscation, sales go up. 4.1 million gun sales per year when george w. bush was in office, up to 21 right now. i should have been taking notes. i cannot get to all of this.

congress own,s of what stocks, that is all available freely. lot, but everya given stock or mutual fund we have is on the internet. all 535 members. saying there is something we have to look at, i do not think any means there is a commitment or agreement or -- ask a questionte about it. i think we should look at every country and see what they're doing, positive and negative. not that what australia did would work everywhere. we are so different. we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms from the militia perspective. there is nothing that says gun many factors have a right to manufacture guns there you could lead to that that that is not mentioned in the constitution. way, the gunby the

manufacturers -- what we're trying to do is make sure that the kinds of things you end up suing a jug manufacturer or you can do for a gun manufacturer also pyramid neglect, not for having a gun used for what a government is supposed to be used. caller: two questions and to comments. when the nra was formed in 1871, it was formed by union genuine -- union generals. nowhere were they mentioning gun rights but they do mention gun safety paint -- safety. the scientific way of using a firearm and they are -- it is

all about gun safety. it has changed a lot since 1971 when i believe some black panthers wanted to join the nra and they were denied that for whatever reason. my other comment involves the second amendment. the second amendment from beginning to end, except for the last word. the last word is infringed. this change it to the word abolished. when you think about it, there are infringements on all of our rights. amendment he phrased well-regulated militia and then further on says, not be infringed. the fact that it is well-regulated by definition means there are in -- infringements on it. guest: a book a few years ago,

the secondwould edit amendment. whether the second amendment applied to all gun ownership. i do not want to get into the debate. that is not where america is right now. host: one more call, democrat line. caller: hello. thank you so much. thank you for c-span. i appreciate it. comments anduick questions. i am nothing against rifles and shotguns. it is not a problem in america. i feel the problem is with handguns. that is what is devastating. we still have a law that was put in, federal agencies cannot get data on gun violence.

control,r for disease that law, in 94, is that still the books? still prohibited from doing research on gun safety. we would love to do that and we do not want them to ban all guns. that is not the purpose at all. cdc studies things like child safety on toys and pleasant controls and many other things, and a way to make it safer here it is part of the reason it comes back to things like child safety laws, things that do not interfere. interfere. the representative of virginia talking about atf and gun issues. thank you. coming up, what would foreign policy look like under a donald trump administration? our next guest has his concern. max boot will join us.

♪ classic campaign 2016 bus continues its travels to honor winners from the student count competition. the bus made a stop in new madeleinerecognize for her second prize video, when the house becomes a home theater she was honored in front of her classmates, family, and community matters -- members. in pennsylvania to honor eight graders for their second prize winning video, national immigration issues. during the ceremony, they donated $500 of their winnings a local charity. following this event, the buster of to a middle school in new jersey to celebrate zachary's second prize winning video, the next big problem.

officials joined in the ceremony for zachary. a special thanks to comcast for helping to court navy's community visit spirit you can view all the winning documentaries that student cam.org. >> washington journal continues. host: donald trump gave a speech on foreign policy on which -- during which he outlined his philosophy. here is that speech. trump: my foreign policy will always put the interests of the american people and american security above all else. it has to be first. has to be. foundation ofhe every single decision i will make. host: joining us to talk about a potential foreign policy , he is the senior fellow in national security studies.

, good morning. you recently said he would be a big mess -- the biggest national security threat the united states whatever face. can you expand on that? guest: absolutely. the foreign policies and economic policies he advocates are the same that got us into the great depression and world war ii. they would be an economic and foreign-policy disaster for the country. he wants to abandon our nearest and dearest allies in europe himself withating america's enemies like vladimir putin. he wants to ban muslims from coming to the united, which would be a gift to isis because it would hand them a propaganda victory by seemingly demonstrating to them what they claim to their followers, that the united states is an enemy of islam.

beyond the fact that trump's policies are incredibly dangerous, it is the underlying fact, and this is why i think it would be a disaster of trump were elected, he is utterly unprepared and unfit for the office of the presidency of the united states. as norm ornstein has recently pointed out, donald trump is easily the most ignorant presidential candidate we have had in the last 50 years and that includes the comedian. knows justat he ain't so. even as he was wrapping up the republican nomination for president, he was espousing a crazy conspiracy theory about how ted cruz's father was supposedly involved in the kennedy assassination, which reminds us donald trump has also espouse crazy conspiracy theories about barack obama supposedly not being born in the united states, or vaccines causing autism, or george w. about massedly lying

destruction. all these things suggest he is immune to facts. he is irrational, erratic, he changes his positions on a daily basis. last week, he was suggesting he would not pay the full debt of the united states, which would as argentinaeat and greece, and a few days later, he said maybe i will, but i will spend a lot of money, a recipe for hyperinflation like we had in the 1970's, and a day later he backed off of that and tomorrow, i am sure he will be back into it again. he changes positions on an hourly basis. it is not somebody who can be trusted with the office of commander-in-chief. not somebody to whom we should be turning over the nuclear codes. host: how do you think donald trump use the world? nativist, xena phobic, and racist worldview. he tries to skate goat people not like him. he suggests he will send the

federal authorities and the police state roundup to round up 11 million undocumented immigrants and to expel them from the country to her he wants to stop muslims from coming here, he wants to start trade wars with mexico and china, two of our largest trade partners. he is hostile to other countries except those hostile to us, -- us. when it comes to russia, trump has nothing but kind words he cosi admires the kind of authoritarianism that putin has created in russia and no doubt trump probably seeks to emulate the example in the united states. it is a dangerous worldview for anyone who could potentially become the united states president to have. with max discussion boot. --

host: there was a story recently about bob corker saying he would not mind advising donald trump on foreign affairs issues. he said what i am hearing and what he is saying is more of a george h.w. bush deal of the world. i him embracing more of a james baker view of the world and a larger degree of realism is making its way and i very much appreciate that. how do you respond? nonsense --is nonsense on stilts. now that he is the republican nominee, the washington establishment is trying to kiss up to him and forgetting all of made inicisms they recent months. georgesty to suggest -- h.w. bush, one of the most thoughtful when it came to foreign policy. donald trump is a complete ignoramus. he has never heard of the nuclear triad.

he cannot even tell you what the difference is between the kurds -- those are issues where george h.w. bush would have known. donald trump is not at all like bush. the president he most resembles his herbert hoover, the guy who got us into the great depression. donald trump's policies would cause a global recession and destroy our security by shattering our alliances with democracies that builds up more than half a century. to suggest he has anything in common with a president like merge h.w. bush suggests to that some republican insiders in washington are losing touch with reality. advised onuest has foreign policy for the mitt romney campaign in 2011, marco pressin 2015, john mccain presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008. as far as those you work for, how would they approach or differ from trump's foreign

policy? policies are radically different and i grew up in the 1980's as a ronald reagan republican. pro-free-tradeas and pro-immigration. he was hopeful and optimistic and a gentleman and did not go around insulting his opponents or flinging childish abuse. i would say all the presidential candidate -- candidates, marco rubio, who i work for, were very much in the reagan mold. donald trump is the anti-reagan. the opposite of reagan. he is full of hatred and inouses policies directly contrast to those of ronald reagan and other candidates who have come after ronald reagan. republican,real someone who only join in 2012. he does not espouse the principles that i and so many republicans believe in. it is said to me to see a

demagogue like this, a racist, image -- ignorant demagogue hijacking the party of reagan. the first call for you is from paul, independent line. caller: thank you. i was with the department of defense for over 25 years. i saw the inside of nato from the money point of view. one thing mr. trump is accurate about is that the europeans pay very little for their own defense. year, the past nations, canada, the united states, and the u.k. contributed over 90% of the dollars spent on actual -- four nato. sort of obvious that putting the united states interests first does not mean abandoning all of our allies.

it simply means that our allies should be doing something for the alliance. why should the united states risk a nuclear exchange for the russia for the sake of the baltic states unless there is also portuguese -- standing on the line in the baltic states? the portuguese and the french and the spanish also commit themselves, then the united states can feel guilty about being tough on our allies. until that time, i think we need to at least listen to that much of what the man said. in the first place, the european union collectively has the second-largest defense budget in the world after the united states. they have a substantial ground force which protects europe and american interests as well. the key point i want to make is the reason we have troops in europe and troops in south korea and japan, it is not a favor for

those countries. that is what donald trump seems to imagine, that we are doing this out of the goodness of our hearts, that this is aav for our allies. that is not the case are the reason we have troops abroad is they are defending american interests and american security. our security is served by having a peaceful and secure europe and east asia. we have been the biggest since 1945.s if you tinker with that, you create an opening for a global predators like putin or isis. barack obama has done that to some extent. president obama has pulled back from some of our commitments in the middle east, with consequences. trump, those consequences would be magnified times 100. the big losers, there is no european nations would lose if the american security umbrella pullback, but the biggest losers would be the united states of america.

the biggest beneficiaries of the free and liberal world order that we have to edit and underwritten since 1945. donald trump does not understand that and the caller does not, but american presidents of both parties have understood that. michigan, republican line. brad is next. i would like to know what is wrong with negotiating trade agreements. it takes care of the american worker first and stops on countries from manipulating currency. simple enough 20 two through a security check to know who you are allowing it to your country? he is not talking about taking them out, he wants to slow it down. apart from hitting hispanics, i saw what was done. they are talking about the bad side of immigration and the left has -- people are smarter than that. to me like you work for a democratic party. your turn. the caller does not know

what he is talking about it i have never been a democrat in my life and i still have not. what he is espousing sounds reasonable but it is not reasonable. open our borders and let every single person from the outside into the united states. worse we have to order security. everyone agrees or that is not what donald trump is saying your he is coming up with xena phobic proposals for example to ban all muslims fortis committing on the basis of religion. the new mayor of luck -- of london is a muslim. will donald trump not allow the mayor of london to come to the united states? that will not enhance security. he will alienate peaceful and moderate muslims we need to fight terrorists. he will make us less safe. he claims he will build a law along -- a wall along the mexico border and get mexico to pay for it or he is dreaming. he has never once explained how he could achieve that.

are 11 million undocumented immigrants in the united states, even more, most of whom are holding down jobs and trimming to society. donald trump will end his police into american homes to root out 11 million people. it is without precedent in the them american history. and is a on fascism very dangerous thing to do. it is not a reasonable way to protect our borders. what trump is proposing will make us less safe and not more safe, by alienating the entire world and turning the entire million --d, 1.6 billion muslims around the world against us. from georgia, democrats line. caller: thank you for letting me speak. . enjoy your vision i'm an elderly woman now, in my and when the republican party back a long

trying towallace was run, i saw where they had sent him down -- set him down at a roundtable and told him the vision of the republican party and they said his individual good fors were not america. they more or less said, we suggest you stop running and he stopped running. i felt better. a republicanis on ticket, saying he is republican and he has a lot of viewpoints. but there is no way in the world we can have a commander-in-chief that cannot even give proper viewpoints in america and now, we are going to trust you with pushing the button for nuclear? this man has problems with his own psyche. he is all about trump, all about the things he wants. those are the things that can get this country in such a bad state where we will actually be appearing like a third world

country. it is not what america needs. america needs more sitting down to the table, discussing things as a team, all of the congress have excellent minds. the laws andy with that is how you make changes. guest: i agree with the caller that donald trump gives egomaniacs a bad name. all politicians are egotistical to some extent but he is off the charts. self-involvement, it is not somebody would want to trust with the highest responsibility in the land. i think the caller is also right to invoke the comparison with george wallace. that is who donald trump reminds me of. demagogues of the past by george wallace. he talks about an america first whatgn policy, which was the nazi sympathizers in the 1930's talked about. we have had extremist in the past.

none of those is have ever won the nomination of one of the great political parties. none of those have ever been this close to the presidency. that is why donald trump is more dangerous than those. he is actually on the cusp of real power and if he were to get it, he would be the least qualified and most dangerous , leastntial candidate qualified and most dangerous president we have ever had in our history. contrast donald trump's foreign policy with hillary clinton. is that something you could support? i think hillary clinton would be a far more responsible our nuclear arsenal and donald trump would bp read i have my disagreements with hillary clinton. i was a foreign policy to marco rubio in this campaign. the best line on hillary clinton i have heard came from overwork, the conservative writer, where he said hillary clinton is wrong

on everything but she is wrong within the normal parameters. i agree with that. disagreements, but they are within the normal parameters. trump is off the charts, erratic and unstable and unfit to be president. with hillary clinton, i agree with a lot of the things she stands for with health -- foreign policy. i think she would be more moderate and reasonable when it comes to foreign policy than president obama has been. i think she understands the need for american leadership in the world, something that donald trump does not get it i my disagreements with hillary clinton. i think the ideal scenario would win the white to house and for republicans to keep at least one house of congress to act as a moderating influence on clinton the way should -- they did with her husband in the 1990's p ref think that would produce a sensible middle-of-the-road foreign policy, whereas if donald trump wins, it is inconceivable to me because we have never had a man like him in

the oval office. ,ost: our guest is max boot senior fellow in national security studies. independent line, mary, you're next. caller: hello. the original premise of the republican party was to uphold our constitution to ensure that slavery was never again imposed on the american people. of the matter is you are a neoconservative. neoconservatives call original premise republicans paleo cons as though we are some, andessive part of the pack like mr. levin, who wants the constitution exposed under barack obama so it can be taken with an denigrated and weakened. ronald reagan stated his biggest regret was the amnesty in the 1980's. wrong with donald

trump, who has never set a ban on muslims. he said temporary on muslim immigration until we find out what is going on in our country. you, mr. boot, support open borders. and very little border security. because hemr. trump is a threat to your personal profit. russia and youn never served in our military. our soldiers overwhelmingly support mr. trump because they see what is going on. they have had the rules of engagement, their hands tied behind their backs. they cannot defend themselves. our soldiers are having their benefits stripped from them, foreign men -- foreign nationals, many of whom work from the people you profit from, are keeping subsidize from u.s. taxpayers while 95 million citizens are no longer counted, so foreign labor cheap for the

people who pay you, but expensive for the u.s. taxpayer, our debt is skyrocketing host:. we are going to let him respond. go ahead. guest: a lot of hatred coming from that caller just like for donald trump fear the caller is castigating me for something i do not know -- do not do and donald trump ashley makes trump brand clothes overseas in countries like bangladesh and mexico from extremely poor label. -- poor labor. he is the one who benefits from it. what she said is very much like trump says. he throws out a blizzard of incorrect assertions and claims they are factual. for example, the woman saying that they cannot -- soldiers cannot shoot back to that is ridiculous. donald trump does not know anything about our soldiers. they do shoot back and are allowed to and do it all the time.

to me also to hear donald trump being held up as a champion of the military. this was a guy who avoided the draft in 19 steep's and later in it was0's said avoiding his personal vietnam to more recently, he has denigrated combat heroes held in prison in north vietnam. he said they were not heroes because they were captured and he does not like people who are captured. denigrating the purge of people like john mccain who incurred more than five years of torture while donald trump was back home having a grand old time living the high life in new york. i think that is discussing. just disgusting. the caller buys into these lies, which suggests to me what i already know. donald trump is a good salesman, a good con man. he makes people think he cares about foreign labor and our soldiers. the only thing he actually cares hist is himself and

personal desire to acquire power for himself. host: talking about a recent tovey preferring trump clinton, they preferred donald trump as far as those in the military are concerned, just to show you that. let's hear from powell in ohio. your next, republican line. you for stopping this guy when he rambles on. a few questions. not have to answer. are you republican or democrat? guest: i have been a republican my whole life and i have never voted for a democratic candidate my whole life. a lot longer than donald trump has been. caller: you sound like a democrat. you republicans, none of you have learned anything in the last seven years. people are fed up with it, fed up with what is going on here you have not paid attention.

you think we are going to support the republicans in four years after you guys that hillary in? we will stop a lot of this garbage you guys are putting on us. you think in four years -- >> what garbage? caller: all let's vote for republicans -- >> which garbage are you talking to? host: al? i don't like mitt romney now. i do not like george bush and what a crybaby. host: thank you. anything from that? guest: it is utterly substance free. it is like trump's claims are utterly substance free. no facts. host: what would you attribute to donald trump? guest: part of it is he was a celebrity and he was on tv for a long time. we have seen that for arnold schwarzenegger and others. he has got that celebrity a lore. he masquerades as a straight talk or even though his

positions change every day. he is actually a pathological liar but that is the aura he presents himself as your he also presents an aura of being a successful businessman though he has actually bankrupted company after company and if he had simply taken the inheritance he received from his rich father in the 1970's and put it in a fund, he would have more money than he has today. a fraud and a phony but a good salesman and con artists and i believe he has pulled the wool over a lot of people's eyes. host: from west virginia, democrats line, carol, hello. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i agree with the previous caller from georgia about how dangerous trump is for this country. he is going to make it utter chaos. on the other hand, people like the lady from massachusetts that agree with trump, i think it is

actually the anger from democrats and republicans. to say that people who agree with trump are liars or whatever, they're angry, i am angry, but i'm not so angry that i want this country torn up. i thank you for c-span and thank you for listening to me. guest: i think the caller makes a good point here there is no question that a lot of people are angry about the wrong responses to back muddy like donald trump who will make the situation worse. a lackcan be angry about of economic growth and in particular, angry about our insufficient security and angry the lack of progress in the campaign against isis. i agree with all of that. not going toump is make the situation better. he will in fact make it worse.

by slapping tariffs on our closest trading partners, getting into trade wars, he will create a recession which will kill jobs in the country. by demonizing muslims, banning them for the united states, he will feed in the isis propaganda and create more recruits. he will not solve the problems he talks about her he has no idea how to solve the problems. all he ever says is trust me. is his planim what for isis, he says trust me, it is a secret and you have to have been born yesterday to believe something like that. he is twisting it, he is offering slogans instead of solutions, and he is doing all of that because he doesn't care about people. he is all about himself, he is all about donald trump. it was during that speech

a couple weeks ago on foreign policy that donald trump talked about the condition of the middle east and attributed u.s. policy. i want to play what he had to say. >> it began with the dangerous idea that we could make western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a western democracy. we tore up what institutions they had and then we are surprised at what we unleashed. civil war, religious fanaticism, thousands of americans lives wasted. many trillions of dollars were lost as a result. the vacuum was created that isis would fill. iran to would also fill that void with their unjust enrichment. they have benefited so much. our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster.

host: what do you think about his assessment? guest: it is important to point out that while donald trump masquerades as an opponent of the iraq war, he was for the war before he was against it. he is basically just engaging in after-the-fact second-guessing. some of what he said is accurate. but why is the middle east a mess? the large part is because we pulled out under president obama. by 2010, iraq was fairly stable and secure. said it wasnt biden going to be one of the shining success stories of the obama administration but that didn't happen because president obama pulled our troops out of iraq. he didn't do anything in syria and as a result, we have the chaos that grips the region today. but trump solution of further greaterback,

isolationism, that would be obama on steroids. he would take the policy and multiply it times 100. he would make the situation far worse. host: from california, independent line, michael. obama has advisers, trump would have advisers, there are all kinds of advisors. you have got congress, the house , and things in the constitution to protect us from -- nobody can be worse than hillary clinton. if this don't change, isis is going to be the least of america's worries because america is going to start shooting. that is how it is going to be. host: mr. booth? guest: i see the caller is repeating the call to violence you often hear from called -- from donald trump, which is one of the most disturbing things.

the way he calls on his followers to attack peaceful protesters, the way he smears anybody who dares to criticize him. unfortunately, some of his followers seem to be fine with that. that is a troubling development. he is the least democratic, small d, candidate in our presidential candidate. he could possibly win the presidency. host: did the caller make a point on whether he would have advisers? you mentioned resistant -- resistance from the house and the senate. fortunately, the presidency is a powerful institution and especially in foreign policy, it is hard for congress to act as an effective check on the president. as for the notion of trump having advisers, i am sure he will.

he has a c team of advisers because none of the major republican foreign-policy thinkers, including me, would have anything to do with them. more than 100 thinkers signed a petition saying they would never support trump. it is not about the advisers. it is about the person in the oval office. the president will always have advisers who will always give him conflicting advice and the president has to sort it out. my concern is that trump does not begin to have the knowledge to sort out these complex issues that we face and he doesn't have the judgment to do it. look at all these loony conspiracy theories he has embraced. anyone who looks at the evidence will understand that ted cruz's father was not involved in the kennedy assassination. barack obama was actually born in hawaii. but trump does not believe these things. he does not believe the basic facts that are they are -- that

are verifiable. what it suggests to me is that even if he is presented with overwhelming facts and evidence, he will ignore it because he is driven by irrationality, his moods. he is not somebody who is a person with a deep knowledge or a history of making good judgments. host: a couple of questions about this administration. the president is set to travel to hiroshima this month during his visit to japan. what do you think about the decision to go there? guest: i think it is fine. i think president obama will be smart enough not to apologize for the decision to drop the atomic, which was a very made underecision wartime circumstances and one

that the country overwhelmingly supported because they knew the alternative was going to be the deaths of hundreds of thousands of american servicemen in an invasion of japan. commemorateriate to what happened but to do it in a sober and summer way. host: there was a recent story in the new york times magazine that look that the national -- they advisor, this aspiring novelists who became the foreign-policy guru. in spring last year, legions of arms control experts began popping up on social media. he goes on to say "we created an echo chamber." the things they were saying -- they were saying things that evaluated what we gave them to say. your reaction to the story and when it comes to the iran deal? guest: it is troubling to hear a

white house aide say he deceived the country about the iran deal. that is inappropriate and raises deeply troubling issues about how that deal was sold to the american people. my larger reaction was i was gob smacked by the arrogance and lack of ability displayed by ben rhodes and to some extent president obama as well because ben rhodes has nothing but contempt for people like bob gates and hillary clinton and others who have been around washington longer than he has and have real-world experience. denigrates people in the former bush administration as being morons. that suggests a lack of self-awareness because the obama administration has been in office for seven years and the world is a mess. crimea, syriaxed is in a horrible civil war with

half a million people killed. yemen and libya are in chaos. china is acting more aggressively. these are all things that have happened under president obama's watch. i see no tendency to think the obama administration needs to do a course correction and needs to do something else. i see arrogance displayed by 32-year-old ben rhodes who looks at others -- he is older than but benr something -- rhodes, who suggests that others are basically idiots and that everybody in washington is part of this blob and only he and the president know what is going on. they need to show more self-awareness and question the decisions they have made. guest: steve, texas, republican line. caller: thank you sir. a gentleman who called from california touched base on a couple of things i disagree

with. -- already said he is going to bring somebody who is more politically correct into the party with them. because he is not politically correct and that is something that america has been needing for a long time. to act like he is a republican or he wants to come across as a republican but he backs a lot of things the is behindarty -- he most of the things the democrat party is putting out there and it seems like he is lost. donald trump made billions of dollars. he doesn't have to be his head against the wall with these numbnuts on tv right now. he wants to make america great again. deal.ws had this iran we knew that john kerry never

got to read the thing. i cannot believe they are just now exposing it. guest: that's steve from texas. host: i have been a republican longer than donald trump has callerd i am sorry the has fallen for donald trump's con job that he is supposedly going to make america great again. the caller also mentioned the iran deal and how much he is opposed to it. donald trump has said he will not terror up the iran deal. unfortunately, he has taken his followers for a ride. guest: from upper maribor american -- marlborough maryland, democrat line. caller: i agree with what mr. booth is saying. i am a blue-collar person and i wish these people would think.

trump would say "i am going ," bring back jobs to america why didn't he begin by bringing back his jobs from russia. he hasn't started to bring his companies back because he is not going to. i wonder if people who are blue-collar would believe if you people next to a rich who have gambling casinos everywhere that that is going to make them rich. for making america great again, we don't have the cotton fields anymore, we don't have the two dollar a day salaries anymore, and we have modern equipment and it is replaced with cash registers and whatever else and computers.

and we can't remain the same. so instead of learning a new the time, today is not as yesterday was. and making it great again, what are we going to do? put people in internment camps and slave labor? what is great again? host: that caller exhibits a lot more wisdom than a lot of these pseudo-sophisticated washington insiders who are suddenly joining the trump cause. she understands what they don't. simply because you are saying you will bring jobs back doesn't mean you can. donald trump makes his clothing a broad and he at the same time castigates companies that move their operations abroad. he doesn't care about anything except his own ego. he doesn't have a way to revive manufacturing.

not going to reverse the long-term decline in american manufacturing. it is not possible for any president to do that. people who aren not as smart as the lady who called in and he thinks that somehow he can miraculously bring these jobs back. the final point i want to emphasize is donald trump bankrupted one casino after another. he had one failed business after another. trump university was basically a scam. he thinks he can do the same thing with the united states. he thinks he can declare bankruptcy and nobody would care. he says that he is not going to pay back america's creditors. andot, he will leave us economic basket case like greece or argentina. trump would tear that up.

that is very dangerous. what he advocates is not going to solve our problems. guest: last call is from leesburg, georgia. bill is the last call. caller: good morning. first of all, i want to say the first caller you had about nato hit the nail on the head. i put a uniform on when i was 18 years old and never considered myself a hero. my fan -- my grandfather spent two years in a german pow camp. donald trump has got the nail hit on the head. all immigration needs to end today. and we need to rearm these other countries so they can protect themselves instead of us picking up the bill to protect them.

he is right about that. host: this is the voice of isolationism speaking. we tried exactly what donald trump suggests. we left other countries alone in 1918 after world war i. we did not have a nato after world war i. we did not have troops in europe or asia. was the result piece? hardly. the result was the rise of dictators like hitler and tojo. in 1945, the greatest generation decided to learn some lessons from history. they understood the united states had to maintain its leadership in the world but we had to keep troops in europe and east asia. we had to have alliances to safeguard our allies and ourselves and the result was to intoareas like europe paragon of peace and prosperity.

that has enabled our own peace and prosperity. this caller suggests that we tear all that up and let countries -- what happens when they rearm? nuclear arms races happen. that weas suggested pull our troops out of japan and south korea and allow them to go nuclear. can you imagine what happens if japan and south korea go nuclear? this could be similar to the arms race we had prior to 1914 and world war i. he would make the world a vastly more dangerous place. what has preserved our security and prosperity since 1945 has been america in a leadership role. america keeps the peace in east asia and europe. we need to keep doing that for our own good, not simply for the good of our allies. donald trump would tear that up. guest: max boot with the council

on foreign relations. thank you for your time. last 45 minutes, especially with west virginia participating in the primary, we want to talk to you about an issue important to west virginia. the coal industry. in the last 45 minutes, we want to ask -- get your thoughts on whether or not there is a war on the coal industry. we will take those calls in just a few minutes. (202) 737-0001 for republicans. (202) 737-0002 for independents. if you are a coworker, (202) 628-0205. the newd us reference york times piece taking a look at ben rhodes. you heard our guests talk about it. here is a bit of what he had to say about -- after reading the

profile on deputy national security adviser ben rhodes. >> we live in a time of precipitous change in american government and communications. we don't admit it enough but the congress of the last decade is extraordinarily weak by historical standards. at the same time, the media is rapidly fragmenting. these vacuums are being filled --the executive branch that in ways that are badly damaging to the separation of powers and the idea of a meaningfully engaged citizenry. our founders would be troubled by what is occurring in our time. washington is in the process of replacing self evident truths with self-serving spins and this is dangerous. i sit intentionally on the desk of daniel patrick moynihan precisely because he was committed to the idea of a

shared set of facts before debates began. yet this story makes it clear that the executive branch feels empowered to proclaim its own narrative. this is bigger than republicans and democrats. this is about the legislatures check on the executive and it is about our accountability to the people. to my colleagues who supported the iran deal, does it trouble you that the white house displays obvious contempt of you? and for your voters in my voters? will you stand for this dishonest spin from future republican administrations? i will not, from any administration of either party. some will say this is just one story of one staffer who wanted to brag and got carried away. someone who wanted to boast about how the world could be his canvas. but it is ultimately elected officials who bear responsibility for the ongoing

evaporation of public trust in our time. i want to underscore this point. my comments tonight are not about whether you share the president's view that the iranian nuclear deal was a prudent move or whether you share my view that it was a disaster. .hat is not the issue today foreign policy is critically important. but this story is about whether or not we take truth seriously. it is about whether or not we care about the public trust. there is a widespread view that our chief job is to "pass legislation." our main job is to preserve protect, and depend -- defend the constitution. our job is to ensure that the nation is well governed and that the public can believe, that the public can have trust and

confidence that the nation is well governed. is ateans that oversight least as important as passing or repealing particular pieces of legislation. >> washington journal continues. guest: primaries in nebraska and west virginia. coal country being a big topic. democrats.00 for (202) 737-0001 for republicans. for independents, (202) 737-0002 . amin from texas on our democrats lined. good morning. caller: i can remember when the coal workers were having so many problems with the coal owners. they were -- there were blasts,

cave-ins, they weren't using the right equipment to take care of the workers in the minds. but right now, mining is not the way they get the coal. they do fracking. they do other kind of stuff. it is not a war against coal. coal is just obsolete right now. thatbody else that thinks all these miners that have lost their jobs are going to go to work, they are wrong because that is not the way they mine anymore. mine the cheapest and easiest way to go and that is not sending men to work minds. -- work mines. host: sandy, republican line. what do you think? caller: coming from kentucky, i can say there is a war on coal and it started with barack hussein obama.

he has made it clear that he is trying to destroy our country and i won't get into all of that. we have thousands and thousands of coal miners without jobs. little towns where there are no job opportunities. 400 years of have .old -- coal for now, it is the warmest source of energy we can have and the safest. i don't know why we are even .onsidering this war on coal but coming from obama, i can understand. the conversation today is baffling. it is unreal. i can't wait for future president trump. he will bring cold back to america. sandy in kentucky off of

twitter. isiewer says the war on coal called competition. hillary clinton spoke on this topic back in march. she talked about the future of the energy sector. >>'s i am the only candidate who has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity. -- clean renewable energy as a key. we are going to put a lot of coal companies out of business. we are going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. those people labored in those fors -- those mines generations to power our factories. now we have got to move away from coal and the other fossil fuels. but i don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy we relied on.

host: john in mississippi on our independent line. what do you think? caller: i do think there is a war on coal and i worked on many power plants, but i have never heard anybody actually talk , the the btu content difference between coal and natural gas. that would be something that would astound people once they found that out. there is a coal burner not too far from me and you can tell when that thing is running, which is most of the time because the steam comes out the top. host: let's hear from a coal worker in henderson kentucky. hello bob. caller: thanks for taking my call. my dad and two of my brothers retired from the coal mine.

two other brothers worked in the coal mine and coal is obsolete now, destroying the atmosphere along with gasoline. people have got to stop and think. do you want the coal in missions keep going when it is destroying the earth? eventually, it will cause farmers all kinds of troubles where they can't grow crops because of the gases. --ay, it is low so for kroll low sulfur coal. host: you called on our line for coal workers. are you currently in the industry? caller: i got out of it. it is a killer. my dad and most of my brothers got black long from it. why should i stay in it when it

is killing you? they need to try and get more industries than coal, forget about coal. jonesboro -- arkansas, david up next, republican. caller: it is going to be decades before we can get off coal and for these people to say we are going to get away from is a time in the future where coal will not be used like it is today but right now, there are tens of thousands if not millions of people in poor countries that use coal. without coal, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of these people would die. that is their only sustenance of heat. for hillary clinton and barack obama to come out and say that we are going to get rid of these jobs, that is the most pompous statement that i have ever

heard. but it is consistent with where obama has been from the very ,irst day and hillary clinton for her to continue saying that, it tells you you have to follow the money. if you follow the money, you will find out the money is with clean industry, with the big donors out west and they are giving her millions. that is exactly why they want to get rid of coal. host: more details coming out about that meeting that will take place thursday in both the house and the senate. donald trump traveling to meet leaders there. paul ryan will sit down with mr. trump place. the rest of the house gop leadership team will meet with him at the rnc. the house speaker will join reince priebus and mr. trump for a second meeting.

mccarthyreporting that has signed up to serve as a delegate for the presumptive republican nominee at the summers national convention in cleveland. house speaker paul ryan says he is not ready to endorse trump, even though he is the lone republican remaining in the contest, saying he is not ready to do that at that point. --l ryan is saying that speaking of donald trump, he spoke on the topic of coal. this was in charleston, west virginia, thursday, when he criticized hillary clinton's comments about coal miners, and pledged to bring back coal jobs. evend trump calle: i was not thinking about you, i was thinking about the miners all over this country. we are going to put the miners back to work, put the miners back to work. we are going to get those mines open.

havecountry -- what they done. and how about hillary clinton? i was watching her three or four weeks ago. [jeers] i am going to put the miners back to work, and she said i am going to put the miners and the mines out of business. then she comes over and tries to explain her statement. that is a tough one to explain here it i watched her sitting at the table with a very good group of people, and one of the miners in particular was not exactly happy with her. he was not exactly happy. so who do we have? in this group? stand up. you are all standing up anyway. i tell you what, you are amazing people, and we are going to take care of a lot of years of horrible abuse, ok? you can count on it. you can count on it. 100%.

although hillary clinton did meet with coal workers while she was campaigning in west virginia, those photos courtesy of getty images, talking about their concerns, that was going on inside. outside there were protests going on, from those critical of supportingns and donald trump. is there a war on coal? that is what we would like to hear from you in our remaining half hour. bonnie from west virginia donnieies as a cold -- from west virginia identifies as a coal worker. called -- iglad you am glad you played secretary clinton's soundbite. i worked in southern west virginia for many years, and big coalnies that frack

started in the 1970's and 1980's. they would buy working mines, and shut them down to inflate the price of coal. that is where the war on coal started. that is where a lot of miners lost their jobs. host: are you still active in the coal industry? caller: no, i am recently out. host: what got you out? was it because your business dried up, or were there other things? actually, the roof fell. we heard viewers talk about clean technology and solar and otherwise. transitioned out in replacement of these clean technologies? caller: coal is not a renewable resource. they do have to find some type of technology for in the future to replace coal, because it is

not an infinite source of energy. goes,as far as politics who do you like so far, particularly from the industry you were a part of? buter: i'm kind of sorry, if anybody remembers -- none of the above is the one i like. host: you are not going to participate in the primaries today? caller: no, my vote is no vote. host: that is bernie in west virginia. let's hear from joan in georgia, blue ridge, georgia, democrats line. caller: i have been thinking in a way no one else seems to. the coal miners -- i do have some experience back in the ,950's, visiting the coal mine my mother-in-law's sister mary to a coal miner.

-- married to a coal miner. her husband had no future. damaged his health. they seem to believe the coal mining communities are like serfs in old russia. they cannot leave the place. choice for generation after generation, either go down to the mine or cut off the tops of mountains or if you have ever driven through where they have done the strip mining, it is terrible. it affects the streams and the wildlife and everything below the mountains. they feel like they have no choice but to be coal miners, generation after generation, like peasants in old england, having to be tied to the land. and seeing no future. i would like to see -- and i -- washat hillary said

clean energy. they could bring manufacturing of solar panels and something else -- batteries for cars. we drove one for years -- that is really saving on fuel. the main thing i wanted to say is that miners feel like they have nothing else to do. so, yeah, after high school, technical schools for the young men growing up thinking they have no future. louise ins hear from fredericksburg, virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. yes, there is a war on mining in general. coal is anthracite, a mineral. over is mineral mining all the country, but it is not being allowed. yes, there is definitely a danger to this, because our

magnets, our batteries, this all requires minerals. it is not just coal. it is all minerals. they are destroying the mining industry. and i would also like to poi -- to the lady in georgia has she ever seen thousands and thousands of miles of windmills and solar panels? do you think that those things just magically get up on the mountains? .hey have to build roads they have to level land. they essentially do stripmining -- bigger manning -- bigger damage than stripmining ever did. this is what they do all over this country. if you think looking out your window at a windmill or at a are convolutede in this country. we need minerals. that is what the earth and everything runs on.

they are stopping mineral mining everywhere. in this country. meanwhile, we are importing minerals from foreign countries. 95% of our minerals are being brand of just like the transformers that a couple of years ago all of a sudden we discovered. , louise,cha fredericksburg, virginia. last month it was the energy secretary speaking with the lexington, kentucky, he rald leaders editorial board. coal came up. this is some of the response. >> in the future we still think cole can play a major role in a low-carbon economy if we succeed particularly in carbon capture utilization sequestration. i do not accept the idea that because carbon capture is is alwaystoday it

going to be that way. secondly, don't forget, we live in a country that does not put any charge, any direct price on carbon dioxide emissions. the only reason you captured carbon dioxide is to keep it -- it is always going to be cheaper to release it than to capture it. the question is, with the very low cost of coal and a significant cost reduction of capture, does that become economically competitive with alternatives? our job is to enable options. host: is there a war on coal? you can call and give us your thoughts. 202-7 48-8000 for democrats. 202-7 48-8001 for republicans.

748-8002 for independents. was --maas from shreveport, louisiana, republican line. wayne is next. caller: how are you doing? been in office, he has launched an attack against coal, oil, gas, natural gas, and everything else. he wants to destroy our energy. that is his plan, along with guns and every thing else. right there iny the white house that people do not even talk about. got to worry about

china or anybody else, the enemy is in the white house. he wants to destroy america. before he gets out of office, every time he turns around he has something going on about this country. i do not understand the democrats wanting to support this guy, voting for hillary clinton. she already admitted she is going to bring down coal, oil, and gas, with nothing to replace it. not a darn thing in a million years can replace oil, gas, and coal in this country. host: california, gail, democrats line. good morning. you are on. caller: hello? no war on coal. there is a light on coal. it is dwindling. we have to go to alternatives in growing energy in this country. people keep thinking it is the president's fault, it is

hillary's fault. it is always someone else's fault. why don't these people in coal country. why don't some of these people go to different jobs, retrain their children, like my father did. my father drove a truck. do you think he wanted his daughter to drive a truck? no, he told me to educate myself and get a better job. oil is bundling, coal is bundling. , coal is dwindling dwindling. we have to come up with alternative ways for transportation and put gas in our cars. we need to plug the car into the wall and let electricity work. reeducate your children for different jobs. stop blaming other people for the problems that you cause yourselves three we knew that thousands of jobs were being lost year after year because you can simply take tnt and blast the top of a mountain off.

instead of 3000 people to extract the call, it only takes 100. when are republicans going to stop blaming barack obama for their problems, hillary clinton for their problems, and re-educate their children and themselves to be better americans? stop blaming everyone for our problems and stop -- and start blaming ourselves. host: mike from colorado, independent line. is ar: yes, i know there war on coal. and i bought into it. i said, well, i will put in a solar panel. i checked on it. $19,000. for a solar panel. i said, can iy -- sell the extra energy? no, the electric companies will not buy it.

then you have to worry about replacing the batteries. they are expensive. i would love to be able to afford solar panels, but nobody can. host: do you know anybody else in your area who has a solar panel, and has anyone talked about the cost savings? caller: i would not have to pay for electricity, but in the wintertime it is only 100 a month for my house. how many years will it take for me to pay for that solar panel? i will be dead before it is paid for. i have a friend who did the same thing. he put in a $19,000 solar panel. but he could afford it. he had the savings to do it. he is retired. he has been a pusher of solar panels, so i said, well, for you that is ok, but what normal person says get away from coal -- great, how are you going to do it? who can afford to pay that

amount of money for solar panels. until the price comes down on solar panels, i am going to use coal. host: that is mike in colorado. also questions about how he will raise funds about that campaign. "the new york times" has a story talking about that, the joint fundraising agreement with the gop. under that agreement, mr. trump and the party would most likely be able to raise even more than the current individual limit. mitt romney raise less than $500 million under such an agreement that year using a donor network that took years to develop. hubbard fell in line behind him. all the other candidates, mr. hubbard said in an interview, he was the last man standing. if you go to a different section, it profiles the person

who will be raising the large dollar amount for mr. trump, who says he made his fortune at goldman sachs, funded by george soros. would be responsible for helping him raise $1 billion for republicans and his own campaign. mnuchin said mr. was a personal friendship with 15 years, mr. trump has attacked both his investment company as well as goldman sachs. i was there at the beginning when he decided to run for president and i have been a supporter and quite adviser behind the scenes to him." from virginia, a coworker. hi. you are on. say wasall i wanted to back to miss california, who is hollering retrain, read train. i live on the virginia/west

virginia line. when cole stops, training stops. in the month of april, we have had two -- there are more companies to close. how is she going to retrain everybody? host: you are saying that when the coal industry suffers, surrounding businesses are affected, too? caller: they are rolling up the streets. there is nothing here. there is plenty of coal. gillette, wyoming, this is bob, also a coworker. caller: how is it going? host: well, thank you. caller: the question is, is there a war on coal? all we have to do is listen to what president obama said when he was running for president initially. hurt the you want to

coal industry? iny are backed by lobbyists green energy and everything else. what do you have to do to make wind and solar competitive? coal is so cheap, you have to try the cost up. that is what they have done with regulations. more inspectors have been sent out to write citations and stuff like that. they have done everything they can to drive up the cost of coal so that they renewables can be competitive. they are still not. everything that you do not hear is that renewables, wind and solar, every bit of energy on the grid has to be backed up by coal or natural gas because they are intermittent resources. the wind does not always blow, the sun does not always shine. it is like a pool, you know? wyoming,t is robbie in

talking about if there is a war on coal. part of the question is prompted by the fact that in west virginia, and nebraska, primaries take place today. if you want to see the results of those primaries, tune into c-span tonight starting at about 8:00. also a couple of events to tell you about. hillary clinton, the democratic presidential candidate, will be speaking in louisville, kentucky, around 6:15 to see that on c-span2, and bernie sanders from salem, oregon, will talk to folks around 10:00 this evening you can see that on c-span peerage on from pennsylvania, good morning. caller: how are you? we had 33 coal mines at one time, and we have three now. it started back in the richard

nixon administration with the and this is not an obama thing. it goes way back to richard nixon. we have been losing coal mines because of the steel business going down. we have lost 27 workers, and it is a matter of supply and demand. people do not use coal to heat their homes anymore, so a lot of that is because the need for coal is just not there anymore. it is a matter of technology taking over. that is my comments. host: that is john in pennsylvania. technology and economic development. another topic associated with georgetown university, a recent forum with house speaker paul ryan talked about coal in terms of balancing development, economic development, with stewardship. we do not have to trade our prosperity today for the economic anxiety is a middle-aged worker for a better

environment. why don't we try to work with both of these together? take coal, for example. the old way of burning coal was pretty darned dirty, so we have clean coal technologies. they are working on sequestration. wen we do that, why don't invest in basic scientific research to innovate our way into a cleaner economy. this is why i do not support the various ideas like cap and trade and carbon taxes. what they basically do is they harm our economy -- and i come from a manufacturing part of the country -- they make our manufacturers so much less competitive, and those jobs go to other countries like china or india, who are not doing anything to fix this, generally speaking, and they will just pump more dirty air into the atmosphere and take our jobs. i hate to say it so starkly, so let's not do that. why don't we focus on getting faster economic growth, cleaning up -- natural gas is an

incredibly bridge fuel. let's invest in research. next fromill hear michael in morris, oklahoma, democrats line. caller: yes, sir. good morning. host: good morning. what do you think about the idea of a war on coal? caller: if there is not one, their darned well should be. speaker ryan said we have clean coal. there is no such animal. none. that is a republican buzzword. coal cannot be burned clean. it is totally impossible. water it is run through a filtering system, you do not get there burning out appear you see big plumes of black smoke coming out of them big stacks.

is really expensive at the moment, but there is also a huge that you canogram get a $7,000 rebate on those panels and your batteries, so that knocks the price down quite a bit on that. host: from virginia, this is james, also identifies as a coworker. hi. caller: how are you doing? the question i guess you would say, with the war on coal, there is a war on coal to the point where the president has put a lot of coal workers out of business, tens of thousands of that. the thing about it is, is, he don't mind coal. what his deal is, he wants cap and trade from way back in the day when he was with the george

foundation, when they funded the georgia climate exchange. he will go out with the rest of the cronies and line their pockets, and coworkers be damned. why would you want to subsidize wind and solar and try to clean up the environment when it is not going to matter no way. god made it, he will burn it, and there is nothing the democrats can do about it. that is all i have got. thank you. host: lonnie from maryland, republican line, you are next. caller: anybody with a working tv set and half a brain knows that there is a war on coal. datald just like to -- a point. onea is building on average coal-fired plant every eight

days, every eight days. hell is an the country with 300 million people going to make up for any pollution that is coming out of coal power plants that is serving over a billion people? i work at a university for 43 years, on class a research university. in 1970, we built what was 1, a home with normal electricity. i watched as they buried the power lines underground so that they would not be seen. here is the deal on solar. bottom line is, it will take you 20 years to save enough money on

breakeven.ears to the problem is that the solar cells will last about 10 years. toyou are going to have replace them in 10 years. you will never -- you will never , if you live in the sahara desert, you will never pay for the solar panels. back in theuz is news. "the hill" reporting the he will be back on the senate floor today, saying he will miss a procedural vote monday evening, or he missed it. he took his last rollcall in february on a measure of imposing new sanctions against north korea.

host: if you go to marco rubio's facebook page, it talks about a job he does not want. he says while republican voters have chosen will trump as the presumptive gop nominee, my previously stated reservations about his campaign and concerns with many of his policies remain unchanged. he will be best served by a running mate and by syria to fully embrace his campaign. john from mclean, virginia. caller: good morning. if you look at the filings that the mining companies that are that bankrupt have made explain why they are going bankrupt, you can see what is going on. one is competition. they have others in the industry that are selling energy more than they do. second is pensions. they have to pay huge amounts of their employees' pensions and health care costs.

third, there are environmental regulations which impose more costs on the mining industry. those are the three factors. up next.athan, jonathan is from arlington, virginia, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. every couple of years we go to this, that suddenly solar panels are the greatest thing. probably the building you are sitting in has been topped off with solar panels. because obama and muriel bowser it isying for it, and going to be the world's next best thing, but in five or six years when no one has maintained it, they will rip it all off again, like ronald reagan did with the ones that jimmy carter put on the white house. renewable energy is great, but it has not come far enough that it makes sense. host: we are talking about this war on coal idea.

the primary today, a big coal country. from washington, d.c., democrats line. to go on a trade -- on a train ride to us virginia, there are fields of windmills. understand that even in that state, they are moving forward with renewable energy. the second thing i want to know 1930's,back in the eleanor roosevelt tried to do everything she possibly could to work with the government of west virginia to work on alternatives to mining, and the mine owners were able to drive her out and continue people on those low-paying jobs. i remember acid rain and what it did to forests, to streams, and the rivers of this country. that was all driven by coal. the last thing is, i do not need

the coal miners today -- these miners were driven out of business because they were the same thing is evident today. to the contributing -- innment in terms of terms of what it put into the environment and we have to come to grips with that issue. iss not that the government trying to destroy coal, it's that and out of things are doing it. , oil, gasof twitter and coal can be replaced by the hydrogen economy powered by the electrodynamic earth tether. you can fire -- find out more that by googling it. if you want to comment on twitter or facebook, these