governor gary johnson who secured the libertarian nomination will talk about the 2016 race. a reminder, you can join the conversation on phase book and twitter. -- on facebook ♪ host: this is the "washington ." hillary clinton is headed to california for a series of ends on thursday. -- events on thursday. bernie sanders will be in santa cruz today. "usa today,"of a fight withll has senate republicans about how candidacymp's ten might affect their finances. , it is of disagreements

ok if you do not vote this year. what about you? do you think americans are up against vote come especially this year? 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. if you want to give your media --on social here are the op-ed's in the obligation of voting. "no, you do not have an obligation to vote." one thing you commonly here, it is your civic duty to vote. argue thatable to

people have a fundamental moral duty to vote. -- "reason" the pages of magazine. daily kos, "voting is not a personal choice, it is a ."cial obligation --

again, your thoughts this morning on voting and if the act of voting is an obligation. you may agree with the thoughts expressed or disagree with them. democrats, call in at 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002.

the pages this morning take a look at donald trump's campaign, toing a look at his efforts support bernie sanders. , you thoughts on voting as

an obligation. we start in washington state this morning. democrats line. this is janet. good morning. how are you yea? caller: good. host: do you think voting is an obligation? caller: it is not a law, but to be a good citizen come everyone should vote because it makes our country better if we get somebody who is doing good by the country. it is important, if you do know about the country, what it needs and who would be better, it is important that they do vote. thought from the time president clinton was in, hillary always did good for us. when she ran the first time, i wanted her to be president.

she never met anybody wrong. she's always try to help everybody. i think she will help everybody and put her whole heart into it. has there ever been an election where you've said "i'm not voting this year?" caller: no, i never said that. i always wanted to vote and i always did when i had the chance to vote. right now, i'm going to vote for president. host: the question is if you think voting is an obligation. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans.

independents, 202-748-8002. ted in west virginia, democrats line. good morning. caller: thank you very much. when we go into america, when we live in america, we enjoy all ae things we get, just like person going into a store and getting things off the shelf. every two or four years, we go with a votes to make sure that store is what it is supposed to be. our government is what we make it with our votes. voting happens at the come at the checkout, where we decide what we are going to make america b. we only get one chance every once in a while. we have to say we are not going to put a person in the white house who is going to start

another war. hillary clinton has spent enough time in the middle east and knows we need no more wars. bernie sanders has no intention of starting violence that is not necessary and donald trump is more than an unknown. -- he shown that he has is a loose cannon. host: have you run into people saying they are not going to vote? caller: not so much. now wrapped the republican congress has been taken over by a cancer, the tea party. it has to be removed so the congress can function again. host: let's hear from a republican. mike in north carolina. good morning.

what do you think? caller: i would say no. no, it is not -- we live in a free country. we are allowed to make choices. would it be nice if everyone was , the speed on the issues candidates and how our as anment is structured constitutional republic? instead of waiting until two weeks in front of the election -- it just can't be. there are some countries that mandate voting. short answer, no, it is not an obligation. it would be nice if everyone participated fully. a lot of things would be nice. felt have you ever

compelled not to vote? caller: no. a lot of us this year are not terribly enthused. the phrase lesser of two evils has been around since i was young. 1976 whenvoting since they dropped the voting age to 18. i've been participating in the process since i've been allowed to legally when they lowered the voting age. i haven't always been enthused. not all candidates or causes are going to be what i believe in or what i feel compelled to go out and vote against. this year is going to be a tough one. regardless of who finally ends up, it will be a hold my nose type of election. will participate

regardless? caller: no, i'm not there yet. i will let it play out over the summer. .y guy was rick perry i thought he was a true conservative, military experience, governor of texas. i thought he had the credentials. unfortunately, he made some gaffes in the 2012 primaries. he never got any traction this year. , butnk he is a good man this is the year of the outsider. choice, butlican by i don't know -- i still do not know what to make of mr. trump. op-eds.le of

give us your thoughts. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. .or independents, 202-748-8002 gainesville, florida, democrats line. debbie, good morning to you. caller: i used to talk to you a lot when i lived in alabama. i don'tt answer is no, believe voting is an obligation. then't think we need to be obesity of election. if you are not interested or informed, you should not go because someone said you need to go and vote for this person. this year pleased that for the first time we have candidates talking about are rigged elections, bernie sanders and donald trump it what we have right now with this corporate funding of elections, we have the worst government that can be bought.

we have legalized theft, billions of dollars going into campaigns. the donor's our legislation, not our citizens or congresspeople. basically, we have legalized theft. they put several million dollars in two campaign and they can still many trillions from us. we have two candidates willing to stop about the rigged system. elect our governors, we do not have delegates or superdelegates or electoral college. the people vote for them. it's about time we talk about how we fund our campaigns. these donors are robbing us blind. our infrastructure is eroding. good,time that we have a honest discussion about how we fund our presidential campaign. host: you do not think it is an

obligation, but personally, will you participate this year? caller: i participate every time i have an opportunity to get informed on the issue. i'm quite interested to see how they treat bernie sanders. we need to have more than this duopoly. we need more than just a republican and democratic party. year, it's been about an oligarchy. much.thank you so debbie mentioned more candidates. later in the program, we will hear from the libertarian party's candidate. gary johnson joining us to talk .bout his recent nomination

debbie also talked about the funding. in the pages of "usa today," a story about super pacs. an analysis of newly filed reports found 182 super pacs with three or fewer donors in the 2016 election cycle.

more on that story on the pages of "usa today." let's hear from mike in florida, independent line. caller: good morning. host: hi. caller: hi. i don't think voting is an obligation. host: why not? caller: we have basically a fascist government in washington that already imposes too many obligations on us. by an executive and judicial -- i do not believe voting is an obligation. host: there's times when you don't vote or do you always vote? caller: i normally vote because there's usually a candidate somewhere in the political spectrum, usually one of the third-parties i can vote for.

this time around, i don't think there's anybody right now i can vote for. host: maria up next from savannah, georgia. democrats line. caller: good morning. i do not think voting should be an obligation. this is the first year i'm not going to vote for anyone. i'm tired of the system the way it treats people. i'm not voting anymore. it is going to take a pretty good person to convince me. what led you to that conclusion, what made you decide this year you were not going to participate? caller: i do not believe in hillary. i'm tired of voting. i saw my ancestors do it, not much of a change, the same thing over and over. you are going to tell

other people not to vote as well? caller: they are trying to convince me to vote. i tell them it's my right, you should vote if you believe in somebody, do not vote just to vote. there's nothing really getting done. host: are these family members or friends of yours convincing you to vote? caller: family members, coworkers. host: what kinds of arguments do they use? caller: you are forefathers just becauseis -- you do not vote in one election, you can still vote, but do not keep voting and voting and you don't see nothing getting done. you've been hyper about this party for years.

when i look at the judicial system, i look at minimum wage and stuff, i cannot vote anymore. host: maria in georgia. berkeley, california come independent line, bill, hi there. caller: i'm a libertarian and i always vote. some libertarians believe it is a moral to vote for a corrupt system that excludes as from the ballot. immoral to vote for a corrupt system that excludes us from the ballot. host: you are breaking up a bit. some libertarians think al to vote for a

corrupt system because we are excluded from ballots come excluded from the debates because of the republicans and committees who kicked out the league of women voters. to stayage everyone tuned to c-span and listen to gary johnson. you will find some interesting things. i feel sorry for my many liberal friends. i think bernie is going to get screwed, to be perfectly honest. facebook friends are 50 to one in favor of bernie. gary johnson sides with bernie 70 percent of the time. host: what should we ask gary johnson? voters should

consider him as someone different, someone who can actually make a change. host: john in texas. republican line. go ahead. caller: you should be a requirement to vote. should be a requirement to vote. just like in australia. fine for not voting. you ought to get registered to you get a drivers license. what taxes heon will raise to eliminate the debt . the winning for candidate every election and i .m voting for hillary this time

the two worst decisions i ever ronaldre voting for and georgel bush. hillary is the most qualified candidate. georgia. caller: you should feel obligated to vote. being obligated to vote, you always have a choice not to come but once you are obligated to vote, changes take place. every four you're scum of the election is a catastrophe. know what to do. , theery four years

election is a catastrophe. voter,ould know every who they are voting for, republican or not. won in a lot of states werese independents primary.from the is,uestion for mr. johnson what does he think about bernie sanders dropping from the it to get and running andn independent -- ticket running as an independent.

he sanders is for your rights. -- bernie sanders is for your rights. host: thank you. that is nathaniel in north dakota. hillary clinton originally scheduled to campaign in new jersey, will be in california as of thursday. bernie sanders has barnstormed california, not leaving the state in more than a week. recent polls found the race closing significantly. clinton's lead over sanders has narrowed to just two points. she will probably secure enough delegates to clinch the nomination before voting closes that day. is voting an obligation? for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans.

202-748-8002 for independents. off of twitter, a viewer says "vote!" saying --e next in virginia. caller: hi. i believe it is up to the individual. however, the individual does not accept it as an obligation, they are not performing a duty, a moral duty and a patriotic duty to vote. asyou do not vote approximately 70% of the people in the country who could vote to do not vote, you are

only represented by 25% of the electorate, you get what you've got. we've got a mess in washington. this mess can only be straightened out by people accepting and knowing that they ire obligation -- the obligation is that they should vote. i am leaving to bernie sanders. ning to bernie sanders. if he does not get the nomination, he should run as an independent. system is not fair to the people. people should get out and vote and the more people that get out and vote, the less possibility systems for the voting

-- i question whether this voting system is actually as honest as it should be. host: ray is in ohio on our republican line. caller: i think a person ought to go and vote. i would not say it is an obligation. you have senators and congressmen and governors going out to run. they ought to take a leave of absence. as long as we pay these guys to go out and run, they cannot lose. i'm a vietnam veteran, but hillary clinton is crazy. she's done everything wrong you can think of over the years.

this is the first time i've ever voted republican, but i'm voting for donald trump. host: richmond, virginia. independent line. i think it is an obligation. born in the man early 1950's. i remembered the jim crow laws. and billlary clinton clinton united against in the 1990's. i stand on the shoulders of many people before me, black and vote, for the right to people have died. i think hillary and bill clinton have misled the black community. they should have been investing back into cities with education, social programs.

they have devastated the black community. i feel the bern. i'm so torn apart about who i'm going to vote for this time. the black constituents like elijah cummings, cory booker, they've lied about what hillary has done for our communities. up next, houston, texas, democrats line. caller: i voted for obama last time because i thought he had a better chance to beat mccain. this time, i think hillary is the best choice. it is a duty and responsibility to vote for hillary. she is the only choice for right-thinking people in this election. host: what makes you think it is a duty?

aller: the old saying about it takes for an evil man to succeed is for good men to do nothing. trump is running a negative campaign to lessen the turnout among minorities. a white to see this election in november and in that case, he will win. he does not want the minorities to show up. on this,r thoughts voting is an obligation. the lines on your screen. the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell talks about the presidential campaign, but also the senate as well, especially tough elections, many seats up for grabs this

november. he is quoted as saying -- if you go to usa today, talking list of senate campaigns. this is by kristina peterson.

louisville, kentucky. this is keith, democrats line. what do you think? caller: i think it is an obligation. you should vote if you can. go out and vote. i don't understand a lot of your callers, especially male allers talking about

hillary. they don't like to see women with power. have a republican governor now. we haven't had a republican governor in 40 years. , theeason we got this man democratic people did not come out to vote. 60% of the democrats did not vote that election day. so, we end up with him. i'm telling the whole united states of america, you can talk , i liked mr.ders sanders, but his problem is he wants to give something he cannot deliver. a lot of people know out there that he cannot deliver this. -- if youe you this do not go out and vote, i don't want to hear your mouth come next year talking about you

ain't got no jobs, no health care, because that is what you end up with. this "reason" magazine --ed if someone says if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain -- you can!

republican line. you all keep asking if it's an obligation to vote. everybody keeps talking about how their rights are being infringed upon and how things are being taken from them. this being the day after memorial day, i believe it's an obligation to get out there and vote. died were people who toing to protect your rights come out and elect their leaders. host: olympia, washington. elaine is up next. i think in a free society, it is a privilege to vote. i know a lot of people want to vote for hillary clinton. d thoset ig report cite

e-mails -- she cannot hold at any level.u.s. i think she is in trouble. host: when you hear arguments that soldiers died for this saying if youers do not vote, you do not have a right to complain. caller: it depends on that person's state of mind, where they are coming from. everyone has their own opinion about voting and what it means. i would much rather have people vote only if they really know the candidates. so many people don't even know who the vice president is, let alone who is running and what they stand for and what they have done in the past.

i think they are ignorant. host: have you ever approached an election where you don't know a lot about the people involved and said i will not participate this year? caller: i do it on a per person basis. if i do not know enough about the person, i do not vote at all . kevin in colorado. independent line. caller: hi. i think it should not be an obligation. it is a shame how many people about. you have a right to be stupid and a great in america. -- ignorant in america. you do not think it should

be mandatory. know if youn't would check up on it every four years or every two years. we talk about our freedom, you have the freedom not to vote. in kentuckyler said , the democrats lost out because got aid not vote and they republican governor. i'm an independent leaning towards republican, but i think hillary should be at least barred from running for office again, maybe put in jail for six months for the e-mail thing. all the different laws she has broken through the years. host: that is kevin in colorado. the front page of "the new york times" looking at the efforts to syria.n refugees from

more about that in "the new york times" today. james in new jersey. democrats line.

you are on. caller: good morning, "washington journal." it should not be an obligation, because we are a free country. but if you do not vote, it does not make any sense because it is about your life. it affects your life. whether you are a democrat or republican -- i would never vote for a republican. ronald reagan left us with a big deficit. bush, left usge with a deficit and his son was a total disaster. for a republican,

i will go to see a psychiatrist. --t: on twitter pam in georgia. republican line. caller: hello. not obligation and a duty as a citizen of this country to vote. i did not realize that until later years in my life. in taking a government class, i realized that the primaries is where you choose your government. that is where you get your final candidate. if you do not like who is write somebody in. host: as far as this election, are you planning on

participating? caller: you betcha. say. my privilege not to host: you say you came to this idea of voting later on. was this because of the class or other things involved? caller: it was not ever taught ,n school, nor by my parents that we have an obligation. we cannot complain about government if we are not voting. you do not vote, you cannot complain. you need to study the folks running for office, what they are voting for. if i do not vote come i cannot put good people in government. people -- only 2% of the population actually participates

in voting. that's why we have what we've got. host: that was pam in georgia. benji in pennsylvania come independent line. -- pennsylvania, independent line. caller: it is not an obligation, but the news does not cover the good candidates. what about the green party and gary johnson with the libertarian party? host: gary johnson joins us this morning at 9:15. caller: most news channels do not cover these candidates. host: one more call on this topic. indiana, russell on our independent line. voting isdo not think

an obligation. if you want to look at something like scotland and england, they shouldhether scotland secede from the united kingdom and you cannot tell me that two countries that went to war numerous times and it was decided without any boater rigging.- voter ask gary johnson how many people in the libertarian party he thinks will help in the congressional races. if someone like bernie sanders is running, nobody will be under him with their congressional district thing. same thing with trump. somebody like gary johnson, if he wins, how many people will he drag with him into congress? hillary clinton is pure evil and she will do for our country what

she did to libya. host: that is our last call on this topic. you may make it a habit when you go shopping to read nutritional labels on the back. the fda has just changed the design of that label in hopes of getting more consumer benefits from it. involved inst was the design of the original label and says the new one will work. richard williams of george mason university. are you ready for cars that fly? you will hear about that later as "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> on wednesday and thursday, c-span's "washington journal" texas toive in laredo,

talk about immigration and trade issues affecting the region and the country. on wednesday, we look at ,mmigration with brandon darby talking about the flow of illegal immigration in the area, the players involved and efforts to cover the security and humanitarian aspects of the issue. a local immigration lawyer will discuss practicing immigration law in the area. alfredo examines the cartels in mexico, including the violence and smuggling of humans and narcotics. he is the author of "midnight in mexico." on thursday, a focus will be trade. a trade reporter with the san antonio express discusses the flow and volume of trade across the laredo border. will also join us

to talk about how trade benefits mexico and the country. tradeate director for the coalition looks at how the trade deal took jobs from southern texas to mexico and how it hurt mexicans as well. "washington journal" live from laredo texas. join the discussion. >> "washington journal" continues. host: i first guest is richard williams from george mason university. he was the former social sciences director at the fda. good morning. i'm told that you were part of the original group that came up with the nutrition labels. guest: more or less, yes. fda started working on the nutrition label and congress came along and passed the nutrition label education act. i was part of the group that put

together the label -- host: what is it designed to teach consumers? guest: that people would read it and understand it and use it to select better diet. it's been almost a quarter-century now and that has not happened. in large measures because it is so complicated. there's 30 different pieces of information. in order to determine whether or not that is a good food, you have to combine that information. one or two will pick things they are familiar with and make the decision based on that. host: they also look at things like calories and fat from calories -- guest: sure. there's no easy way for people to combine all the information to determine which food they should pick. it gives you numbers and percentiles. aret: the percentiles

particularly troublesome. the percentiles are called the daily values. the amount of a nutrient this food provides in a civil servant -- singleserving. idea what toave no use. that comes from nutrition research primarily from usda. paid are average amounts if you have a 2000 calorie diet, that is the amount for you. differente widely amounts of calories they should and do consume. it is not doing the job, which is unfortunate. it was a good experiment to have. it is time to completely rethink the experiment. host: the fda just came out with a new proposed label, a revamped

label and it takes the calorie numbers and gives them in bolder typeface, serving size recommendation and another line for sugars. guest: far from good enough. ,t takes all this information it is still on there and very complicated. most people claim it is harder to figure out than income taxes. four out of five americans claimed their diet is not helping them right now. we are talking about food nutrition labels, new efforts by the fda to improve the label and put more information out there. our guest is part of the group that created the original label. if you want to give your forghts, 202-748-8000 democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans.

independents, 202-748-8002. post your thoughts on facebook and you can tweet us as well. what factors led to this new label? what questions had to be asked? guest: nutritional information changes constantly. a lot of things we thought were important -- we thought total fat was important. dietary cholesterol was important. turns out they do not matter that much. it depends on what kind of fat. if it is saturated fat or trans fat, yes, that matters. even these things are now becoming problematic. all the research that goes into these diets is based on a study that relies on what people

remember about what they ate in the last one is for hours. -- 24 hours. what foods did you eat and how eat?did you the amount of calories they say -- that was not enough data is not very good. all the research is problematic. aboutw, we are not sure what we are telling people being right or not. nobody wants to admit how much eight. ate.w much they fda takes the information from usda has research. theresearch has shown that food label does not work.

i hoped that people would reduce the amount of saturated fat -- host: this idea of sugars that are included. on the old label, it was just a line under carbohydrates, but now there is total sugars and added sugars. guest: total sugars would include all-natural sugars. there is no difference. sugar is sugar. is highnot matter if it fructose corn syrup or sugar in fruit. it has the same impact on your body. host: so this line was not necessary? guest: in my mind, it was not necessary. people are confused about this label. a lot of people will see low and think that is a dietary -- it

may behind calorie and low in high calorie and low in fat. there are better things we can do. host: such as? guest: a lot of food companies package their own -- australia has something they call -- canada has helped check. -- health check. this product is healthier than that one. host: what prevents us from doing that? guest: nothing. this is something the administration looked at early on. they have rejected it. what prevents fda from going forward, i'm not sure. they could have done that instead of spending all this time fixing a broken label. are the food companies

themselves involved because they do not want their food being defined as bad? guest: this certainly don't want something on it that says this is a bad food. around 2007, all the food companies got together with consumer activists and health nutritionists and created one of these products. that was a two-year effort. full disclosure, i was involved in that effort as well. i thought it was a really good symbol, the smart choice label. and then, somebody put it on a high sugar cereal and fda advised everybody, do not use this anymore. that was the one thing that killed it. fda saying ok, let's think her with this and make it better, they dropped the whole effort. richard williams talking about nutritional labels.

joanna in tennessee. democrats line. your first. -- you are up first. like to adduld something to this discussion about food labels. i get very sick from monosodium it is behind natural flavoring. oron't know if it is there not. i get very ill and i have to take serious drugs for my headaches come which my doctor prescribes for me. it has taken me a long time to figure out what has caused these headaches. all this time, i could have become addicted to opioids, adding another dimension to this problem. i wish corporate america would be a little more responsible

toward the rest of us before we have to deal with people's illnesses from whatever we put into the food that we eat. guest: monosodium glutamate should be in the ingredient list. it should be there appeared i hope so. host: is there a law requiring that a certain font has to be used? guest: there is a particular font for the ingredient list. it is not very large. if you are sensitive to something or allergic to a food and fda makes sure those are in the ingredient list. host: new jersey are independent line. charlie, go ahead. caller: i think this program is quick and i'm in favor of these new regulations. what i'm having the problem with

, but c-span and this gentleman are not identifying who they are from -- are they from the koch brothers being funded? they have a point of view? this is the koch brothers is speaking here when this man speaks. are saying he is from george mason university. for pointokesperson of view and ideology and i don't doesn't put an banner below saying this man speaks for coke industries. i've been at george mason university now for nine years. i study things come i don't raise money and i don't get involved at all with our donors. we have a high firewall between the researchers and our donors.

we have thousands of donors. host: edward in maryland. republican line. caller: how are you doing? i'm listening to you talking about food and stuff -- i have one question. is there sugar in bananas? guest: i have no idea how much sugar is in bananas. debbie up next from west chester, ohio. republican line. guest: good morning. i am a retired scientist, worked in manufacturing my entire career. very little in food, mostly in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. my question is about the food we have a bill in the house right now regarding the country of origin's labeling on beef and chicken.

consumers -- it originale off the m manufacturing label. everything would have to say "made in the u.s." i've seen noncompliance throughout the industry, especially in things like cosmetics and other products wherein said of saying country of origin, it was a distributed by. instead of saying country of origin, it says distributed by. from a labeling point of view, i am concerned about this. can you comment on this? guest: i understand your

concern. we are getting more more of our food from overseas. i am not familiar with the bill. is regulated by the department of agriculture, not by the f ea. i understand your concern. host: apparently, there are 14 grams of sugar in a banana. democrats line, hi. just like the other caller, she said the country of origin is important. i'm glad she brought that up. i have read about that. for some reason, these corporations want to avoid that. the labels make a difference and it's something they should've had a long time ago. --y also need to it's been such a battle on it.

a lot of the processed food has a lot of stuff in it. you read the ingredients and you are horrified. host: you are breaking up a little bit so we will end your question there. guest: i don't know that it's an actual response but i think one of the things that does confuse people is they look at the ingredient list and they say there is a lot of chemicals. everything in life is a chemical. i don't think that should be a real concern. there are other things to be concerned about in food. host: if you're comparing the two labels, one thing that is bold on the new label that will is the effect in 2018 serving size. who determines what the serving size is? guest: the fda determines that.

it supposed to represent the average amount people eat of a food in a single serving. it is complicated. obviously, most people don't eat the average amount. for the ice cream, a serving of ice cream is 2/3 of a cup. if you want to know precisely how much saturated fat is in that ice cream or calories, you have to figure out relative to 2/3 of a cuppa much you are eating. that is consultative math. that's one of the problems with his ailey value concept. nobody counts exactly the number of calories. nobody tracks the amount of sodium or fatso's whole concept that people will track is not going to work. i think there are things coming on the market that are fantastic that will work. these are things that will tell you how much you eat and match it up with your personal health

characteristics and your underlying genetic profile and profile -- health profile and it will make recommendations ultimately and this is a great thing. this is new technology and this will help people. trying to do it yourself now, you have to carry around a calculator and a recorder and track all of this and it has not happened up to now. host: do you mean something that is user-friendly? guest: something that will be on your phone, yes, absolutely. we are starting to see these more and more, these apps i think we will see more of them. they will become more sophisticated and really help people. host: indianapolis, indiana, or independent line. morning, i make current mdphd student and i'm wondering what will be given for sodium labels as far as hypertension and the way sugar is absorbed. tost: there is a tension

sodium on labels and the fda has highlighted this. four out of every 10 americans are sensitive to sodium. you have to be careful that you don't want to cut back on sodium and potassium as well. potassium is a shortfall nutrient which means people are not getting enough and you want to make your you get enough of that. for the gentle who called earlier about bananas, bananas are great source of potassium. thesein developing things, consuming these things could have reactions that are different in different people? guest: there are extreme complications. we are finding out that genetically, we are different and have different preferences and people have different amounts of exercise they do and the eat different amounts. these new apps that are coming on will be extremely helpful in determining what you should eat and not what the average person eats. excellent example is the entire food label is based on

somebody who consumes a 2000 calorie diet. most people don't. if you are an athlete, you may consume twice that. if you are on a diet, you may only consume 1000 calories per day. oforder to know how much this particular nutrient is in your diet, you have to do the math. that is a lot of map to do and most people in their busy lives don't want to take time to do that. host: houston, texas, republican line. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. my question is -- it has something to do with food but we have seafood from other countries. how safe are those inspectors who do the inspections to make not getting what we are paying for? we have had instances in houston where they had a person out in the back of the building chopping up meat and throwing it

in a bucket. if they do it here, they probably do it overseas. that's my question and thank you for the call. guest: in general, seafood is really safe. much of it comes from other countries and you can have a problem anywhere. , i save yoursk me concern about anything, i would be concerned about eating raw oysters from the gulf of mexico. that's probably the biggest concern we have on seafood. host: can you get the information on the sourcing? guest: most restaurants around the gulf will talk about eating uncooked shellfish. host: if you buy seafood in a package, can they tell you generally where it is sourced from? guest: i don't know. host: woodbridge, virginia, caller: i just want to add to the question because of the difference between sugar and natural foods and processed foods.

there is a slight molecular structure difference in processed food sugars than unprocessed food sugars. it is a great difference an effect on the body. the processed sugars have a fat ory to be stored as spike your blood sugar levels. it's difficult for the body to process the unnatural sugars as energy. the sugars that come from strawberries or apples or not processed,e the body can convert that quicker to energy. it does not store it as fat and it's less damaging to your health that way. fructose processed sugar is more damaging to your body because they are appetite enhancers. natural sugar is an appetite suppressant. thank you very much for

that. one concern i have is that a lot of the information or whether it is sugar anything else is based on the memory recall data. -- onef the information of the things with respect to sugar is high fructose corn syrup and another thing is we have to stop subsidizing. it's crazy. thing americans are tired of it is what they call crony capitalism where people are getting special favors from the government and this is not just capitalism. you can find it in havana and beijing. we should stop subsidizing food like sugars. we are not subsidizing them but we give them import quotas. i think that would be a good way to go. host: guest: from connecticut, democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call.

i use the nutrition labels every day and in their current form, they have a lot of this information. you know that fat has nine calories per gram or carbohydrates have 4 calories per gram along with protein. based on that information, you can find out more. in the current form, nutrition labels are very useful if the person is informed how to use them. they can make rational decisions. host: let me ask you a couple of questions. how did you become so informed about the labels? caller: i had a health class in toh school that allowed me properly read the nutrition labels. host: when you turn a package around, you're looking all across, not just the calories. i ignore the 2000 daily

calorie value. it's not very helpful. don't consume 2000 calories, i consume more. -- doese more question the added sugars portion matter to you? does that matter to you at all? caller: not really, to me sugar is sugar. a banana has sugar in it. it's the same as processed sugar, pretty much. i don't agree with the previous caller. host: thank you for your input. guest: i think it's great that you actually took a health class. what i would love to see come back is economics with when i was growing up as something that was taught routinely in high school and it should be the same for cooking and health and

nutrition and that has disappeared. it's great to see that someone is actually conscious of their nutritional status and they food label. she justs at the fda, needed to sit down and every single living room with 115 million living rooms and she could explain the food label. you create a new label, how much time and manpower and money goes into these efforts? guest: we made an estimate when the food label was originally created. we estimated it would cost $1.5 billion. that was without the reformulations that take place. the producers are trying to make their product look as good as possible relative to the food label. in talking to people in the food industry, they said i had underestimated the cost by a factor of 10 so it's more like $15 billion. that's an expensive fix. it's not as if the food companies pay that themselves.

all of that will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. the same is true with this food label. they have until 2018 to make these changes for small companies. it's going to be very expensive. it's going to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices in my view is it will do almost nothing to improve public health. that's my overall concern. this is another expensive experiment when we already have a lot of information to show that it has not accomplish what we hoped it would. we hoped it would prevent 39,000 cases of cancer and heart disease and none of that happened. it will not make any difference now. my concern is we will spend a lot of money and consumers will pay higher food prices which is a regressive tax. it just not going to do that much good. what is the expense to the company? is it just printing the label? guest: this has nothing to do with sales.

it has to do with printing the labels. they will have to go back and recalculate all of the values in the foods. it will be quite expensive. obviously, they will do lots of manipulation to try to make their products with debtor. bethesda,, from maryland, you're on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question regards marketing and the new label. i appreciate the label because all the data is there. it's hard for everybody to read it. however, is there any relation to marketing? it's easy to mislead the customer. absolutely, every food manufacturer want to do what they can to make their products look as good as they can. one thing we see and we have observed this over the years is a lot of consumers when they byproducts will not turn the

product over and look at the nutrition label. they will look at the claims on the front of the package. it may say it's low in sodium or it prevents heart disease or something like that. they will say ok. if it has the health claim on it or nutrient content claim, it must be good and healthy. in fact, it may not be. that's one aspect of the food. if you are able to do the math about what you eat and what's in your personal body and you can put all his information together hollister click, you might get an entirely different opinion -- put together holistically, you might get an entirely different opinion. host: from twitter -- calories are good. if you don't eat calories, you will die. elite calories constantly. if you eat too many of them, you have a chance of becoming overweight. there are different formulas for how you measure calories.

the original measurement goes back to a nutritionist from 1902 whose name was atwater who had some nutrition advice that i think is the pretty good. he said don't have a one-sided tight and don't eat too much because it will catch up to you. over 100 years later, that sounds like good advice. host: on our republican line, linda from north carolina. caller: hi, thanks for taking my call. that i usee to say labels all the time. diabetic and it look at the carbohydrates and fiber content and the calories. -- and i they measure measure and that's thanks to some of the diet programs out there. , they teachwatchers people how to read labels.

-- only other concern i have does anybody do any type of follow-up to make sure the manufacturers, that there is truth in these labels? host: before you go, was it becoming diabetic to cause you to pay attention to the labels? were you interested before that? caller: no, i became a diabetic at 21. it was after that. now we are talking about the stone ages. i don't even know if there was labeling 35 years ago. diabetescause of my that i started learning about the labels. host: thank you. in fact, there is follow-up but it's difficult. a lot of the values that you read on their can vary quite a bit of calories, depending how you calculate them and how the

food is made, they can vary quite a bit from what you read on the label. i think that is a difficulty. particular things work for you. host: do people follow-up with the companies? guest: the fda follows up and but an inspection program it's not always the highest priority but periodically they will check. maryland, steve on our republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. like totion, i would know what you eat on a daily basis and how you choose your food. also, i understand the food and id has been debunked would like you to comment on that as well. why should we trust the government if it has? when i was at the fda of people asked me what i ate, i said i don't eat anything

regulated by the usda because i don't eat meat and poultry but i made that personal choice since 1973. in terms of the pyramid, the difficulty his we found out that something like four out of five --all of the studies of diet disease relationships that go into the dietary guidelines are eighth on a faulty memory-based recall where you ask people what you ate and how much you eight. i think all of it is somewhat suspect. toofully, when we get personal monitoring devices, we should get better information and better studies. we have been here before. for those following nutrition for years come you know there was a time back in the 70's and 80's when eggs were considered terrible and now they are considered good. nuts were considered that a now they are a health food. a lot of these things of happened over the years that worry you and people were concerned about animal fat.

the food industry responded and took animal fat out of the foods. they replace them with partially hydrogenated oil which are known as trans-fats. those were put into the food supply in the 70's based on the concerns about animal fats. now we know that trans-fats are worse for you than animal fats. there have been a lot of reversals over the years. i don't want to give dietary advice but i think we should be a little suspect of these relationships. has been the influence of michelle obama on labels and nutrition? guest: i applaud her for getting involved. she did a wonderful thing a couple of years ago by getting together with the food companies and saying i want you to reduce the total number of calories that you are selling and food and they took out trillions of calories out of the food supply. this was michelle obama with the food industry i think that was wonderful.

in terms of supporting the change in the food label, i am not so crazy about that but overall, she has been a positive influence. host: white is one issue matter over the other? guest: taking calories out of the food supply where people are eating less calories is easy. i don't think the revision to the food label has made it any less complicated and i think that's a problem. host: barbara, las vegas, nevada, democrats line. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: good morning, my daughter bought me a pack of smack cookies. i happened to look at it and it said made in india and distributed by a company out of arizona. in india, they have a lot of corruption. how do we know what they are putting on that packet and if when correct? you make things in other countries and bring it back here

where they are not so clear about what they are putting on the label -- fda does have a food import inspection program. they look at maybe about five percent or 10% of the food that comes in. only about 1% of the food that come in sometimes. they sample and according to what they think the risk is depending where it's coming from. in writing about this issue, you said this in your op-ed saying maybe it it's time to act more outside the panel and consider using genetic modification to create foods are healthier. can you expand on that? without the modern food engineering methods, we could not feed the world now. modification is essential. something on the order of 95% of all food so that sold in the supermarket has some degree of modification. we have been modifying foods now for hundreds of years. this is just an expansion of them.

hasone single human being ever been harmed by genetically modified food. we have the potential i think to make healthier foods, make better tasting foods, and i think we should do that rather than trying to demonize what turns out to be a very positive technology. how do you come to the conclusion of not one person harmed? guest: this has been years and years since we first started examining modified foods and has not been a single case. host: florida, independent line. caller: good morning and thank you. i love you guys. mr. williams, i agree 100%. i think it's a waste of money with all these labels. i have never in my life read a label. i'm in perfect health. i am healed and well my mother is 91. she never counted calories and she never read a label. we eat what we want when we want and my mother is in fantastic

hell. host: what's your secret? [laughter] caller: if you believe you will receive. what you say you will have. that is my secret. host: what is your question for t?r guess? caller caller: i agree on not changing the labels. with my health and my mother's health, we never read labels and never counted calories and never did any of these things. it's just a statement. host: thank you. guest: congratulations. host: can that be applied across the board? guest: i don't think so, i think people want to eat healthier. six out of 10 americans want to eat healthier and four out of five a there diet is not healthy so we need some help. i would start with the front of the package labels. you can take that information and combine it into one simple

and say this product is healthier than the next and that would be a simple thing. if you can get by without them, great. host: from texas, patsy, good morning, republican line. caller: yes, i have been on weight watchers for 47 years. i want them to keep the labels on there because that's what we go by and we count the sugar and everything. host: so every time you pick up a package, you look at that information? caller: i look at that and if it does not work and if the count is too high, i put it back on the shelf. host: thank you. guest: again, good for you. if weight watchers works for you, that's great. thatncern has always been people might just focus on one or two things like focusing just on calories or sodium when food is a very complicated set of characteristics. you need to really take all of these things and put them together to decide whether food

is healthy overall for you. that would be my concern. host: do the companies have any ability to opt out if these labels are pass? guest: no recourse whatsoever. what they have done is some of them have started trying to put combine theseo symbols. a lot of this happens in the united states. the fda simply has not followed up. from michigan on our independent line, this is mike. good morning. callergo ahead. when you go to mcdonald's or something, why don't you have choices like salty and not salty.

why don't you have other choices? the french fries comes one way. why don't they have a regulation like this? first putn we nutrition labels on, the fda wanted to have references labeled and the law did not allow that. there are some labeling that will go on specifically for calories in restaurants. overall, restaurants will not have as much information as you will find unpackaged foods. caller: so if you go to a you can get a calorie count but is that a government requirement question mark guest: some of the restaurants decided on their own to have nutrition information. there is now a requirement for calories for certain chain restaurants. it's a combination of both. if you want nutrition

information, go into whatever restaurant and asked them. if enough people ask, they will start providing more. host: one more call from jean in ames caller:, iowa, on our independent line. caller:i wanted to comment that there is no possible link to genetically engineered foods causing any type of illness. there is no documented case for that. that is not true. altered genes, twisted truth, 1980's,or says in the tyhecdc was researching an epidemic with el tryptophan which was modified with bacteria and i caused them to have toxins that kill people. i'm just starting to read the book and i think people should read the book and find out what is actually going on. guest: i will read the book but

i don't think that has genetic engineering. for a person sitting in this position before, what do you think the future will tell us about those new label? guest: i think what we will see is pretty much more of the same. it's not going to really help in terms of affecting the diet-disease relationship. my hope is that we will become more creative and look for ways that can help people eat better. i don't think this will do it. thank you for joining us to talk about food labels. guest: thank you very much. future of motor vehicles might include ones that have the ability to go airborne. we will profile the technological hurdles in the pages of smithsonian magazine and we will hear from jack hitt next and then gary johnson and how he plans to be a challenge to those currently running for president of the united states. we need to catch up

to the 20th century. we have been the invisible half of the congress for the past seven years. we have watched our house college with interest. at least i have an interest or . the tv coverage of our members in the house. >> as the u.s. senate comes out of the dark ages, we create another historic moment in the relationship between congress and technological advancements in communications through radio and television. ago, our executive branch began appearing on television. today marks the first time when are legislative branch in its entirety will appear on that medium of communication through which most americans get their information about what our government and our country does. >> televising the senate chamber proceeding also represents a

wide and warranted policy. broadcast media coverage recognize the basic right and need of the citizens of our nation to know the business of their government. >> thursday, c-span marks the 30th anniversary of our live gavel to gavel senate floor coverage on c-span two. our special programming features key moments from the senate floor from the past 30 years. >> i would show to you the body of evidence from this question. do you trust william jefferson clinton? >> we have just witnessed something that has never before happened in all of senate history. during aof power session of congress. >> what the american people don't understand in this hill is that there are three areas in this bill that in the next five years will put the government in charge of everybody's health care. >> plus, an interview with mitch mcconnell. >> i'm sure i have made a number of mistakes in my political

career but voting against [indiscernible] historian.rks by an watch 30 years of the u.s. senate on television beginning thursday on c-span. to see more of our 30 years of coverage in the u.s. senate on c-span two, go to www.c-span.org . [laughter] " continues.journal next guest is talking about flying cars, good morning. guest: good morning, how are you? host: this sounds more like science fiction but you say it is fact and it's happening today. guest: yes. on the right here this morning, to get to the studio, i kept looking out the window.

i encourage any viewer to do this on your way to work today or the grocery store. you will see that there are kids on hoverboards and people on electric icicles, you will see people on homemade solar bicycles. ofre is an explosion experimentation that's going on now in the country in every respect of transportation. i would argue that this is the inventionplosion of since the 1890's-1910 which is when the modern combustion engine came into being. we are clearly at some kind of big hinge point in technology innovation -- and fuel and innovation. there is a lot of experimentation going on. if not a coincidence that you hear about flying cars, self driving cars, robotic cars, smart cars, all manner of

bicycles, public transportation. muskple of years ago, elon runs tesla proposed the hyper loop which was a superduper train system based on the old pneumatic tube idea. in this creative frenzy right now to try to figure out what is the next , financiallyent smart way to move us around. that's what happening. host: there is a mockup of one of these type of vehicles on the pages of smithsonian magazine. can you give us a sense of what these cars will look like? guest: it depends on which one you are looking at. the flying car right now -- there are flying cars. there is a company in massachusetts that has one. you can go online and order one. it does require a pilot's license. it fits inside a garage.

it is folded up with the wings on the side of the car. you can drive that car to an airport and push a button and the wings poke out. then you can fly. are inve done this and the process of now manufacturing these and selling them. the flying car exists. the big leap i think people are looking forward to and what all of these flying car companies are trying to build -- there is about dozen of these flying car with prototypes and mockups. you can find them online. they are trying to get to the robotic flying car. which is better than what you saw in the jetsons when you were a kid. george had to steer that. the hoped-for flying car is the one where you would open the app on your phone and say i want to fly from new haven, connecticut

to boston, massachusetts and punch in the address and a robotic car would come to your house and you would get in it and there would be no steering wheel. they would be no steering whatsoever. the car would go to an agreed-upon launch place and take off and fly robotically to boston and land and drive you to your location. flying cart these companies are shooting for. host: we're talking with jack hitt from smithsonian magazine. questionst to ask about what these cars look like and how they will operate and the regulatory issues and other things involved come you can call and ask our guest directly. you can also post on our website and facebook and twitter page.

in this video, it seems that will have tordles be conquered to make these more mainstream. guest: there is a competition between the driverless car which happens on the ground in the flying car which happens in the air. each have advantages and one of the disadvantages are the flying car is there are more regulatory hurdles to go through. really has not clarified where drone policy is right now. they will have to work that through and then get to the issues of flying cars. ground,ss cars among they have an easier task in terms of your craddock castle but they have a more difficult task in terms of technology. strangely, flying cars probably technologically more feasible than a driverless car. think about it -- a car on the ground is on a two-dimensional sort of plane. it's on the ground. it can only operate in these little core doors.

it cannot drive on the sidewalks or go anywhere wants to. it can only go in specific places and it has to look out for a huge area problems like children dashing into the road, anything. a plane in the air has a three-dimensional space to work with. that has very few obstacles in the way. even if we loaded up the air with lots of flying devices, computers would be good at is a multiplicity of objects flying through space. it sounds contradictory but that is true. that is the hassle that the flying car will have to contend with is the bureaucracy of regulation and regulating the air moves slowly. we have 120 year experience of bureaucratically managing the ground. we have been pioneering that for quite a while. have an easier

technological hurdle to climb over but a more difficult bureaucratic one. host: let's hear from our viewers. its is from egg harbor, new jersey, independent line. i don't know if you commented on this. words, profit and control. right now, it has been a with planes and air traffic going on. amazon came out with drones. traffic control. guest: yes, think about it -- planes crash very rarely. traffic control in the air is actually very efficient.

when planes go down now, what is our first thought? terrorism. it's not that traffic control screwed up, it's that someone tampered with a regular system of flight. actually, traffic control in the air is an easier path to deal with an traffic control on the ground. hitt is joining us and these are the phone lines. this is going to be pretty much an economic thing in the sense that not everyone will be able to afford these vehicles? guest: we will see. there are several revolutions happening at the same time. one is technological but the other is fuel. we are at a juncture in the way we use fuel. it's the same way when oil came online and we moved into the combustion engine age, we were coming out of the coal age and oil was the clean energy 100 years ago.

now call has been in decline since world war ii. now fossil fuels are in decline. the alternative energies are growing every year and getting more efficient and better. the way to think about this is there is a number of different innovations that could happen. any one of them will push our transportation future into a different direction. if batteries become more efficient, a lot more efficient, we would then be able to do things with their cars and trains and planes that we never thought we could do before. if the technology becomes more efficient, there will be other advantages in that direction. let me give you one. the people who really promote the driverless car idea love the notion of transponders. those are the devices inside cars which already exist in the newer models that become aware

of other cars in the road. eventually, those computer systems will be able to speak to road.her cars on the imagine if you are 10 cars in a line at a red light and all of the cars are talking in the redline turns green, everybody can move at the same time. there are huge energy efficiencies in that. awarenessituational and that which means there will be fewer actions because the car will be aware of other cars in the vicinity. if that kind of technology takes off and we have enough cars with transponders, then the whole ground transportation system becomes infinitely safer and much more efficient. it depends on which of these technologies or fuel efficiencies or bureaucratic and depending on which one of those occurs, i think we will have our transportation future going in

one direction or the other. host: rob is from georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm a pilot instructor my question is more about licensing or the ability of the. pilot. i'm an instructor in savannah, georgia. i'm wondering when the computer who will beg, flying this airplane? the ability of the person with the controls -- you are talking about computers running this thing. working,computer stops does the pilot have to be able to manipulate the controls? guest: yes, that's everyone's first thought. if you talk to the flying car innovators, one of the guys i who is creating a flying car called a switchblade,

it has switchblade wings so they talk under the car. under the car and it's very appealing looking. after the pilot issue, the safety question that many people think about is dealt with by redundancy. technology progresses as quickly as we wanted to, you will end up with a kind of plane or flying car that has redundant system so that if anyone of these sensor systems fails, the other systems will step in and take over. what that question really gets to is about autonomy. the autonomy of the pilot flying car.the

on ourlity to get transportation device and the in command -- and be in command. that was very important. what you are watching with a lot of this technology is the technology is taking the control from us inch by inch and that is happening in the cars you are driving right now. many people are not aware that the cars they drive have smart raking systems. the car is breaking before your foot actually gets to the pedal in a crisis situation. accustomed to cruise control but now there is smart for his controller you get on a highway and turn on smart cruise control when the radar in the car sees the car in front of you

and the car behind you and monitors the white lines and ands the car in the lane keeps it speeding up or slowing down depending on the momentum of traffic. that already exists. we are giving away that control constantly and you find a younger drivers -- my children's have no a lot of them interest in learning how to drive. that whole question of autonomy, the desire to be in the drivers seat, that is changing. as driver apathy increases and technological efficiency increases, we may well get to the point where people don't want to drive a car. haveu could hit an app and a car drive you two hours to a location than you can spend that time sitting in the backseat like in a limo reading or

talking or watching a movie. would that be more appealing than having the autonomous power of controlling the vehicle? that's the question. the next couple of years we will answer that. caller: host: if you go to the pages of smithsonian, there are drawings and illustrations of the flying car concepts. jackk hitt is talking about it. alexandria, virginia, democrats line, hello. caller: there are two aspects of what you are missing. one is the design aspect and engineering. the things that make a car stable and sturdy and safe on a highway are not necessarily the things that make them efficient and lightweight and able to perform well in the air. it's a standard engineering trade-off. the other aspect is the financial peace of it or you when you look at what it cost to have certified equipment on a certified aircraft in the u.s., it costs an order of magnitude

as if it were onyx bar mental aircraft. you're talking about an electronic flight display on an airplane that would the $5,000 then would turn into $50,000. guest: there is also godwin's law. and in accessible technology tenures ago and now teenagers flight of them around and try to peak in windows. occurschnological curve with any technology and that will happen certainly with pilot technology and airplanes. the other question about design is key. i heard about it constantly. to be a stable car

and what it takes to be a smooth flying airplane are two very different features. one of the executives from detroit that i spoke with said that problem with the flying car is that you end up with a crummy car and a lousy airplane once you marry the two. that is actually the technological and design issues you see being worked through in these hangers which i visited where these guys are inventing the next generation of flying cars. switchblade is a stable three wheeled car that is very cool to look at and has a very nice wing design. the problem with the earlier cars that the wings had to fold up for the head to telescope in and the problem is every time you mess with the smooth design of the wing, you are interfering with the efficiency of the plane.

the nice thing about the switchblade is that you have a fully designed smooth wing tucked under the car so when it comes out, you get a much better plane and a much better car but that design question is key. that's what everybody is working on. switchblade design is illustrated in the pages of the magazine and the website. honolulu, hawaii, independent line, good morning. caller: i would like to comment. we are all thinking about the future of flying cars from a personal perspective. i think we are missing the bigger picture. adopters and sometimes the most important adopters will be essential services like ambulances. think about the countless number of lives that would be saved from ambulances that don't have to sit in traffic waiting for cars to get out of the way. these ambulances can bypass the

traffic entirely and go to the hospital without anything in their way. the potential for this and other services in other industries is a magnitude greater to save lives. that is my comment. true. that is so we like to think that revolutions happen like the american revolution that all of a sudden everyone takes up arms in a reading changes overnight. most revolutions are incremental. people mention that aspect3 . it's probably the first use of the flying car, the pilotless flying car would be an ambulance. imagine if there is a car wreck on a road in an ambulance could beive and the injured could put in this flying car and airlifted immediately to the nearest hospital. that will be very appealing and people want that. the technology and bureaucracy will shift in order to make it

happen because we all wanted to happen. car,rms of the driverless you will not see these on the road overnight but what you may see -- one of the driverless car engineers was telling me that their first thought was to try to put these in retirement villages in florida where there is not a lot of people wandering the streets and things move very slowly and it would follow routines that the driverless cars couldn't he mapped out that way. -- could be mapped out that way. these inventions will have an incremental sort of presence in our lives. it's the same way the combustion engine happened. that's the way it crept into american life. it did not happen over night. it happened over decades. go back to the 1890's and you could stand on a street corner in manhattan as hydrogen cars or steam powered cars, electric

cars, combustion engine cars are in for a while there in the 1890's, 1910's, i don't know the exact year, but the almost entire fleet of new york taxis were electric cars. that was in part because even drove aroundc cars for a while and ran out of energy and would come back and recharge. it's only when we created longer highways and farther driving distances that we sort of went with the combustion engine car because that was the most adaptable to long-term driving and it still is. this is one of the problems that people still talk about with electric cars, range anxiety. 10/ tesla is trying to change that with our stations. if lithium or a new version of lithium increases the efficiency so you can get 1000 miles on a charge, that would completely alter the market and the

electric car would become a completely different and far more appealing vehicle. each one of these roads out of our current transportation or twois blocked by one or three or four of these technologies or bureaucracies or energy efficiency questions. in this frenzy we are in now, those of the questions that are being dealt with and answered by inventors and car companies and flying car companies and everybody else. host: our guest is contributed to smithsonian magazine but also the new york times magazine, harpers and radio. did you first become interested in this flying car idea? in new haven, connecticut and i was having a coffee with a professor of energy at gateway community college which is a school that

teaches all kinds of things. argument.ot into this i asked how hard it would need for me to take a combustion engine,ar tear out the put in a battery-powered motor and batteries and then charge that off of a solar panel on my house? is,question i wanted to ask could i build a car that runs entirely off of sunshine. he was like yes, that technology is here. that is totally possible. i thought about it for a while. i took him up on his suggestion. he and i spent about a year of weekends in his backyard with my and will wagon cabrio ripped the engine out and install the three-phase motor with lithium-ion batteries. i get about 70 miles on a charge. it's a small car.

if i did it all over again, i would probably choose a different car. i have that car once i get the panels up, i will have a vehicle that runs entirely off of sunshine. i did that to find out how much that would cost. could i build a car that was roughly the cost of regular car question mark that car cost me about $23,000 to build from buying the car to driving it out of the driveway. i have had it for three years. i never bought a tank of gas in that time. one of the nice things about electric cars is that most of the problems in a combustion engine car comes from fluid dynamics. we know to change our oil. the reason is junk gets in there and breaks things down. it gets stuck in places. an electric motor is just wires. the in -- my entire cars just

wires. there are no fluids. nothing is flowing anywhere. except electrons on wires. it does not really break down. if anything breaks down, it body of the car itself. i have a problem with the driver door because someone smacked it but that has nothing to do with the electrical construction. that is what got me interested in this. i wanted to participate hands-on and see what it was like to jump into this inventive frenzy we are in now and see how that feels and whether i could pull this off. in time, i bumped into people inventing electric icicles or bicycles that are powered -- when you go downhill, you paddle and store that energy and you redeploying it later. there are all kinds of technologies people are playing with. i think it's because we are at

this juncture in terms of technology and energy. it's a great time for invention. it's a great time for creativity. it's a great time for going into your garage to figure out what the next big thing is. host: nashville, tennessee, hi. one and i, i want have to be one of the first people on my block to have one of these. how much is a cost and when can aget one and two you have driver sharing life form in your future? you: when you see one, do mean a flying car or a caller: driverless car or an electric car? caller:a flying car. does: the one that exists require a pilot's license. are you a pilot? caller: not yet. guest: well, getting a pilot's is not as long a process

or as difficult as you might think. it is a process. becausese than the dmv of the time commitment but you can do it. switchbladeand the -- yes, this june or july, he will be flying the first test run on the car he is designing an oregon. -- in oregon. motivation he told me was not unlike what you were talking about witches when he flew in his private plane, he has a plane, youassenger get to the airport and you're stuck there. you either take a cab or you hang out at the airport. his thought was -- can i build a car that would allow me to have this ease of movement and land at an airport and fold of the wings and go to my appointment. that is the dream. all of these innovations really

roll back to the sense of freedom that we americans feel in our bones. driven inc car was part when we were having these conversations about my desire to be free of the gas powered car. i just wanted to be liberated from the mechanical breakdowns, the constant purchases of gas. can i break free from that? you can. that appeal is really strong, the flying car, the driverless car where you sit in the back and read a book or watch a movie -- ford just recently filed a patent for an onboard movie car, theat in a future screen would come down where the windshield this and the windows would darken. you would be in a moving movie

theater going to your next appointment. you wouldn't even be able to see out the windows, what is the point? host: how high can these vehicles go and are there concerns about involvement with other air-traffic? air the department of transportation say you can only go so high? guest: yes, those are technical questions that i cannot honestly answer, but they are being deliberated right now at the faa. the kind of height we are talking about for flying cars a different height and commercial airliners -- than commercial airliners. the second issue is drones. you've all seen the videos on youtube of drones being attacked by eagles or hawks.

just saw one the other day of a drone near a commercial airliner and it clipped the side wing. dronesese radioshack proliferate even more, there's going to have to be some kind of regulation by some entity to control that airspace. if amazon wants to use them to deliver packages come all that regulation will have to be worked out. you could just imagine -- that kind of bureaucratic wrestling match will be super intense and far more complicated than the bureaucratic wrestling match about putting driverless cars on the ground. we will see how that plays out in the end. the metaphor i use, or technology now, our

transportation world is in one of these roundabouts. there's a number of different exits off that roundabout. which one we end up taking depends on which breakthrough happens at which point as we circle around getting out of our combustion engine system. that is the world we've lived in for 100 years. that world is changing. we will see shifts in the way we come in waysars that are unthinkable right now. when the combustion engine cars between 1900 and the 1920's, the horse was still the main mode of transportation in cities, old bureaus were devoted to cleaning up horse dung. most streets were just mud

baths. the sun would come up and there were dry fecal canals. the car was seen as a massive hygienic improvement. switch a long time to from all the infrastructure of the horse that was in place. there was no infrastructure for the combustion engine car. the use of the horse as a transportation device has now been thoroughly eliminated and the horse has been put out to pasture as an elegant sort of writing animal that people take lessons for -- riding animal that people take lessons for. so rich kids can take you

dressage. you can keep your beautiful old ,ntique car in these garages they look just like stables. farms,re carparks, car number of them in l.a., one outside of chicago -- well-to-do people keep their mid-condition old, beautiful cars in these garages and they come and visit the car and get in it and drive around. racetracksed, go on and amble about and go back and park your car and have a lunch. host: california. here is ed. ed from chino hills. asler: i'm curious as far

the patents and how long these companies have had these patents. it seems like there's a lot of suppression of new technology. bike from china and i'm having a hard time finding a battery. i've been on amazon and all these places and i can't find a battery. i heard airships are making a big comeback. it seems like these companies want to sit on the technology ait long enough or people to forget about it and then come back and act like they invented it. host: patent laws are unbelievably complicated and way beyond my pay grade. i don't know about people sitting on patents. , some parthear this of me just feels like maybe that is a little more conspiratorial thinking than it should be.

there are patents, there are controls on some of these devices and technologies. calling around and talking to people involved in actually trying to create something new, other companies holding patents is not what is holding them back. what is holding them back is , thatard-core reality they have not figured out the x.chnology to do as they have not miniaturized a computer system to put it on board a plane. that's what these companies are worried about, not the bottling up great ideas and waiting for the market to develop. most of these people are galloping to the market as fast as they can. right now, we are in this frenzy of invention. --t is fun is to go to these

i went to the new england electric car association. were all these self invented, wonderful all-american crackpots gather with their homemade cars and talk about what did you do to solve this problem and that problem. it is that kind of fermentation of thinking that i love. that you are seeing in all these different zones of transportation. host: arlington heights, illinois. robert, good morning. in regards to the self driving cars and that technology -- that technology and the sensors have been around for a long time. developed a lot of these sensors and had research and development, trying to hash out these sensors in terms of

what they- that is are trying to figure out right now. due to the regulations and , is it comingds sooner than later or do you think due to all that stuff, it will be a while? guest: it is kind of already here and we just don't know it yet. on current your models, you can get smart breaking, automatic and adaptive cruise control or smart cruise control. if you've seen this automatic parking feature, it is the amazing. -- pretty amazing. i surprised myself with parallel parking. i made sure my daughters could parallel park a car.

now, that is gone. i've been in cars were you just will up next to the space and you press a button and the car figures out where it is and just as the geometry and moves right in. it is a beautiful thing to see. adaptive cruise control come on most highways, it will drive the car for you. you can take your hand off the wheel and read a book. the problem with texting while driving is not going to be solved by education, by teaching people not to text when they drive. technology will solve that problem so we don't have to drive. we're close to a driverless car right now. there are a couple of other issues we have to deal with. it's easier to do it on the highway than it is to do it in a suburban setting because there's

so many more variables. infinitelydriving is safer. the technology is there. up teslatube and look autopilot. it is essentially a driverless car. you see people using it in urban situations. i'm not sure it is cleared for that, but you see people playing around with that. the technology is there. it has cracked into our driving already. of thosene revolutions, it will be over before we know it is arrived. host: tennessee, democrats line. arnold, go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you all doing? host: good. caller: i'm sure you are familiar with the chevy volt.

is anow, the chevy volt gasoline powered electric car. very easily become a compressed air powered electric car. the main reason for us to go down that road, about two years ago, here on c-span's "washington journal," they had the head man from green greenpeace. earth'sif the temperature rises another 3.5 degrees, it is over for us. there is still time to stop this, but he said the only way to stop it is to leave two thirds of the oil that is still in the ground in the ground. we cannot bring it up or burn it.

airching to compressed vehicles would be a giant step in that direction. how in familiar with europe, they are manufacturing cars that are powered exclusively by compressed air? guest: yes, there are compressed air cars and you will find another way to see this in a vision is happening -- innovation is happening all around us, look at delivery trucks and see how many of them say they are hydrogen powered cars. fleets of cars tend to be places where innovation gets picked up early. if you are coca-cola or ups and you are buying 100 trucks for a region, if you can save pennies on the mile over 100 trucks, it is an enormous amount of money.

they have a financial interest, market interest in pursuing these new technologies. when they pay off. thesell see that a lot of alternative nonfossil fuel energy experiments are happening right around you in the delivery fleets that you see. host: one more call. karen in astoria, new york. independent line. caller: the issue of this in an videoenvironment, the saying there were no other people or vehicles around, would in trouble be nice without that -- wouldn't trouble be nice without that? environments have high buildings. where are the flying cars going to land?

guest: i lived in new york during that time. to be on topused of buildings and they found that helicopters would blow off of buildings pretty easily, so that ended that. there are these technological problems. with flying cars, it would have to be predetermined areas, places where they could go. there would be predesignated takeoff and landing spots. airports or runways, but airports and runways would be the default mode. logical issue on board a plane or some other problem with landing, it would default to the nearest airport. all of that would have to be planned out.

sam's plane has a different approach. it uses a military technology that allows for really short landing and takeoff stretches. that can be done by having jet blown across the top of the plane with nozzles, which gives it a superfast lift or allows for super fast landing. you could take off in the area of an average parking lot. take a lot of work, but those are the kinds of technologies that people are now playing with. the are second-generation flying cars with vertical takeoff. it then becomes a horizontal jet. that is their second-generation flying car.

we are experimenting with all these technologies to see which will be adapted best to the kinds of russian talking about, like an urban environment. do we take off from parking lots pads?reset parking new york is a separate issue. you were talking about the driverless cars in an urban environment -- one of the problems driverless cars will have to deal with is teenagers. people walking down the street. some of these test cities where they have the driverless cars, it is a fun prank to jump out in front of a driverless car because the kids know the car is programmed to stop for a human being. chicken to a game of see how quickly you can force one of these driverless cars to stop and keep stopping. , you can readt

more of his piece in smithsonian magazine. thank you for your time this one. caller: thank you. host: coming up, we will have the libertarian presidential .ominee, gary johnson he's joining us next on "washington journal." >> citizens have got to feel that their vote matters, that their voice matters and whether can spare a single cent to help a person running for office or write a big check -- their struggles will be listened to. and followed up on. >> wisconsin senator tammy baldwin -- changeed shepherd the

cinders were not --ointed by the legislature the idea that it was not going to be party bosses who made the decision of who the nominees were in smoke-filled back rooms but rather the people who were going to get a chance to vote in a free and fair election. 8:00 easternht at on c-span's q&a. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from new york is gary johnson, former governor of new mexico. good morning. pedro.good morning, host: tell us about your philosophy of governance and what it means to you if you wear to become -- if you were to

become president of united states. guest: i would stand for smaller government. the notion that government is too big and it taxes too much. it takes money out of my pocket that i could be spending on my life. it should all be about choice. all of us should be able to make choices in our own lives that only affect our own lives unless those decisions put other people in harm's way. regarding military intervention, let's stop with military intervention that has resulted in the world being less safe. the fact that we put boots on the ground and drop bombs and fly drones and kill thousands of innocent people, it has the unintended consequence of making things worse, not better. host: we had a viewer that asked how you differ from the other

presidential candidates. how would you differ from hillary clinton or donald trump on the economy? guest: at the end of the day, government will grow under hillary clinton, taxes will rise. she has been the architect of a foreign policy in this world -- where changes from a foreign policy perspective? not much. government gets bigger, taxes get higher. i am 180ld trump, degrees when it comes to deporting 11 million illegal immigrants. they're are not taking jobs that u.s. citizens want. don't build a fence across the border. that is a crazy idea. they are not murderers and rapists. they commit far less crimes than u.s. citizens. he wants to kill the families of muslim terrorists and bring back waterboarding, or worse. freeys he is for

market, but in the next sentence makehe will make apple iphones in the u.s. and impose a 30% tariff on goods entering the u.s. host: 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. .or independents, 202-748-8002 for libertarians, 202-748-8003. there were several questions about what separates you from another form of republican. how would you define yourself? do you think the purity idea is going to be a challenge for you in gaining support? guest: i think there are tens of

millions of americans who have no idea what it is to be a libertarian and yet, are a libertarian, they just don't know it. fiscally conservative, socially liberal -- most people fall in that category. i have issues when it comes to democrats, when it comes to spending and government being the solution to everything. the government does not provide solutions at the end of the day. it just taxes more. socialcans bent on this conservative dogma that puts people in prison for personal choices. the drug war being an example. mandatory sentencing. have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. people should be allowed to make choices in their lives. s host:.own lives

-- their own lives. host: tell us about your running mate. why did you choose governor weld? guest: bill weld has been a role model to me. he served two terms as the governor of massachusetts. a heavily blue state, served as a republican, served as a fiscal conservative and social liberal. termsed as governor, two as a republican in a heavily blue state. both of us have labeled ourselves or considered it a badge of honor to be labeled as libertarians. on the a problem republican side when it comes to social dogma.

it speaks volumes that both of us got reelected by larger , bills the second time weld especially. doesn't that speak to broad appeal? host: first call is from michael, identifies and salt as a libertarian from los angeles. -- identifies himself as a libertarian from los angeles. caller: congratulations on winning the nomination. guest: thank you. caller: i want to ask a question regarding tax policy. you seen multiple times discussing the fair tax, how that might be a better system than the income tax. a systemever looked at of land value taxation as opposed to consumption tax?

economists across the spectrum have found that that might be even more efficient than consumption taxation and fairer to the general public. if i'm elected president, count on me to sign off on anything that would make things better. would bee of how that a real positive to what we are currently doing. i do advocate eliminating income tax, corporate tax. it is the basis for crony capitalism today. -- pink slipsrs would go out to 80% of washington lobbyists if there was no corporate tax. congress, it is possible that they could do that. they would replace it with something -- i think a consumption tax is a lot more

fair on how to accomplish a , i've alwaysax pointed out the fair tax as a and cross the i's t's. imagine life without the irs, ingine zero corporate tax the tens of millions of jobs that would get created in this country as opposed to anywhere else in the world because the u.s. would have zero corporate tax. guest: a viewer on twitter -- host: baby were on twitter asks if you would keep the federal reserve. on twitter asks if you would keep the federal reserve. guest: if congress were to submit legislation to abolish the federal reserve and replace it with regional banking, i they will, but if they did, i would sign off on the legislation.

we should audit the federal reserve and get rid of a dual mandate that the federal reserve now has, keeping inflation in check and full employment. the mandate should be to reduce inflation. ed in georgia on the republican line. know, our you military has been shrinking. if you were president, what i is, would you increase the amount of money we spending right now or lower it? isn't it true that you would like to get rid of the military? guest: absolutely not get rid of the military. if we are attacked, we will attack back. we should provide ourselves with an individual national defense -- impenetrable national

defense, not offense. we need to involve congress and a declaration of war and how we proceed in the middle east. in the declaration of war. areave 69 treaties where we obligated to defend 69 countries's foreign borders. we need an open debate and discussion over military policy. something that is currently not happening. host: albuquerque, new mexico. libertarian. eric, low. -- eric, hello. guest: i attended a convention here -- caller: i attended a convention here. we grow thent that

libertarian party. statement at the i don't think anyone labeled a republican can say that. guest: sorry, bit of static in the year. ear.n the bill weld was talking about things in the early 1990's that nobody was talking about. gay-rights, medical rights, choose -- hes to was pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-medical marijuana. there -- most of you were not born at that time.

have any of you done things in the 1990's that perhaps you have different thoughts about today? wore libertarian as a badge of honor. a headline in the albuquerque said gary johnson is not a republican, he is a libertarian. i took it as a badge of honor, which broadly speaking, i am i carey conservative and about people making their own choices in their own lives. host: rea come independently. line.ia, independent caller: if people would go to --igration counters immigrationcounters.com, they of immigration. tariff, that was

the way we supported our country prior to 1916. it would have eliminated the irs. president and takes an oath to uphold the constitution he pretends, how can it is the right for people to stream over the border? what is the definition of a country? it should be border, culture and language. isst: a big misunderstanding the whole notion of illegal immigration. 10 years ago, 20 years ago, it was the people here who were undocumented. hard-working people, the cream of the crop when it comes to workers. it would be an economic catastrophe to send people back over the border. isuntold story right now that president obama has broken up 3 million families because of

the deportation of parents that have now been separated from their families living in the u.s. this is something i do not want to engage in. i want to make it as easy as possible for someone who wants to come into this country and work to be able to get a work visa. backgroundrequire a check and social security card. you talk about tariffs providing most of the income in this country. prior to the prohibition of alcohol, the number one revenue source in this country was the taxation on alcohol. gee, might we look at the marijuana as an added revenue source also? look at the savings in law enforcement, the courts and prisons, the savings in those

three areas dwarf the revenue on the legalization side. your talk about relationship to the cabin of cannabis company. you were the ceo at one time? guest: yes, and argued that as a the world a better place. marijuana products are just as effective, not one documented death due to the use of marijuana products. on the recreational side, i've always viewed legalizing marijuana as leading to less overall substance abuse because people will find it as such a safer alternative than everything else that is out there, starting with alcohol. the campaign to legalize

was aana in colorado campaign based on marijuana is and all thelcohol statistics that were supposed to go south in colorado have actually gotten better. driving incidents, crime, you name it. colorado is a vibrant place. does it have to do with marijuana? i think it has something to do with it. colorado is at the top of the list when comes to personal liberties and freedom. gary johnson joining us. jacob in nevada. hello. you really sold me on the libertarian party, but i have one question. how will smaller government help those under the poverty line pay high medical bills? guest: you hit on a couple of

things -- high medical bills. medical bills are driven by the government. if we had a free market approach to health care -- health care right now is about as far removed from free market as it could be. we would not have insurance to cover ourselves for ongoing medical needs. we would have insurance to cover ourselves for catastrophic injury and illness. and we would pay as you go in a system that would cost about 1/5 of what it currently costs right now. we would have gallbladders r' x-raystching r' us and r' us. come get your x-ray for $40 and 100% of our x-rays are readable and without mistakes.

i use that as an example right now, you walk into a hospital or doctor's office, you have no idea what it is going to cost because you are not paying for it. your insurance is and you know neversts that are billed actually get paid. chief justice roberts was right that the affordable health care act it really is a tax. my premiums have quadrupled and i have not seen a doctor in three years. host: would you advocate the dismantling of the law that currently stands? guest: yes, i would. president of the united states and the reforms that are needed when it comes to health care to genuinely make it more affordable, to genuinely make it more affordable, you have to allow for competition.

government itself could actually involve itself in blowing the lid on the supply of doctors available, expanding medical school. there are a limited number of doctors, there could be a lot more doctors. host: mike from tampa, for the. democrats line. -- mike from tampa, florida. guest: we have a 19 -- caller: we have a $19 trillion debt. reducing you propose that or even paying it off given the fact that we have necessary government obligations such as the defense department? guest: let's forget about paying it back. all we do is add to it. currently, 20% of everything we are spending is really printed money, new debt.

ont the ability to put a lid spending or to reduce spending even a little bit, coupled with economic growth has a profound impact. i would like to turn it on its air command meaning 20% of government is actually government that does not need to exist. i would be president of the u.s., not dictator who can wave a magic wand, but we would be suggesting right out of the block a way to reduce government spending by 20%, providing for a balanced budget. i don't see congress getting on board with that, but maybe they do, but at a minimum, you put a spendingending, reduce over a short period of time. that has a profound impact. host: you advocate the dismissal of government workers to achieve those goals.

how many? guest: you cannot -- you can wave a magic wand in some cases because so much of what has been implemented his executive order. take the nsa and the fact that they are spying on you and i as u.s. citizens. us.llites are pointed at 333 is executive order 12 from truman. could make sure that those satellites get turned away from u.s. citizens, something i do advocate. those are supposed to be pointed at the enemy. is an essay arguing that you and i are the enemy? -- is the nsa arguing that you and i are the enemy? i hope not. host: mike is next. libertarian. caller: congratulations.

the party chose well with you and governor weld. donald trump has seemingly endorsed vladimir putin's policy of assassinating critical reporters. he said recently "putin is running his country come at least he is a leader, like what we have in this country." "putin is running his country , at least he is a leader, unlike what we have in this country." the tools were provided for ."ump to "disappear quietly mr. obama inserted a provision allowing for the attention of

u.s. citizens -- detention of u.s. citizens without due process. the national press does not allow issues that are not issues between the two major parties. how would you get through that? guest: you laid the table in thely, your question form of a statement is a profound statement that donald trump points at vladimir putin who in fact does deal with dissidents in a way that we are not supposed to be able to and yet, donald trump is advocating first amendment assault on the press, making it easier to see the press for statements. this country is all about the constitution, the bill of rights.

donald trump assaults the constitution, starting with the first amendment. thank you for your statement. you mentioned the media. what is your plan for getting involved in the debate process? guest: right now, the only chance that a third party has of getting elected is to be in the presidential debate. i think my name should be included in the poll that determines who gets to debate. the debate commission has been made up of republicans and democrats. my name should appear in all these polls because i'm going to be the only third-party candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. all this talk in the media about a third-party -- if you had all the money in the world, you

cannot get on the ballot in all 50 states starting tomorrow. if you had all the money in the world, starting tomorrow, it would be almost impossible to get on the ballot in enough states to mathematically be elected president of the united states, being able to garner 250 electoral votes. a demand from the polling organizations that my name be been includedve in three national polls, 10%, 10% and 11%. my name appears in those three polls, there's another 40 polls that only show hillary clinton and donald trump and when 50% of americans now registering to vote declare themselves as independents, where is that representation. i happen to think that most people in this world are libertarian, they just don't know it.

host: bill is up next on our republican line. caller: good morning. theuld like to find out libertarian stand on assault rifle bans. on assault rifle bans. guest: if you outlaw guns, criminals will have guns. if you outlaw the number of polyphony magazine, only the criminals -- number of bullets in a magazine, only the criminals will have bullets in the magazine. gun control sounds terrific, but at the end of the day, it makes this country less safe. .his is the second amendment the constitution guarantees all of us the right to bear arms. and puerto rico.

independent line. -- in puerto rico. caller: i have a question. a big concern in this country right now is our national security. how can you expect us as american citizens to take you seriously as a candidate when you are for open borders? our national security is on the line here. childrenity for our come our families -- our children come our families -- our children, our families is on the line. this isirst of all, greatly misunderstood. what i am for is an easy way to obtain a work visa. make the line moving to be able

to get a work visa, which entails a background check and social security card. right now, border patrol has to immigrantsllegal contain some criminals, but the majority of those illegal immigrants are just hard-working people who want to get into this country and work. wading thekids rio grande and border control has to deal with them along with bad components. what if you made it easy for the women and children to make it work so that border control can identify the fact that anybody coming across the border illegally is somebody to be reckoned with? i don't know if i would call that open borders, i would just call that prudent management over something that can be done

much more effectively. cross the t'sd about everything we care about. to pay theirrants fair share when it comes to taxes, recognizing that we are a country of immigrants. immigration is really a good thing. host: the front page of "the new york times" takes a look at president obama's efforts to resettle syrian refugees. guest: i think we bear a responsibility for the refugee crisis and we should be taking on our fair share. what is the mathematics of having disrupted 11 million syrians, half the population? when it comes to the u.s., i think we can deal with this effectively.

should it be carte blanche? no, but we can have a system in place to accept refugees right off the bat. refugees might be questionable, backgrounds or whatever. we've directed enough of our resources on the military side to deal with the refugee side of it humanely and in a way that reflects what america is all about. --ortunity, freedom, liberty you want to come to the u.s. and work hard and be honest, you will get ahead. host: gary johnson with us. harold in new jersey. republican line. , you make a lot of sense, you really do. you make a lot of sense on a lot of issues. but, there is one thing. a part ofntly ignore

the constitution in regards to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. would you give money to planned parenthood? additionally, do you believe ont our country was founded the value that god is father of all? , god sent the golden commandments, love god and love your neighbor as yourself. -- ild vote for you normally vote for the constitution party. i believe in the constitution. if you stand for what our founding fathers work for so collaboratively for months and months -- if you were there when our constitution was started, would you believe in life?

god loves us all. that -- ther thing are, byis that we nature, poland people. -- fallen people. the devil is trying to stop you and any of other people trying to do good things. i pray that you and other libertarians will love life because life is so precious. governor johnson, go ahead. guest: you've touched on a number of things. first and foremost, abortion. how could there be a more difficult decision in anyone's life? involved thatn needs to make those choices. i firmly believe that. when it comes to planned parenthood come and looking to reduce the size of government --

planned parenthood, i'm looking to reduce the size of government. reducedpropose a expenditure to planned parenthood? yes. just like i would propose a reduced expenditure to everything. republicans at the end of the up taking it on the chin when it comes to planned parenthood. they are part of the whole. regarding the separation of church and state, i fervently believe there should be a separation of church and state. , butw up as a christian should god play a role in government? no. that is firmly established in the constitution. prescott,dia in arizona. democrats line. caller: hi there, mr. johnson.

republican -- a guest: libertarian. caller: well, he was a republican as a governor, wasn't he? guest: yes, but a libertarian ,epublican governor, today libertarian presidential candidate. i want to draw a distinction. you cannot bear your past. ry your past. i want to see you and bill weld support bernie sanders. there's a lot of people out here that want bernie sanders to win the nomination. ,f he is not in the nomination i'm sure you would take home the

if you had all the ideas that bernie sanders has and three quarters of america have. claudia, here is a pitch to make to everybody out there. sidewith.com. get online, take that political quiz. really simple. 60 questions, you don't have to register. at the end of that quiz, you get paired up with a presidential candidate most in line with your views. don't we all away to ourselves to find out who we align with we it toith -- o ourselves to find out who we align with and side with?

70% with bernie sanders. there is crony capitalism. the government really isn't fair when it comes to this level playing field. marijuana. 73% of what bernie says, i agree with. in the road when it comes to economics. if we absolutely had a fair freem of economics, markets, we would do a lot better than going down the path of socialism. libertarians agree with socialism as long as it is voluntary. when it is forest, that is tyranny. -- forced, that is tyranny.

there is so much in common that just factually speaking, take a look. take a look, bernie sanders supporters. take a look at who you next side with. host: david in north carolina. independent line. caller: you were talking about the affordable care act. there were some holes in the country that showed 65% of the population were not happy with the affordable care act in its current state. would like to see it repaired and improved upon. i want to know if you would be ton to something like that address pre-existing conditions and children staying on their parents's plans.

votere convincing one that it would be an outrage if you were not allowed to compete in the debate. thank you. -- whatould you sign on i'm hearing you say is, would you sign on to things that make things better? yes. count on me to sign on to anything that makes things better. actuallycount on me to veto legislation that although sounds terrific at the end of the day, if it just adds time and money to our lives and doesn't add anything to government other than adding time and money to our lives, let's get rid of it. as president of the united iates, i will tell you what advocate, but count on me to sign on or so anything that comes out of congress -- support anything that comes out of congress that makes things

better. host: republican line. caller: i'm hearing you saying that we've always been a nation of immigrants. any good rancher knows you cannot put more than so many cows on a piece of land or the land will be adversely affected. at some point, we have to decide, how many people can we have in america and still sustain our population with land to grow our crops? christians have been under attack by the lgbt population. what will you do to protect the cake maker being forced to sell to the lgbt? the government has gotten so involved in this and they will threaten you with removing federal tax dollars if you do not go along with it.

i'm very concerned about christians. the legalization of pot -- it is a gateway drug to harder drugs. what are you going to do to make sure people smoking pot, especially children, are able to learn in school and do not go on to bigger and better drugs? host: you can answer one of those. guest: a lot on the plate. i probably addressed every one of those questions. support gay rights. we should not have any part of this discrimination whatsoever. ,ith regard to immigrants, look and untold truth, we need a lot of immigrants to be working and paying into a social security system that in the future looks bankrupt. isn't this country a country of immigrants? don't we want people to pursue the american dream?

this is rooted in working hard, being honest and rewarded for the fruits of your efforts. host: governor gary johnson is the libertarian presidential nominee. thank you for being on c-span. guest: a pleasure. a wonderful format. i hope you will invite me back. live to take you now the wilson center in washington, d.c. i hope you will invite me back. we take you live to the woodrow wilson center. feature andll discuss the impact of arms trade in east asia. the woodrow wilson center is hosting this event and we take you there live.