change. then, california representative jackie speier on the mass shooting in orlando and what lawmakers learned from the closed-door briefing. ♪ good morning, everyone. welcome to "washington journal." the flags are made not have staff here in washington. we begin this morning with the debate over the phrase "radical republicans have been criticizing the president for not saying the words in the fight against isis. mr. trump said the president should resign if you would not use the phrase. "radicaldent argued islam" is a talking point, not a strategy. do you agree or disagree with the president?

if you agree, 202-748-8000. if you disagree, 202-748-8001. join the conversation on twitter and facebook. phone lines are open. let's listen to what the president had to say yesterday when he visited the treasury department. he talked to the cameras and this is what he had to say about the debate over using the term "radical islam." [video clip] president: friends on the other --e of the aisle have made to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase "radical islam." that is the key, they tell us. unless webeat isil

call them radical islamists. what exactly would using this label accomplish? what exactly would it change? would it make isil less committed to try to kill americans? would it bring in more allies? is there a military strategy served by this? the answer is, none of the above. calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. distraction.itical i've been clear about how extremist groups have perverted islam. i have called on our muslim

friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world's great religions. there has not been a moment in my years as president where we have not been able to pursue a because we did not use the label "radical islam." host: what do you make of this debate? do you agree or disagree with the president there? out --trump tweeted this donald trump repeating that in his speech that he gave monday. sterling, virginia. you agree with the president. good morning to you. caller: thank you.

i go one step further -- by using the phrase "islamic," you are validating these people. they are nothing but a bunch of radical idiots, essentially. one question i have for all these presidential candidates -- do they support using satellite computer technology to design our infrastructure? if not, why not? host: jane in new york. it you agree with the president as well. tell us why. caller: i do. strategy ispublican out of the nazi playbook. word "muslim"the instead of "jews." a lot of the speeches they're using our word for word, except he plugs in "hispanic" except

"gypsies" or anyone who is different or doesn't have the right color hair or skin. turn.s a real alarming the thing that is most alarming is the republican party sanctioned this. preibus up there with a smirk on his face when the candidate is blathering the stuff. i agree with the president. i wholeheartedly think this is very destructive. the structure the people who look different because now, he is pointing them out. he is sanctioning any kind of mistreatment they might dish out , like they did at his rallies.

host: on twitter -- let's listen to the argument on the other side. paul ryan had an event yesterday where he was asked about using that term. this is what he had to say. [video clip] ryan: there is a very important distinction that needs to be made between the millions of moderate muslims who are helping us in this fight, but that does not mean we should ignore the threat that is facing us. we have to call this threat for what it is. host: john in mississippi. you agree with the president. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i do. thank you for taking my call. off the that just got phone from new york, i completely agree with her. host: what do you make of the

republicans' argument? caller: they are sort of warped in the head. they can say against president obama, they will say it. anything to make him look in the public like he is not doing the job, that is what they will do. host: new york. you disagree. the morning. -- good morning. "islam"i know the word means piece by itself. in that version, there are ms. e muslims killing each other. we should call it by its name. "islam."ot antagonize , a dangerous version of islam. there is a name for it.

"radical islam." we have to face it. "islam" meansd peaceful. i'm not worried about supporting calling it by its name. mr. obama goes too far. --was accusing donald trump obama was too upset and he went too far in blaming donald trump for that. host: martha in pennsylvania. you agree. good morning. caller: i agree. in this country, we have already won. here's what happened. when isis was recruiting, they cannot even get 200 people from this country to go. we have more muslims in this country than afghanistan.

because of our way of life, we've already won. yes, there will be radicals out there. the way we run our country, we've already won and they don't see it. host: who doesn't see it? caller: the people that arguing about the muslims entering to get them not to come to the country anymore. there always has to be a contention during a presidential election. the contention now is going to be radical muslims. we have to run on fear in this country since 9/11. this is another result. their yourtoday " in say section. michael in alabama wrote this --

marty in west wind, michigan. you disagree with the president. tell us why. ladyr: just hearing the speak before you put me on, i would like to make two comments. back during the iranian hostage crisis, jimmy carter put a ban on shiites and took them out of the country.

ironic -- i'm not saying it was the right thing to do. the caller before the lady that called, he was dead on his comments. " is not adical islam strategy, it is a word. i don't know why they don't say it. it is a faction of the people who do it. a president who does not support waterboarding but supports drone strikes -- it's either heads or tails. i don't understand my don't killed 3000people on 9/11. more than the japanese imperial army killed at pearl harbor.

to maybe have intense background checks on these people and be careful because it only takes a and causethem to kill catastrophic damage. in harrisburg, pennsylvania could you also disagree with the president. your turn. i wish the president was so angry that people should wonder why he is always on the side of the muslims instead of the americans, the real americans, i mean. he had been just as angry when our american journalist was islamicsts.the he could not wait to go out and play golf. he talks about the constitution, the religious freedom -- where is the religious freedom for these poor nuns, the people of the poor that are hoping our people in the u.s. -- helping

people in the u.s.? the volunteer their time, they do wonderful things, but he is taking the religious freedom away from many people. would get angry about some of these other things that are important to us. this is the viewpoint of "the wall street journal" editorial board. they write --

mary in washington, d.c. you agree with the president. your turn, mary. caller: i agree with the president. if you does not call it by its

name does not mean he is not fighting it and trying to eradicate it. --egration is called the bat called that. we are all the same. host: joe in cleveland, ohio. you disagree? tell us why, joe. caller: i would like to make a match -- the mayor of london has , womenwomen in bikinis who might be christian or what have you but certainly not muslim women. islamicradical christian went into the national organization of women when they had a meeting because they are very liberal about everything from a particularly -- about everything and blew up a group the national organization of

women, i wonder if the president would have any comments about "radical islam." the liberals in this country are isis.es hated most by what this president did yesterday makes me fearful for our american women and the liberal people. they are on the list of islam. that is what islam wants to change is the liberalism in america. is "washington post" this morning. " is prevailing view in afghanistan. even in areas under control of the afghan government, gay sex remains a crime.

to quote one person thefghanistan who says washington post did not have to look far for sympathizers commencing if you entered a gay club, he should have killed 2000 hemmenting "if entered a gay club, he should have killed 2000 of them." "trumps broadside against islam

shakes group." we are asking you to respond to

this debate, whether it is necessary, important to use this term "radical islam." the president responded thatrday in a tone newspapers this morning called an angry one saying it is not a strategy, it is a talking point. glyn in louisiana. you agree with the president. go-ahead. caller: i do agree with the president or do i have lived in islamic countries before. if you call it "radical islam," as long as you use that word islam, it is a recruiting tool mad.ke the muslim people we are fighting the extreme. call them common thugs entry than like common thugs and lock them up in a common jail, there will be no martyrs.

-- and treat them like common thugs and lock them up in a common jail, there will be no martyrs. don't call it "radical islam." then we won't be recruiting and bring these youngsters to fight us co. host: been in nebraska. you disagree. caller: i certainly disagree because the president and the democrats are destroying the democratic party. the word radical meets fundamental. look up fundamental, that is eheads who take the bible literally. i'm so tired of wars. sanders and johnson ought to start the third party immediately.

flip a coin to see who is president and who is vice president. these wars over religion have to it will make too many enemies who all want revenge. host: let me read from bloomberg this morning. "not much different from bush ." islam --

those are some of the quotes come and see if you can tell the difference between president george w. bush and president obama. allen in delaware. good morning. you agree with this president. caller: good morning. yes, i am 100% in agreement with president obama. it is basically just a talking point for the republicans. passhave decided not to the war powers act the president has asked for. they have not approved the expert who has that

ability to destabilize the isil fund. i look at what has happened in this country with the unabomber, timothy mcveigh, the olympic dylann roof.h these guys were not called radical christians. give the president the powers he ands to help defeat isil stop with the talking points. clinton winning the d.c. primary yesterday. night. of them met last and discussed what is coming next. bernie sanders calling for democrats for fundamental

transformation. .hat is how "usa today" puts it -- he and hillary clinton talk about what is next for him. "washington post" this morning says -- the two agreed to continue working on their shared agenda. also happening up on capitol hill this week, some things to tell you about as well.

legislationrking on passing legislation -- i will find that for you. let's start with the senate. says gop is open to denying terrorists guns. lawsop is open to passing to keep guns out of terrorists' hands. late last year, the senate rejected feinstein's measure

after this and virginia shooting -- after the san bernardino shooting. the feinstein proposal fails on -- 45-55 vote. also happening today up on capitol hill, the house oversight committee will be --ing a vote on centering

commissioner.irs , speakingning today of the irs, from "the wall street journal." irs donors to end list requirement. some of the action happening up on capitol hill yesterday and today, throughout the week -- again, you can go to c-span2 for coverage of the senate and here on c-span for gavel to gavel coverage of the house. michael in california. you disagree with the president, " is just aical islam talking point. good morning.

you there? caller: yes. host: you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. issue -- that is why the puritans left europe, to escape the persecution of their beliefs. slowly, over time, different religions began to creep in. if you don't have any standards and don't stick by them, eventually, you will leave the door open to whatever. whatever person wants to come in and put his two cents worth in. that is why they set up a foundation and slowly, over time , we started letting more and more people come in. that's why you have so many different religions. the first amendment of the

bible, thou shalt have no other god decides me. the muslims believe there is no other god but allah and his profit, mohammed. jesus christ as the one who died on the cross for our sins. i watched a documentary that was talking about muslims walking the streets of america saying it is only a matter of time we will have you converted to islam. prophet,and his mohammed. robert in louisiana -- host: robert in louisiana. caller: the jews don't believe in jesus christ also. why don't we call this what it is? why don't we call the republicans radical republicans?

we got our first black president and they have been trying to oust him since they won. one.nce day host: steve new orleans. you disagree. good morning. caller: in the muslim religion, they do practice hate towards this country. especially the united states' support for israelis. they know how much they are supporting israel. from libya, iraq -- all muslim fight.es are in the

praise hateople towards the same country. we have open-minded muslims and close minded muslims. the close minded muslims are for retaliation. i know a lot of muslims will not -- oncet i have to say , all this american should disappear from you. if you are muslim and come from the same country, you are going to associate with other people and are of the same race this keeps building up. host: we will take more of your calls.

first, representative bennie thompson is joining us on the phone. yesterday, there was an all member briefing -- you've been briefed as well given your position on the house home and security committee. shooters this orlando -- what happened with this orlando shooter in relation to domestic terrorism? guest: thank you for having me. we have been briefed over the last several days about orlando. every day, we learn something new. , this subject came on the radar screen several years ago. because of some statements that were made. and he was him out

obviously cleared. one of the concerns some of us ane is, how can one make application for a purchase of a weapon and background check not pick that up. we will be looking at that. no question, this was an act of domestic terrorism. we cannot find other than the three 911 calls made from any made, any to -- calls connection to isil. unfortunately, this is a classic example of someone who could have been self radicalized over the internet or some other method. he picked out a soft target,

this nightclub, like a lot of other venues, a very attractive target to those individuals who want to do harm. host: what can you are committee do that you are committee due to prevent the radicalization of citizens in this country on the internet? andt: the internet is open free. just about everyone you know is either on a smartphone, laptop, desktop, searching all kinds of things. freese it is open and commit you cannot restrict -- open and free, you cannot restrict any individuals from accessing it. the question is whether or not we can start using methods to that arethe websites

lost egregious in terms of isi or international or domestic terrorism. and what we can do by following those individuals and to some extent, we are doing that. it is a daunting task. the internet is large and individuals, because of civil liberties and civil rights, it could be a student doing a research paper, so there are a lot of things we have to look at. fbi is doing the best job they can. a role in this process, too. if you see something, you should say something. necessarily have to say to the individual, you say it to the authorities. you report it. the authorities will do their investigation and hopefully,

those bad people will be identified. host: we heard from chairman mccall yesterday. the committee you serve on is getting ready with some legislation, that there will be a legislative response. bipartisan? caller: right now, there are circulated outng of a packet of nine. we have already voted on all nine of the bills individually. thursday tonning on bring these bills backup and re-vote on them. in terms of what happened in , there are some things that i think we should do to address it.

right now, if you are on the no-fly list, you can still buy a gun. there are a lot of us who are saying if i'm on the no-fly list , there must be something wrong and i should not be allowed to buy a gun. the republican leadership will not let us bring that to the floor. we are not able to get a vote on it. get anvinced if we will vote, it will pass. at the gun lobby doesn't want to happen. -- want that to happen. i can be prevented from flying on a plane but i cannot be prevented from buying a gun. weapons, ar-15's primarily come of those weapons were historically designed for occupations.e

now, law enforcement had access to them and rightfully so, but now, that is open to everyone. capacityuns with the the0 have been 40-50 times shooting available to the general public. we have revisit that. those kinds of guns are primarily designed to kill. why should we have those types of weapons available to the general public? those are the kinds of issues i am convinced we should be working on in a bipartisan manner. my phone is ringing off the hook from people saying, "why don't you do something?" the legislative process prevents that. the republican leadership at a

press conference, they did not talk to any democrats about what they were proposing to do. i think it is because the gun onby has real stranglehold the political process. the last thing i want to talk about is domestic terrorism. a lot of what we are faced with in this country is homegrown terrorism. this fellow in orlando was an american citizen. together aput strategy and we are trying to do that to address homegrown terrorism. it can be inspired somewhere else, but if you are born in america, you are a domestic , we have to deal with that.

instead of just dealing with people overseas who are bad people, we should put an equal focus on those people who are living here among us every day in the u.s. host: thank you for your time this morning. more to come. our viewers can tune into c-span to watch the floor debate happening there. congressman bennie thompson, thank you. guest: thank you for having me. host: president obama yesterday saying radical islam is not a .trategy a republican from nebraska saying -- a democrat saying --

we turn to all of you. mike in woodbridge, virginia. you agree with the president. good morning. what we think call it will make any difference. the republicans have to vote to declare war on isis. when are fighting, you fight back. if you make it difficult for -- it is notrms good for civilians to have a rifle.sult-style host: henry in virginia. you disagree.

caller: thank you for taking my call. i disagree with the president. also the representative, the democrat from mississippi. if they don't get guns, they will find other means of destroying america. need a law against buying a pressure cooker. the president saying you cannot " -- what is aslam strategy? lancaster, pennsylvania. you agree with president obama. i agree. on the other hand, it doesn't make a difference. "y him saying "radical islam -- you arethem say

on the no-fly list but you can buy a gun. that is totally ridiculous. i'm one of the few blacks who doesn't think obama is god. if you say anything about a muslim or any other immigrant, he gets really mad. the refugees flying in, you are relocating them in america, giving them jobs in medical care, are they being vetted? another column for you this morning from "the washington post." how to cover trump. ?ow about a blackout this is what he proposes --

silver spring, maryland. you agree with the president on the debate over using the term "radical islam." tell us why. caller: i disagree wholeheartedly. in the d.c.ator area we have been studying this trend amongst muslim students in the united states. and 52% report depression rates of bullying and harassment. they are reporting it from their peers and from some of their educators. we have to dig deeper in the dialogue with the mastic terrorism -- with domestic terrorism. if these families have come to america, we need to assume that they want a better life, they

want to assimilate into our culture and values and practice their religion freely. which is a religion of peace. there is a degree of bias come a degree of the media giving a portrayal of suspicion amongst these families. we need to move toward dialogue in unity and we need them to step forward and speak out. they do have literature. they do have literature available for us to be more aware and cognizant of what is practiced. and what is not acceptable. and we need toe learn better and we need to look at the social emotional states of the students, particularly the young men. host: james in fort worth, texas. you disagree with the president saying those words "radical islam" are not important to this fight. good morning.

there? caller: yes, i'm here. needs to quitama lecturing the american people. we don't need a lecture from the president. we are not the dumbest people in the room and he is not the smartest people in the room. host: we will leave the conversation there. we will talk about the orlando shooting, how congress might respond. representative rob wittman will be joining us next. later, we will continue the conversation with representative jackie speier. we will be right back. ♪

50 is not say that the new 30 and 60 is not the new 40. 50 is the new 50 and it looks good and people ought to own their age and we ought not to talk about being over 50 as the period of decline. >> the aarp ceo talks about the health and financial challenge andder americans face what aarp is doing to assist them. she's the author of "this rubbed aging." >> when these programs were put in place, life expectancy was 67 or 68. are there more people in the system, but they are living longer.

we have to be able to look at these programs and make meaningful adjustments that will allow people to live with period for a much longer of time. >> the united states faced more than a decade of challenges during reconstruction. this saturday starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern, american history 3 is live from gettysburg college from the annual civil war institute summer conference. authors, historians and likessors discuss topics th challenges that faced our country, reconstruction in the and the post-civil war

career of ulysses s. grant. also hear conversations on the return of the confederate veteran and the lost cause. live all day saturday beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3 's american history tv. for the complete schedule, go to www.c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. ,ost: congressman rob wittman republican of virginia, serves on the armed services -- what did you learn yesterday in that closed door our member briefing with the fbi director, counterterrorism center director and the secretary of homeland security? guest: we learned there is a lot more to be discovered and they are in the process of looking at

mr. mateen, considering what connections he had. there are issues about his wife, what she knew about the incident would like for this discussion to be a disassembling of the facts to determine what truly were the causes. that is the nature of where things are today. , there areantly still questions to be answered, still some analysis to be done about what we can do to make sure that we perform our ultimate responsibility, to keep americans safe. it is going to be a challenge, whether it is the policies we have to revokes entering the country, policies we have for making sure the fbi does all they can to track these individuals and keep up with

them -- how do they communicate with local law enforcement? i understand the scope of what ,he fbi is being asked to do but today, more than ever, we have to practice that the diligence. are we starting to see a pattern here of people who have done things to bring our attention to them? how do we continue looking at those people, protecting people's individual liberties and freedoms, but how do we make sure we do that in protecting , making sure we can interdict that before it turns into the tragedy and horrific scene we saw in orlando? host: did the fbi dropped the ball? so.t: i don't think the fbi does need to ask questions about what about these individuals -- with omar mateen

informationke the we gained through the fbi investigations and can that be something where we engage state and local law enforcement and say we still need to keep up with these individuals? if not, we see the situations where an individual's has things, acts out in certain ways to raise their profile on the radar screen. there is a high standard to arrest somebody, but to say we ought to continue to watch these individuals so if they act out violently but we can interdict that could -- we can interdict that. because we are in a free and open society, there is a high standard to go arrest somebody and take them off the streets. we have to find a middle ground.

protect individual liberties but make sure we practiced due diligence. host: the president yesterday t the treasury department outlined the coalition's successes and what they had done so far. [video clip] obama: our coalition continues to be on offense. isil is on defense and it has been a full year since isil has been able to mount a major successful operation in syria or iraq. as they continue to lose territory, they continue to lose the money that is its lifeblood. as a result of airstrikes against their oil and supply lines, we have cut their revenue by millions of dollars a month. in destroying the storage sites where they keep their cash, we

deprived isil of many millions more. thinks to the great work of secretary lew and others here isil is cut off from the international financial system. we are seeing the results. their cash reserves are down, salaries for their fighters, they have andrted to more extortion some of their own leaders have been caught stealing cash and gold. isil's true nature has been revealed. these are not religious warriors. they are thugs. think there are successes in the military efforts, but they all fall short of what we need to do to destroy isis. they continue to

have been recruiting additional fighters to come to that region -- while slowing down the financial resources is a help, we need to do more in the direct fight against isis. we need to make sure that we are being successful in syria and iraq. the effort to retake areas in iraq is going slowly. to do things much more quickly. what concerns me is there ir success ine recruiting more individuals from around the world. their efforts to establish this caliphate begins in syria and iraq, but they want to extend that around the world and their efforts to do that to me is very disturbing. host: and now in libya. guest: i went there and visited sissi --ident out

libya is becoming a for trial training ground for folks in isis. they are taking that effort around the world into areas where we know what they're going to try to perpetrate. host: there is a u.n. backed unity government in libya. what is the u.s. doing to help int group try to fight isis libya? they have to be able to gather enough structure to govern the country. they also have to create some sort of stream of resources to have the ability to do the things that they need to do. it is a long, arduous process. certainly a good step, but the hill to climb to get there is steep.

the have to be stronger and have more resolve than the isis presence in that country and i wish i could say that were the case now. i still think the instability in that country with these extremist groups far exceeds the ability of anybody to establish a sustainable, meaningful government. host: the senate foreign relations committee today has a hearing with the special envoy for libya at the state department. c-span3 thison afternoon. president obama says using the term "radical islam" is a talking point and not a strategy. guest: i would disagree. you have to be able to identify the enemy. any element in an effort to defeat, to destroy isis has to start with who they are. identify them as radical islamists. the more important part is to

have a comprehensive strategy. looking at what the president has done, it is still piecemeal. done --s to be more there has to be timelines, elements of where successes are achieved and when we don't achieve success, what we need to do additionally to make those things happen. host: does that include a ban on muslims entering this country? guest: we have to look at the stream of individuals that come in. into the stream ofwillextremiss immigrants coming into the united states. when we look at people coming in from places like syria, we have to ask the question, can we them to that the -- vet make sure we are keeping americans safe? another believe the syrian government gives us peace of mind that those folks do not

pose a significant threat. host: so you agree with the ban. have a bill called the international conflicts of concern and it's as if somebody from the u.s. travel these areas where we know these training activities are going on, that they cannot return unless they are there on official u.s. business or humanitarian effort. it is policy like that we can put into place to make sure we are protecting united states citizens. host: robert in arkansas, democrat. -- you thoughtht we to it in a five m, then you immediately said radical islamist. this country created a huge mess when we went into iraq because no one seems to know the difference between a sunni and a shia. a lot of this was brought to the attention when the iraq war started because the grand allah

told is in a ron and he is a shia and when we took out hussein, we created an open door policy between iraq and iran and iraq are, iran and fighting isis in falluja. falluja is a sunni state. when we went to kuwait, we had the world behind us, we had reason and purpose. we took out hussein and pushed him back into his own country. then the powers that be decided up they would go into iraq, destabilize the country, knowing that the majority of the people there are shia, and now they are going after isis in falluja. we turn around and called every this, youa part of need to be getting down to these sunnis. you look at libya, iran is going over there. we destabilize the country, but

you cannot take a whole religion -- i watched this as i was going to college. the catholics, we were taught, the pope was going to be the antichrist. we had catholics, baptist, methodist. now, we want to take a whole religion and condemn it when we are actually after specific people who are in their own country until we went there. guest: i think that the term radical islamic extremist or terrorist is a very specific term. there are many muslims out there that are not radicalized, they did not look at the extreme form of islam as their belief. we have to be able to define those folks who are violently going after folks that are not believe in the same one of islam that they professed. you must do that in order to be successful. terming them as radical islamic

terrorist, identifies them specifically and can clearly determine the distinction. if we are going to be successful, we must be able to .efine it i called on the independent line, i graduated from high school in 65 and i do people who went to bob jones and when they left it, they called it escape. what i islam is not called about, i think it is important or the president to use the term because it differentiates between the two segments of the religion. knowsthinking person there are millions of muslims all over the world and hundreds of thousands in the u.s. that worship every day, they get on meccapads and neil toward and they are peaceful.

i would guess there are probably even homosexuals in the mosque and they just do not talk about it. the president needs to recognize that and say we know, we are fighting a very salsa -- very small segment of radicalized from. back to you, i see that you are the chair of the subcommittee on readiness. i worked on the -- i worked for the dod for 41 years. i like c-span because they cover the budget hearings. every year when the budget comes out, we have a problem. you and i know that the dod operates on a discretionary spending side and under sequestration. with that in mind, ash carter comes out and says when john mccain's questioning about the budget hearings, everything is hunkey dorey.

are we at an adequate state of readiness to guarantee the safety and security of the united states? guest: we are not, at this point. we are doing everything we can to rebuild it. the service branches will tell you it will take years to reestablish full spectrum readiness. i think some of the things we have to address is what does it take in the base budget of the military to do the continual efforts necessary to reestablish that readiness? we have gone back and forth .bout funding elements to the to get back discussion about what does it take to properly train, a equip our forces and modernize them. the sequester has set us back, we lost readiness it takes is years to regain in the current position we are in now is an effort to regain that readiness, and it will take years to do that.

i feel good about the first step we have taken. -- thereot a situation are only so many resources we can apply because the pipeline is only so big, so it will take us years to be able to do that and i want to make sure we have begun that process and that we continue that process. host: west plains, missouri, republican. caller: good morning. i am old enough to remember lyndon b. johnson because i was drafted and went to vietnam. oh, we are winning the war and mcnamara, robert barack obama is doing the same thing. we lost vietnam, big time. this is another lie from another president, and he is a liar, about everything, so -- my second point is, don't punish american citizens.

toh ar-15's, you still have pull the trigger every single time to make one bullet come out. these are not machine guns. do not let democrats confuse people. jackie's fear could not identify a 3030 from a ar-15. you still have to pull the trigger. like i did not use a machine gun, he used a semi automatic. you have to stress to these people. guest: the point you bring up about the weapon itself is critical to this discussion. it is about the act of violence, and the person that is using the weapon, and you see in this situation, that he went through the background checks, and as you said, the weapon he purchased was a semi automatic weapon, one used by millions of law-abiding citizens across the united states for hunting, or

shooting sports. we have to be very careful and getting into this discussion, not the tread on the second american -- second amendment rights of our law-abiding citizens. that means you need to have a correct and factual discussion about how do we prevent these acts of violence. host: what about having a legislation that says if you cannot fly on an airplane, on the terror watchlist, you cannot buy a gun? guest: members of congress have showed up on those lists, they have shown to be inaccurate and i do not want to err in taking away people's second amendment rights. when we can identify individuals that are a threat, there are actions we need to take to stop that threat, but you have to be careful. our nation is based on the foundation of individual freedoms and liberties and protecting those are sacrosanct to who we are as a nation.

treading on those, even in light of this issue that we have to address, today -- there was a balance between protecting our people and protecting our liberties and freedoms. it takes a thoughtful debate to determine what can we do to achieve that. the military presence we have, seven military bases, continuous to the district and all the service branches, including the coast guard. we have a large number of retired military, as well as a number of active-duty individuals. we are blessed to be able to go and see the great job they are doing and visit them, downrange and where they are forward deployed. getting to know them and understand the great job they do. the other thing we cannot forget is the families. their families are tremendously important in supporting their loved ones who served, and that

support system is critical and we cannot forget the sacrifice , and doing a great job for these military. guest: any military equipment built in your district? guest: just on the edge of our andrict, huntington ingalls general dynamics that builds combat vehicles. we have a number of smaller companies that build components for our militaries and we have a number of companies that provide services, gathering intelligence, doing analysis, we companiesge number of that provide support for the military as well as building the hardware. host: rob wittman is the chair of the armed services readiness subcommittee, taking questions and comments. we go to gym in pennsylvania, independent. in pennsylvania,

independent. caller: this religion has been a long for a longer time than we have been around. this religion is now coming after us, and the fbi knew about this guy three or four years ago and his wife says he was abusive, yet she has driven him to that club on numerous occasions and last monday, june 6, he walked into a store, a gun store, he bought a rifle and a pistol and how many rounds of ammunition. why wasn't he under surveillance when he walked out? guest: there were a number of questions you posed. wife, thehis individual that is being questioned right now, we are not certain that she is indeed his wife. he was married earlier in the

lady he was married to, earlier, he separated from. we want to make sure we distinguish those two ladies who we believe are separate individuals. as far as him walking into the gun shop, he went through the background check. is,re fundamental question knowing his earlier behaviors, knowing the things that he said the concerns that his coworkers though some point, even the fbi said we are finished with this investigation, to me, there has to be a coordination with state and local law enforcement to say this individual has shown a propensity in his words and actions to potentially pose a threat. the question is, how do we continue that effort of surveillance? how do we balance that individuals freedoms to not unfairly target him but also understand that if that individual becomes a threat, how do we ensure that we can interdict that threat?

there will always be a risk, it will be difficult to eliminate that isngle element radicalized, but when we have situations like this are we have a pattern and information, it begs the question, what more can we do to protect americans? host: steve in california, democrat. caller: good morning. i had not planned on the -- addressing assault weapons, but these weapons are called assault of an, and the fact is, they were made for one thing, and that is killing people, whether it is fully automatic or semi automatic, which a lot of people try to make a victim out of, they were made for killing people. you can dance all around that, all you want, but that is the fact. money from the nra? guest: i received support from the nra, yes.

in?er: whose pocket are you the next thing, everybody says the president does not have a strategy. here is how i look at that. if i were going to kill you, do you think i would say, i will kill you tuesday morning at 10:00? i don't think so. strategy deal to death, but he has a strategy and it is working. he has killed thousands of these guys. guest: the congress has a role, we have to be part of what that effort is. i believe strongly, congress needs to act on authorization to use military force. constitutionally, congress has to take that action. directsander-in-chief the military, but congress passes policy. we should understand what the policy is and should be a part

of forming that policy and it should include an authorization to use military force. your comment about assault weapons, that is a terminology put on weapons by somebody else, but those same types of weapons are used by lawful hunters in a variety of different in and in -- instances. -- use them under the legal rights under the second amendment and use them for sport, under the law for lawful purposes. host: what sport? guest: a number of folks that use these weapons to hunt feral hogs, a large number of these hogs that hunters use those types of weapons to hunt. host: why wouldn't a shotgun or traditional gun work the same? guest: what you want to be able

to do his harvest individual animals. many times in a group, a shotgun is limited in how it is able to direct a shot toward the animals. these guns are allowing you to kill multiple animals, which as i said, there are large numbers. they are well suited for that particular purpose. do say they are only designed to kill human beings is incorrect. there are a number of lawful hunters who use these weapons to great utility in both sport and making sure these animals have taken over your areas, that they are able to go in and harvest these animals. host: charlotte in north carolina, tim, we go to you next. caller: good morning. segment, the democratic caller's, all they are doing is using a political ploy. harry reid has blocked every piece of legislation that the

republicans have put forth, does not matter what it is. guns, the economy, everything. are theid and obama most destructive forces in this country and i want democratic caller to understand that. the first act of terrorism in this country was in 1993. who was the president? bill clinton. all this stuff happened years ago, before 9/11 and all the democrats say how you did this and you did that, well what did bill clinton do from 93 until 98 to combat anything, basically nothing. as far as the comments about obama and our strategy, that man has no strategy. what does he even know about the military? if he is such a person that is going to bring your buddy together, why hasn't he talked

to you, why hasn't he talked to the united emirates or these other countries? does anybody know what has the law and lebanon and all these other countries -- i am just so furious, i need to get off here. my family was in the military theover 100 years, i'm sure congressman knows that and it is infuriating to me that these people call, especially these democrats, they talk about this craft they do not know anything about. guest: thank you for your family's service to this nation, that is important. you talk about the bills that have come out of the house and the senate side, it is frustrating for us to have a , whether these bills it is opioid abuse or how we address or reduce and eliminate the risk of terrorism here in the united states. many of them are over in the senate and we want to see

thoughtful debate of those bills , for them to be voted upon, hopefully to get to the president's desk. we want to make sure that the process works, having our bills stacked up in the senate is frustrating for us, but we are hopeful that majority leader mcconnell is able to get those bills moved. host: rick in tennessee, independent. caller: good morning. i think i have a solution to the process of all the syrians and if you will, muslims coming in or anyone to be honest. we stopped the draft and i missed vietnam by one year. in a lot of ways, i regret missing it but in a lot of ways, i was blessed. i stand beside my brothers and sisters who fought to defend this country. we need to take these kids laying around playing gamestations all day long and not getting a job and start the draft back.

the reason i say that is not because we don't have enough good volunteers, but we need to get these kids into boot camp for six months and let them stay in for two years and get some kind of trade or an associates degree, and in why we are -- while we are doing that, after two more years, they can make a decision on saying in a military or go out and make a living. another thing, if you think 300 some on million people are going to give up their guns whether there is a law passed or nothing -- or not, you have to be crazy. host: senate votes for women to register for the draft, on tuesday, the senate approved an expansive military policy bill that would require young women to register for the draft. shift was -- has surprisingly broad support among

republicans and women in both parties. the impact of such a shift involving the role of women in the armed services will likely be profound. guest: as you know, the department of defense has opened up combat military occupation specialties to women, and as long as the performance requirements are not changed, i think that is fine. i think that from the standpoint of opening up registration for the draft to females, i believe it gets the carpet before the thee because the last year, congress asked the military to do it in violation what the impacts of this word and what you would do across the spectrum and having women register for the draft. i would like to make sure we get the information back from the individuals in the military that will have to be implementing this and what it would mean for them, and how would you probably implement that and make sure you understand all the different impacts. as our caller talked about the

draft, today we have an all volunteer military and it has worked extraordinarily well. we have exceeded recruitment levels, so it is not as neat -- not as though there is a need. if there was, you could look at the draft. the fundamental question is how do we attract young people into public service or the mindset that they should give something back. that is what we need to do in communicating with our young folks and try to create that ethos of i must serve in some way. doing it through the draft, today with what the needs are, does not create the balance that we need. not that we should not be advocating public service, but i believe that the volunteer military as it exists as the next -- extremely well. we have the most skilled and capable force in the history of this nation, and i believe that we need to pursue a separate

segment as far as the element of public service for youth. host: henry in michigan, democrat. caller: as a taxpaying citizen who firmly sports my country, i support my president, and i support my military, and the fight against isis. it is extremely disheartening and frustrating to listen to these confederate, right-wing , when thiss call in president is doing everything he can to keep us safe. he is killing more terrorist than any resident before him, it is as though congress is not run by the republicans. that is your party that will not pass a declaration of war against isis. it is your party that will not confirm the president's point man to take isis. money away. it is your party that will not

confirm a supreme court justice. it is your party that will not pass sensible gun legislation to get these crazy people, keep these -- crazy people from getting guns and killing 50 people at a nightclub. guest: there are a number of challenges that we absolutely have to address, but i want to make sure we are doing it in a right way. there is a counter thought to what the president is putting out there. that is our job as members of congress and we do have a republican viewpoint. make sure-- my job to we project that viewpoint and have that discussion to make sure we come up with proper bills. the president wants to get out of the house and senate and has an obligation of being an agreement or not. he also has an obligation to engage in congress to find solution to these problems -- solutions to these problems. the president has to be willing to engage the congress and say i'm willing to give a little bit

to make sure that these issues are addressed. lacking, and the house and senate, we have things that we are to do and those things must be done, but our system of government is set up to where it takes both the legislative branch and the executive branch as willing partners in that effort to get those things done. republican.a, caller: good morning. i am a vietnam combat veteran. this assaulto weapon thing. , whene fully automatic you look the selector switch on automatic. these are ar-15's, they are different stocks on hunting rifles. you could take a 3030 hunting rifle and put a 30 round clip in

it. i will want is weapons for protection. my wife and i at home, if people come in and kick the door in, i do not want a six shooter. if there is over a billion of these islamic people and only a few terrorists, why don't they policed themselves up? where were the big peace marches or the get-together of muslims after that shooting, saying we do not support this? been muslimhave leaders who have condemned what happened in orlando, groups and you also have the new ambassador from afghanistan to the u.s. condemning it here in washington. we covered it. guest: there are a number of groups. in virginia, a group came out with a strong statement condemning the use of these acts of violence. that has to be continual.

i'm very glad that these groups come out after these acts of violence, but what we need to see is those groups to continue to foster the dialogue and also those folksport for willing to speak out against -- -- providese folks support for those folks point to speak out against violence and extremism. host: what about our other allies like saudi arabia? hillary clinton said we had to put more pressure on saudi arabian, wealthy people who are supporting people with terrorist links. guest: we do, i have gone to visit with the crown prince to address that situation and say, we have to do more in those muslim nations. when i went to jordan to visit with the king, i think he put it exactly the way it needs to be presented. he said there are countries out there that need to stand arm

against this form of radical, extremist islam. he said i could tell the difference and it really is a choice for muslim nations between standing on the side of good or standing on the side of evil. i do believe muslim nations across the world need to stand up. that is how fundamental this decision is. countries like saudi arabia and others must stand up and speak loudly. guest: that is -- host: that is exactly why george w. bush -- how george w. bush put it and why he said he would not use the word radical islamist. yet, you disagree when our president says it. guest: i do think folks in the muslim world that are moderate, but not -- ascribe to this extreme one of islam need to stand up and identify it,

themselves. if those moderate individuals and countries identified this as radical, extremist islam, then they help in defining what it is. if they do not define it, then people across the board can say all muslims are the same. that includes muslims in those nations that they listen, we don't want to see this treacherous, terrorist behavior, we want to stand against it. the way to do that is clearly defined it and make sure people say -- host: alan, a democrat. caller: good morning. i would like to ask the congressman, how long have you been in congress?

guest: sinceguest: 2007 -- guest: since 2007. i disagree with using the word radical islam because it is the sunni and the shia and we are at war with the sunni, which may or may not be remnants guard of saddam hussein. country people in this just hear the word islam and just think all muslims, but you want to define who they are, it is radical sunni that we have got in this country. host: i would like the congressman to respond to that, given his role in the armed services committee. radical sunni sort of echoes what we heard from a caller, earlier. guest: a lot of people do not

understand the distinction between sunni and shia. radical, thiss radical extremist professed at folks who look at that form of islam is what we need to be addressing. yes, it is predominate within the sunni part of that religion, but there are also moderate sunnis. i want to make sure we are identifying the actions of those individuals, within that realm of religion. it is the islamic state, these individuals are professing what they are doing under the guise of islam, so the islamic state is indeed about using the religion to project their efforts in this treacherous whoence against anybody does not believe in what they believe in. host: you also have radical shia when you look at a run -- look at iran. guest: are treading violence in other areas, so -- perpetrating

violence in other areas. it is that radical extremism that we have to focus on, done under the guise of islam. host: cheryl in missouri, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is in regard to the watchlist and the no-fly list and the criteria that is used to get people on that list. you spoke earlier that sometimes the list is flawed or people are on the list that should not be. if that is the case, what is being done since it is obviously being identified as having a flaw? what steps are being taken to alleviate those flaws, and people who don't -- so people who do not belong on the no-fly list are not there, and the people who should the there,

that they should probably stay on that list, regardless of whether they created -- committed a crime, because -- there have been efforts to clean the list and make sure that it is accurate. it is a very tough process to be able to do that. oftook a significant period time to get off without list for congressmen. thated to also make sure there is the proper due process for the individual that says i am on the wrong list -- or on the list -- i am wrongly on the list. host: is there more than one list? guest: there is a lot of information that comes into a and ultimately, it

is up to the department of homeland security in creating the list. the question is, how do they refine the information and that to me, is the real sticking point to make sure they do that in a timely and accurate way, and i'm not certain that they have gotten to that point yet. you are last here for the congressman, republican. caller: i would like to know, do you he get off and know yet who the people were that ok'd him to be off of the fly list? is sure your law -- that seems to be a different kind of thing that most muslims here, follow. i think we can probably

eliminate people that wanted to fall -- follow that law here because they don't really value our constitution. i think that would be one thing that we could vet people on. this, the bottom line is in our nation, or laws are dictated by the u.s. constitution and state constitutions. sharia law is not a part of that, so it is not a legitimate warm of law in the u.s. that may be communities try to put it into place, but it cannot be put into place in the notice states because of the laws we have locally and at the federal level. host: her question about who decided to stop investigating the orlando shooter. this,w york times writes fbi agents investigated the gunmen but close the case after following a standard checklist.

washington who can reverse a decision to close a case were notified. guest: it goes back to looking at the process. who says no or to close the case and if a case is closed, should there be some hand to local or state law enforcement to make sure we are continuing to look at those individuals. i understand how overwhelmed the fbi is, but it is their decision to do this and it back the question, can we do more -- begs the question, can we do more? host: congressman rob wittman, thank you. we will continue our conversation with democratic congresswoman -- who sits on armed services and the intelligence panel. ♪

>> we are going public. we will be watched by our friends and by people across the thatry, and i would hope the senate may change, not as an institution, but maybe a more efficient body because of televised proceedings. >> the proceedings of the united states senate are being broadcast to the nation on television for the first time. not that we have operated in secret, until now. millions of americans have sat in the galleries and observed senate debates during their visits to washington, but today,

they can witness the proceedings in their own homes. flooreffect, the senate is a kind of a stage, the senators have been acting on that stage. the audiences in the gallery. by our action, today, we have not fundamentally alter that situation, we have simply enlarged the galleries, pushed out the walls to include all american people who wish to watch. >> madam president -- madam secretary, we probably give 72 of our delegates to the next president of the united states. ♪

>> washington journal continues. table, geithner xoma jackie speier, democrat from california. congresswoman jackie spear, democrat from california. guest: what we learned was that there were a lot of holes, and i think more questions were offered then were answers, and i harken back to the fact that this is a monumental task. when you look at the number of people that are in that database

of screening, it is about 800,000 names and if you reduce it down to those who are known is 300,000,, that and then the no-fly list is 100,000. the magnitude of what the fbi has to investigate is overwhelming. having said that, we know this man vowed allegiance to al qaeda. on that basis alone, i think keeping him the known or suspected list probably had merit. host: when he went into -- when he went in to buy the gun, who did the background check on that and why was it not linked to a packed -- past investigation? guest: that was an issue that was raised, yesterday. justd the fbi the pinged,

to be told that he went and bought a rifle? the director said he was a security guard, so that would not necessarily have raised the antenna of the fbi in terms of reviewing his record. host: does the fbi do a background check? guest: it is done through the national criminal background instant check system. because he was no longer on the known or suspected list, there was no reason to withhold the gun from him. he was on no list at that point. he was investigated a minimum of two times and maybe more. focusing in on his wife is really important, because anyone who knows that someone is about

to commit a crime like that and does not report it is tying the hands of law enforcement. i think there has to be a strong to the straw purchaser who buys a gun because her record is clean or the a better -- the abetter. host: how do you get those in the muslim community to talk, cooperate with law enforcement, if you crackdown on his wife, who has come forward and has been reported as cooperating with authorities? guest: for any of us, living in this country, we have a responsibility, if we see something, say something, and she helped them. -- she helped him.

she drove him to different locations, knowing he was scoping them out to determine where he would be able to do the most damage. there is still a lot we do not know about her and her mindset at the time. i do think it raises the question. host: what is the difference between the cia's role in combating terrorism and the fbi's? guest: the cia is international, fbi is domestic. they cooperate to the extent that they would try to determine if he had a relationship with anyone overseas. they did have the cia participate in review, particularly when that suicide bomber in syria led very close -- lived very close to the shooter and that triggered the cia's involvement. host: what about the recruitment

via the internet in this country? anonymous hacker goes after the islamic state and they talk about a hacker who is part of the group anonymous who has hacked twitter to counts -- twitter accounts of known isis frome and send out porn their accounts to try to undermine their message because that is what goes against their agreement -- there believe. areal media platforms responsible for policing user content. the companies cannot be held liable for content posted on their sites and can remove content for any reason. is there something more the government could be doing? guest: that law has been on the books for a long time, that provides them that kind of protection.

review they are quick to what is on their website and pull it down. i do not think they necessarily always contact the fbi, or the cia if they think there is someone could do harm to this country. i do not know of -- if they have this proactive responsibility. the government might have to fill up paperwork and jump through legal hoops to shut down an extremist twitter account, the company can do it whenever it wants. he goes on to say that this anonymous hacker was mining for accounts and added an account to the public list titled jack's account. twitter suspended them until the list was empty.

i am aware of people hired by twitter as contract employees to just do this. they scan for volatile language to remove them. it is a monumental task because there are hundreds of thousands of these on a daily basis. host: bob is up first in michigan, independent. both representative thompson and miss spier have essentially thrown up their hands and said what can we do? it was not his wife who was an abject fear of his husband who was at fault. his coworkers who consistently call the fbi and said this guy is a nutcase and no one did anything about it. when bennie thompson says if you see something, say something,

the american people do do that, and nobody in authority, it is the areas of authority that they are. just nuts, calling it. most people don't call the fbi just for fun, because they see themselves as being the suspect at that point. anybody that takes the time to call the fbi as his coworkers did and said listen, we haven't not, probably should be listened to, especially a guy that had previously been on a terrorist watch. guest: let the correct your impression. coworkers contacted the fbi, they opened an investigation on the shooter, and he was, that only did they opened an investigation, they actually did surveillance on him for a good six to eight months. what did not happen was a rising

to a level that had the fbi keep him on the known or suspected terror list. there was no communication during that time that raised any antenna, and that is the problem . host: brian in illinois, republican. caller: i was wondering how come congress has now -- not issued a declaration of war against the terrorists. not only what we get the full backing of nato, but we would also be able to lock that guy -- he would never have done the shooting, so congress needs to get out there but & a declaration of war against terrorists. guest: the authorization for the is of military force something we have not really

exercised since the beginning of the iraq war. the republicans are in charge of congress and they have the ability to bring it up, and have chosen not to do so. your reference to the internment of japanese americans during world war ii. it is one of the blackest eyes of american history. these were japanese americans lived with us in our communities, the property was taken away, they were placed in in can't mince around california and it is something that i do not want to see re-created in this country. host: christian in oklahoma city, a democrat. caller: let me say we do need the ar-15's for those 12 foot also,you are right, and

shock and awe. that is what is coming back to us. we had our military that went into people's houses and took their fathers and took their brothers and you don't think that there will be a recourse for that? it's george bush and that is another thing. host: i think they were referencing rob wittman who was on, before you, but this point that it is related to the invasion of iraq. guest: all of our actions, they can reflect back to the ill-fated war, and all of the actions against us. the mostay that important thing we can do at this point in time is recognize that assault weapons have been used over and over again in mass shootings in this country, and we have got to record highs that you do not need an ar-15 to kill

bambi. you do not need an ar-15 to -- ouryourself, they are -- on weapons of mass destruction is reprehensible. if you look at newtown and san bernardino, look at orlando, they are all instances where an to mowr ar-15 was used down beat -- ar-50 was used to mow down people. there is legislation on the floor that if you are on the no-fly list, you cannot buy a gun. do you know what the effort is? guest: the effort is to do what we've been trying to do for six months, but i think we need to go farther, that is only 100,000. he was on the suspected and known terror list and that is

300,000. they should not be able to buy a gun. if you are going to set yourself up to want to do harm to the united states and make statements like he did, why should you be able to buy a gun? gun controlst: obviously an issue you talk about, you were on the floor giving a speech yesterday about rifles. you also have a memorial outside of your office set up for the victims of gun violence. our production assistant when out and got a little video that we are showing, of the memorial. why do you think it was necessary? guest: i have been so frustrated by these moments of silence on the house floor that then turn into just silence for the congress. i have not participated in a moment of silence for a number of months, since last december. it is important to recognize

everyone, not just the ones that make the headlines. if you look at these faces, of people that are being mowed down in our country, there have been 182 mass shootings in 166 days. more mass shootings in this country this year, then there have been days in the months. pictured onlies are that wall, there are over 400,000 people since 1970 who have been killed and if you look at the wall, our vietnam memorial wall with 57,000 names on it. that wall would be over to an half miles long. -- over two and a half miles long. we have to visualize what's going on in our country. host: you, yourself were shot during a mass shooting when you were a legal aid, visiting the

people's temple in joe's town. we will go to james in alabama, independent. caller: good morning. brief.to try to be i will not say anything that will hopefully not upset anyone. what i'm trying to get to is, you guys talk about the gun when and you talk about the second amendment was written, while they were talking about a militia and now they talk -- call that the national guard and that the founding fathers only had muskets. if you read jefferson's writings, he is talking about every citizen should be armed because they had just gotten themselvesstling

from an oppressive monarchy, and they wanted their government, the republic, so that we would be able to push back against government tyranny, so i'm not saying we should have all the guns that the military has, but -- i knowng fathers this is a global economy and we need the military that we have with the best fighting force. my father is still alive, a world war ii veteran. i have a 100% behind this country, but when i hear your counterpoint and the tone in your voice, when you talk to people about their guns, and you say why do you need this? this lady says you do not need an ar-15, he has nothing to do with it. this is america and we are free, we are a free people thanks to the constitution and bill of

you can look at it like it is a living document, but it is not. our founding fathers were wise behind their years. host: we will have a congresswoman respond. -- have the congresswoman respond. guest: i believe that everyone in this country should be license, meaning that they backgroundiven a check to determine whether or not they are eligible to own a gun. felon, ave been a domestic violence of user, if you have been deemed mentally ill, those people should not be able to get guns, so closing that loophole is important. i think that we should reinstate the ban on assault weapons. they are weapons of war, not to protect yourself or recreational purposes.

we may disagree with the extent of your arsenal, but i have no problems with you owning guns. hasink the assault weapon no place in a civil a site -- civil society. host: newport news, stella, a democrat. caller: good morning, i agree with the statement you just made. i do not see how that has anything to do with that allowing us to have our second amendment, but people that have mental illness and everything, having criminal checks, and not allowing them to have guns is common sense. host: usa today, the opposing view, radical islamic terrorists are not deterred by gun control laws. the san bernardino terrorist attack was not stopped by -- weapon bans in california.

france's strict gun control did not stop the attacks in paris, made with fully automatic rifles in hand grenades. he is in bed with the manufacturers of death, they make money because more guns are being purchased. they actually see an uptick in the purchase of guns never there killing, likely just incurred. i think that is missing the point. when you compare the united states with any other industrialized country, civilized society, we have so many more deaths associated with the use of guns. if you look to the number of people killed per day, something like 88. two thirds of them are killed by suicide. argue for may be

thinking twice about having guns that are locked up in a home, but i would say that there is always going to be the ability to get a gun. the question is, do you want to arm these terrorists with ak-47s? do you want to annihilate people in the course of them trying to bring injury to our people? bill thateven pass a says if you're on the no-fly list, you cannot buy a gun. that is how perverse we are right now in the congress. host: it says in the papers today at the senate, or may be debate on amendments offered to spending bills to try to get that legislation, no fly know by -- no fly, no buy.

both pieces of legislation failed after the san bernardino shooting. jackson and hyattsville, maryland, public caller: it's just sad. after massacres occurs, there's moments of silence, and then nothing rarely gets done. i was thinking the other day about the second amendment and the constitution and everyone citing it as their right to have all kinds of sophisticated automatic weapons. there's such a literal interpretation of that, whereas in the bible, there's so many things that are -- slaves to masters and men who lie down with men and all these things that we've gotten well beyond that. times change, and i think for these folks who cite the constitutional literally about the right to bear arms when, at the time, all there were were

muzzle-loaded things compared to all the weapons there are today, it's just ridiculous. that's my comment. host: thanks. i'm going to go to tim in maine, independent. we'll get your thoughts in as well. tim, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. you know, there's a simple solution to our gun problems here in the united states. back in the late 1950's and refused 0's, wall wors to serve black people at the lunch counters. well, we need to do the same thing with guns, with wal-mart and kmart. if the american people boycotted those two major sellers of these guns, there would be -- they would stop selling them. we need a major boycott in this country, because it's clear that congress is not going to do anything. and that's my opinion. thank you for taking my call. guest: i would say that boycotting businesses because

they sell guns is probably going too far. i would suggest that, you know, having the right to purchase a gun is something that we want to allow to continue in this country. i think that limiting the size of magazines that anyone can own and banning assault weapons is part of the solution. you know, i've done a number of gun buybacks in my district, and i live in a pretty, you know, i'd say, educated community and we don't have much rural area, so i was stunned by the number of guns that were brought in, the number of assault weapons that were brought in, the number of crime guns that has a serial number scratched off of them, the number of -- we actually had -- the magazines, there were so many of these high-capacity magazines that

were brought in as well, and even a machine gun. that's in a very suburban area that you just wouldn't see as many guns, you would think. host: what happens that those guns when do you a buyback program? guest: we do it in conjunction with the county sheriff's department, and the expectation is that they are going to destroy them. host: nancy, florida, democrat. caller: good morning. host: good morning, nancy. caller: i would like to talk about the right to have guns. well, what about the right of those people that just got killed in orlando? what about the right? what about the rights of black people that get shot before they even have a trial? i think we should think about some of those rights, too. thanks. guest: well, we often focus on the rights to bear arms and not the right to people to be able to walk down the street and not be fearful of being shot as a

bystander, an innocent person just walking down the street. so many of the people that have posted on my wall were bystanders. they were totally unengaged in anything that was going on, and then many others were spouses and children of an individual who decided to end their lives and his as well. a great deal of pain associated with all of those photographs. host: with your work on the intelligence committee, what is being done or what could be done with soft purchases like the churches or other places where people gather in large groups? guest: that's a really tough question. i mean, when you think of all of the venues across this country where large numbers of people go every single day, whether it's a sporting event they are t, it's -- just targets for people that

want to do do damage to individuals and to our country. so i can't speak to how the f.b.i. works with local law enforcement in terms of assessing the potential risks. i think everyone is on heightened alert, and, you know, i think that we want to scrutinize in hindsight what went wrong here, because the f.b.i. had identified this particular individual, but we've go on remember the numbers, the massive numbers that they are looking at is quite significant. host: rob is watching in texas, independent. you're on the air, rob. caller: hello there. i've gone through crime database numbers and things again, and it's in the several hundred people, just in texas alone, being killed by foreign nationals, foreign-born people, mostly from crossing the southern border. and the numbers nationally are

many times worse than that. what i'm getting to is what happened in florida, but compared to the number of people being killed all the time in this country by foreigners who have mosted crossed our southern border, you mentioned some numbers, about 430 to 520, something like that a year in texas alone, killed by foreign nationals. why are you not closing that border? because muslims are killing only a small percent of our people compared to the ones rossing the southern border. guest: well, rob, it's hard for me to answer your question. i would say that the problem in this country has to do with persons accessing guns who shouldn't have these guns, and i can't speak to the number of foreign nationals who have guns. you've got a particular experience in texas.

the problem with the border with mexico has more to do with the drug cartel than anything else. i think we're doing a lousy job, and the result is that we've got, you know, crime associated with that, and then we've got so much addiction and deaths associated with the heroin problem in this country. again, what are we doing about that? very little. host: a couple of issues to talk about. one happened under a special order this evening. you are leading an effort to read the letter of the rain victim from the stanford, from that stanford university situation there. tell us what will happen and how this came about. zpwoip we have special order hours regularly. it's an hour set aside to talk about a specific topic. this will be the first time

probably in the history of this country where a victim's statement in its entirety will be read on the house floor. and it's the most powerful, poignant statement of pain and suffering associated with a rain, and so articulately written that i believed it ally to be elevated in the annals of our country's history. so there will be over 44 members, both democrats and republicans, men and women, who will stand on the house floor tonight and read a segment of her 7,000-word victim statement. host: and how long do you xpect that to go on? guest: it will take a minimum of 58 minutes, so we're going to have to speak at a fairly fast clip in order to get it done. host: why did you think it was important to read the whole thing? guest: you know, i read a portion of it on the house floor last week.

i think it's -- it amplifies the crime and the suffering associated with that crime. it is a violent crime in this country. the only crime worse is that of murder, and yet when it comes to the crime of rape, 38 states have a statute of limitation. there should be no statute of limitation for rape, like there's no statute of limitation for murder. so many of these cases, whether you're in the universities or in the military, are swept under the rug. they aren't properly investigated. the victims aren't interviewed. the crime does not carry with it the kind of sentencing that it should. in this particular case, the judge actually sentenced the perpetrator to six months, when he could have had up to 14 years in prison, and in making his statement, the judge said hat it would be, you know, harmful to this young man.

well, how about the harm that it's doing to this young woman who will live with this the rest of her life in she was unconscious, unconscious when she was sexually assaulted. host: vice president joe biden also spoke about sexual assault rape at the white house yesterday when they held a women's summit there. you can go to c-span.org to listen to the president. he spoke as well at this women's summit about pay equality, etc. go to our website to see more of our coverage there. in politics, bernie sanders melt with hillary clinton last night near had washington. he also is meeting with democratic national committee officials. in the paper today, the "usa today" says that the vermont senator is calling for some changes within the democratic party. he would like independents -- he would like it if independent could do away with super delegates. the party officials who are free to vote for the candidate of their choice, he also argued for same-day voter

registration. are you open to changes? guest: i certainly am. i don't believe in super delegates. i mean, it creates, i think, an environment that suggests that somehow we are better than all those who want to compete to become a delegate f. we're interested in being a delegate, we should compete in the local level, just like others do. in terms of same-day registration, i've been supportive of that. republicans tend not to be, because they see it to benefit the democrats. oftentimes these decisions are made not on the merits, but on which side of the aisle it's going to benefit. host: he also has been very critical of debbies with aerman shultz. he would like to see her step down. others have said she should step down. what do you think about the role she's played? guest: well, i think she's played a very important role for a period of years. normally each new president selects someone else to be their d.n.c. chair. i presume that hillary clinton as president would select a new

person to take on that role. i think that you need to assess debbie waserman shultz in terms of what she has done for the party and how much money she has raised, and i think if you measure her against those kinds of criteria, like most d.n.c. chairman are measured, she would measure up very well. host: back to calls. brandon, milwaukee, wisconsin, republican. a few minutes left here with the congress woman. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. the whole point in talking about gun control is frustrating, and i point to the unabom a, shoe bomber, and all that failed, but didn't involve an ar-15 and had the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of americans. this whole gun control thing would not obtain table if it wasn't just for that miraculous luck we had in those

incidences. to ban something or even talk about gun control just seems absurd given what has happened the past couple of years. guest: so brandon, you use the term gun control, and i don't think anyone is interested in controlling your ability to own a gun. we want to make sure that there's gun safety in this country. criminals shouldn't be able to get guns. right now, it's illegal for them to have a gun, but they can go on the internet. they can go to a gun scommow purchase a gun. the idea that somehow the damage done by those who, you know, attempt to blow up our planes should somehow weigh differently than those that are being killed in nightclubs and in schools is not the argument, in my mind. i think we should be legitimately looking at protecting americans from both those sets of circumstances.

host: tom in columbia, maryland, republican. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning, representative. i'm looking for a practical solution to this. and the australians have managed to come up with a workable plan, where they ban automatic and semiautomatic weapons, and they still have heir guns. why don't somebody present that to other solutions? host: ok, tom. congress woman, what about that? guest: that's actually, you know, a very good idea. we need to remember, you know, we did have an assault weapons ban here in the united states for 10 years. senator dianne feinstein was the author of that legislation. it passed, and it was in effect for 10 years, and then because it had a sunset provision on

it, it disappeared. so there is merit to reinstating it. i whole heartedly support it. we have an assault weapons ban in california, but because our borders are so porous, assault weapons can move in and out of the state very easily. host: virginia, brandon, independent. question or comment here for the congress woman. caller: yes, i got two questions for you. first question is, you said you support people on weapons, but then you said that you supported assault weapons ban. and the second question is, you said that these are weapons of war, but you tell me why the policemen have them in this country. are we at war here? if you're going take us from us, take it from them, too. that's it. guest: brandon, first of all, you have the right to own any number of guns that you want to. i personally believe that no one in this country deserves or

needs to own an ak-47, an assault weapon, because i think that they are weapons of war. now, law enforcement is oftentimes in a position of carrying these kinds of weapons because they have to have equal firepower to deal with those that are potentially going to attack us. but they are in the position of , and so o protect us they have, i believe, the right to have firepower that will give us the greatest degree of protection. host: on our line for republicans, jackie in jackson, louisiana. caller: thank you for taking our calls. i'd just like to ask the question. if a representative of our government would please explain the criteria for being a suspected terrorist and getting on the list, how do they get on the list, and how do you

prevent it, and had a does the f.b.i. -- or what do y'all do to decide who gets on it? people get on it erroneously, and if you want to prevent people from purchasing guns, what is that criteria? no one ever explains to us what that is, and then if they get on it erroneously, how do they get off? how does that work? nobody ever tells us. could you please explain to us, how do you prevent these acts from happening, and what's the criteria for the government to prevent it? host: ok, jackie. zpwoip the known and suspected terror list is different from the no-fly list. most people have focused on the no-fly list, tpwhaws creates the most discomfort for people that want to travel, and sometimes people get on that no-fly list inappropriately, and it takes a few days to find out why and then get them off of that list. in terms of the known and suspected terror list that has some 300,000 people on it, and

martin was actual on the that list for a period of time and then taken off, there are a number of criteria that go into developing that list, and there's a lot of different lists that come together, and there's actually more that we need to know about how the f.b.i. develops that list. we're just now kind of peeling back the onion, so to speak, to look at how they do their work and how people get on these various lists. host: larry, a democrat, georgia. larry, good morning. caller: i just want to say that , thanks for c-span. i just want to say that common sense will tell anyone that the assault weapons that we're talking about, we're talking about assault weapons that really should be in the army or the swat team using it, not just anyone on the street.

and common sense is just asking us to go ahead and -- we got enough out there and handguns that kill 16 times. we don't need those in the hands of people that are mental. i just to want say that the people really need to think about what we're saying when we alk about assault weapons. guest: i think you make a very good point. let me suggest that one of the things we can do is recognize that the kinds of guns that are out there today, where you can ut a 30-bullet clip into a gun , in this case, i was told that 30 rounds were shot in nine seconds. so you can imagine how many people were mowed down in that kind of a setting. again, you have the right to own a gun. you have a right to own many guns. i don't believe that there is a

place in this civil society for assault weapons. host: front page of "the washington post," d.n.c. files trump hacked. it says the russians spied on research and emails and got opposition research from the d.n.c. the intruders compromised the d.n.c. system and they were also able to read all email traffic, and they were in there for about a year. what do you make of russia's spying technique? guest: well, what do we say about the condition of our database? host: right, both. guest: i mean, it's kind of funny that they were focused on donald trump. my understanding is they also hacked into republican databases as well. i think the more serious question to ask is what is the cyberhygiene generally, whether it's the office of personnel and management that was hacked by the chinese that got all

kinds of incredibly sensitive and damaging documentation that they can use against our probably r decades is the more important dwow ask. cyberhygiene has got to improve, whether it's the defense subcontractor or defense mega contract for or it's the united states government. host: you serve also on the emerging threats subcommittee for the armed services, something that this panel is focusing on. guest: yes, it is an area that we really haven't done a good job of getting our arms around it, and making the kinds of demands from contractors that have the kind of cyberhygiene they really must have, and we've got to look at our own house, too. it is just not sufficient. host: congress woman jackie speier, democrat from california ark lot we talked about, so thank you very much for the conversation. appreciate it.

we are going to take a short break. when we come back, we will go back to what we started with this morning here on the "washington journal" and ask you all about this debate on radical islam. are those words necessary in this fight against terrorism? president obama says they are not. do you agree or disagree with the president? we'll be right back with your answer. >> we are going public. we'll be watched by our friends and by people across the country and i would hope, as i said before, that the senate may change, not as an institution, but may become a more efficient body because of televised proceedings. the proceedings of the united

states senate are being broadcast to the nation on television for the first time, not that we have operated in secret until now. millions of americans have sat in the galleries and observed senate debates during their visits to washington. but today they can witness the proceedings in their own homes. >> and the senate floor has been a kind of stage, the senators have been acting on that stage. the audience is in the galleries, and by our action today, we haven't really fundamentally altered that situation. we've simply enlarged the galleries. we have pushed out the walls to include all of the american people who wish to watch. >> democrat rating 30 years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. scommoip we're back for more of

your phone calls on this debate over the term "radical islam." president obama yesterday said it's a talking point, not a strategy. let's listen to the president. president obama: for a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against isil is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase "radical islam." that's the key, they tell us. we can't beat isil until we call them rad los angeles islamists. -- unless we call them radical islamist. what exactly would using this label accomplish? hat exactly would it change? would it make isil less committed to trying to kill americans? would it bring in more allies? is there a military strategy

hat is served by this? the answer is none of the above. calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. this is a political distraction . since before i was president, i've been clear about how extremist groups have perverted islam to justify terrorism. as president, i have repeatedly called on our muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world's great religions. there's not been a moment in my 7 1/2 years as president where we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we

consistent use the label radical islam. host: if you agree with what the president just said there, dial in at 202-748-8000. if you disagree with the president on this debate over the word radical islam, dial in at 202-748-8001. larry, you're up first, richmond, texas, and you disagree. good morning. caller: yes, i do. they keep talking about radical islam. host: yes, larry, you're breaking up a little bit, but continue. caller: what they fail to say is radical islam is coming out of the mob. that's what we always hear, radicalizing. well, that's where the problem is. host: ok, and larry, we heard you. i got to move on, because it's difficult to hear exactly what you're saying with the breakup there. charles in apple valley, california.

you agree. you're on the air. caller: yes, the term radical slam is kind of silly as a strategy. radical islam is taught by the imans in saudi arabia. they're the ones that teach that radical form of islam. they're the ones that are funding isis and all these militant muslims. so saudi arabia is our ally. so, you know, the thing about the term radical islam is kind of ridiculous. host: president obama was responding to republican leaders, previous candidates who have been critical, republican candidates who have been critical of him as well for not using this, and the presumptive republican nominee, donald trump, tweeted out after the orlando shootings on sunday , if president obama is president obama, going to finally mention the words

radical islamic terrorism? if he doesn't, he should immediately renine disgrace. donald trump also credit seizing hillary clinton for not using the words earlier. you can go to c-span.org, use she rds to explain how believes that you can even that word. there's other words to use, but that's not the point. house speaker paul ryan esterday at a rollout of another part of the republican agenda was scud about this debate over those words. here's what he had to say. speaker ryan: we are at war with radical islamic terrorism, and yes, there is a very important distinction that needs to be made from the millions of moderate muslims who are our allies, who are helping us in this fight. but that does not mean we should ignore the threat that is facing us. we need to call this threat for what it is if we're going to fully confront it. host: pbs news hour with a

piece in february of 2015, who said it, bush versus obama on islam. and in this piece, they note this, that bloomberg -- they say bloomberg notes that george w. bush also avoided the term, saying it's a long-standing u.s. policy. why? because elliot abrams who served as deputy national security adviser to george w. bush, we were invading two muslim countries and we were accused of being at war with islam, so the administration wanted to make it very clear that we are not at war with islam and every muslim in this world. what do all of you think? john in pensacola, florida, agree with president obama. tell us why. caller: well, because it's self-evident, that's all. i money, it's ridiculous to blame somebody for everything. host: the "washington journal" says if the u.s. is under attack, americans deserve to hear their president say exactly who is attacking us and

why. caller: well, i agree with that. host: ok, all right. "the wall street journal" says you cannot wage war, much lessen gauge in strength, without a clear idea of who you are fighting. tim in iowa, you disagree with president obama, and our the air. caller: yeah, you need to call it like it is. downplaying it by calling it anything else, and that's exactly what you're doing. you know, it isn't like the radical islam is based just in one place. 's a worldwide belief by the radicals. it covers everything from the philippines to the middle east, indonesia, you know, it's a group of people, and it's worldwide. you can't just say it's the middle east. i mean, look at what happens in indonesia, the philippines,

southern thailand, ma labor. it's all over the world. tom: well, given that, what about the president's argument that when you say radical islam, that ji hardest terrorists use that as a recruiting tool to say, see, the west is at war with all of us. caller: we're at war with the ones that want to do harm to anything that they don't believe in. you know, that's exactly what it is. we have to weed them out and take care of them. host: tennessee, courtney is watching us there. you agree with the president. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. yes, i do agree, because i feel like the point is that they're using this religion to fuel their own hatred for a particular group of people. they're not really using the actual tenets of the religion.

they're just using it as an excuse, so why should we acknowledge the religion instead of just calling them terrorists? host: joyce, washington, d.c., on our line for those that disagree, and you're up. caller: yes, i think we're putting too much emphasis on linguistics. we just need to get over there and get rid of isis and move them out of the way, whatever we call them. i do agree we should make it stronger than the president is really making it, because we're making it look like they're angels, and they're not really helping us to seek these people out. and that's my comment. host: are you a republican, a democrat? caller: i'm a republican. host: ok. who do you think is -- caller: it really doesn't make any difference. host: do you think donald trump will be better on dealing with terrorists than hillary clinton? caller: yes, die, yes. mrs. clinton has had a number of years to be involved in the process more than she has been, and i think she has too much baggage. we need to use those f.b.i.

agents to do something other than investigate mrs. clinton. you know, it's a lot of time we wasted on that. we need to get that out of the way and go on and charge her to be done. host: "wall street journal" editorial this morning. islamic state sees itself as the vanguard of a religious movement, moving in a literalist interpretation that it considers binding on all muslims everywhere. a small fraction of muslims agree with that, which is why western law enforcement agencies must pay more attention to what goes on inside mosques than in christian science reading rooms --

host: daniel in california, you agree with the president. tell us why. we lost him. we'll go on to walter. north carolina, you also disagree with the president. good morning. caller: i do not agree with the president. host: ok. aller: september, 1971, i left home after watching my c-span in the morning, and i headed to work. i stopped at my local convenience store to purchase a cup of coffee and a snack and to boy a lottery ticket. walked in, and the pro pry fors of this convenience store were jumping around and hollering and hooting and running up and down the aisles,

and on the tv was pictures of the 9/11 attack on the world trade center. i did not even know it had happened. i didn't turn my radio on. i am shocked -- i have shopped with these people for four years. i thought they were east indians. it turns out they were of pakistani nationality. i shopped with these people almost every day. i walked in, bought my milk, and i have to say beer, too, and what have you, and talked to these people. they had surnames that i talked to every day. when mr. trump talked about the people celebrating across the river in new jersey, i could understand his compassion for this. these people were celebrating the death of thousands of people in the world trade center. it completely changed my idea trying ing -- what am i

to say? liking these people t. just completely changed. within hours, they were reporting to the f.b.i., and within hours the f.b.i. came in , shut the store down, and i guess was interviewing them. the store eventually was closed down, and it was taken over. i could not support president obama's statement. i'm sorry. host: walter, do you agree with mr. trump, that there should be a ban on all muslims entering the country temporarily or until things are straightened out? caller: not necessarily a total ban, but there should be scrutiny, investigation of these folks. host: ok. walter's comments there. rudy, sun city, california, you agree with president obama. caller: yes, i do agree with president obama, because calling it a name, you can go back in our history to calling

names. i'm a 60-year-old black man who's been called everything you want to in the world, and i can call them radical christian terrorists, especially when they bomb abortion clinics, hang somebody up in a tree. how come the good christians back in the day -- and i'm a christian person, believe me -- didn't do anything about that? i would like these people out there to understand that calling a name really doesn't mean anything a whole lot. host: ok, rudy, you might be interested in this. michael wrote this piece, he's from alabama, in "usa today's" "your say" section. he wrote as trump continues to paint all muslims with a broad brush, consider the following -- according to tuskegee university, an estimated 3,446 african-americans were linked, many at the hands of the ku

klux klan -- host: that's one person's view in "usa today." dave, ohio, you disagree, and you are on the air. good morning. caller: well, i disagree, and i agree. host: ok. caller: the reason why i say i disagree is because radical islam is just a political word that all we're going to do is call them bad. where we really should be going is the origin of the terrorists, and that's the wahabis in saudi arabia. in laden was a wahabi.

that's where we should direct our attention, not playing back-a-mole that we're doing right now with killing isis. we should go after the origin. and the origin is in saudi arabia. do we go after saudi arabia and worry about the oil? is that why we don't identify these people? as the origin and the problem. host: is that what you think, dave? caller: that's exactly it. if we keep on basically just talking about radical islam, and we don't address the origin of where it is coming from, we're going to be doing this forever. host: ok, an a, rockville, maryland, you agree. good morning. thanks for calling in. caller: yes, i agree. as a muslim, we do not consider these people muslims. they're not practicing. i agree with rudy. you have to understand it's just a label.

they're not muslims. they don't practice islam. thank you. host: all right. norbert, wisconsin, you disagree. hi there. caller: hello. host: you're on the air. good morning. caller: good morning. i disagree with that man in the white house, 99 3/4% of the time. anybody that reads the koran, which wants to kill all infidels -- that would be us -- they're all terrorists. that book is a terrorist book. host: the entire koran? caller: the koran. host: ok, people say that islam is a peaceful religion. you disagree. caller: i disagree. in that book, it says kill the infidels. host: well, it's a large book. have you read it? caller: i have not. and i wouldn't read it.

that's against my principles, to kill anyone. host: doesn't the bible say similar things? it also talks about peaces? do you read the bible? caller: no, i don't. i believe in me. host: ok, all right. norbert in wisconsin there. what's happening up on capitol hill yesterday? the house supposed to end i.r.s. donor list requirement. the house in this vote of 240-182 bars the internal revenue service from requiring nonprofit groups to rest their donors on tax returns. happening now, the i.r.s. commissioner, there's a vote happening on censuring the i.r.s. commissioner, and that's before the house oversight committee in his role in the investigation into nonprofit groups. you all know the name, lois lerner, and that investigation.

well, the house republican accused him of not being forth right, lying about the emails, and so there's an effort underway to censure him. that vote will be taking place, it's been happening since 9:00 a.m. you can tune over to c-span3 to watch it. it continues. or you can go to our website, c-span.org if you want to go back and watch that. and then there's this from "the washington post," that the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, from kentucky is opening to denying terrorists guns, but he is not open to the amendment being offered by dianne feinstein, democrat of california, that to let the attorney general deny guns to people suspected of terrorism involvement. he called that a politically motivated effort. however, senator john cornyn has an alternative that was presented the last time this came up that would give the relevant u.s. attorney a 72-hour period to delay the sale of a firearm or explosives

to a person suspected of having terrorism ties and prove to a judge that there was probably cause to turn that delay into a ban. it failed the last time around. according to them, the g.o.p. is thinking about raising the amendment again as an alternative to feinstein, should it come to a vote on the floor. the senate debating a spending bill this week. you can go to c-span2 to watch that debate and watch whether or not these amendments come to the floor. f.b.i. knee pennsylvania. you agree with president obama, that radical islam, using those terms is strategy. caller: i think we're talking about radical islam, mainly because i saw donald trump the morning after the shooting, and he called the president a wimp, and he said all this stuff about radical islam. the thing about donald trump that you should notice is he has all the -- he's exhibiting all the tendencies of an alzheimer's patient, and so

maybe we should just cool it on donald trump a bit until he gets the medical treatment he needs. host: well, this has been a long -- before donald trump was the presumptive -- caller: i don't know. i don't know that you would have been doing this if he hadn't been saying that, and i don't know what kind of person would say that after what happened. it's just a totally crazy response. host: the president decided to use his speech yesterday to respond to donald trump and thers. caller: yes, and that's too bad. i don't think he should respond, because the man is sick. host: ok. "new york times" editorial board, true words mr. president, they write implying that these terrorists speak for islam aids their propaganda, and they quote the president. that's how they recruit f. we fall into the trap, it complies we are with a ar with an entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists' work for them n. phoenix, arizona, is you

disagree. good morning. caller: i do disagree, because what those islam i am people is radical. the terrorists in orlando, he praised hezbollah. he praised al qaeda. he praised isil, and the one common thread they all have is they use the islamic religion. it is still radical islamic terrorism. it's not just extremism as the president called it. i mean, i find it silly in a way, but it's still the common thread is islam. you know, the other thing i don't understand is why they can't get those videos off the internet that are helping radical people. host: all right, richard in missouri, you agree. it's your turn, richard.

caller: how do we recognize them radical is lamist? did they have a stars put on them like the jews did? it used to be it was communist, now we got the radical islams to worry about. i just can't tell the difference between the good ones and the bad ones. can you? another thing, your gun control, limit how many bullets you can have, you can't limit the guns, but you can limit how many bullets people can have. thank you. host: fort myers, florida, on our line for those that disagree. your take. caller: thank you. radical islamists, that's what they are. obama is trying to sanitize it by not calling it what it is. this is simply deception. it's dishonest, and we all agree that dishonesty is wrong. this is a typical tactic that obama has used over and over

again. we've seen it over and over, and thank god we only have a few months left. thank you. host: ok. front page of the "financial times,", the prospect of britain voting to leave the e.u. next week sparked global market upheaval yesterday with investors rushing to safety and sending the u.k.'s currency and stocks to their lowest levels in months. accelerating shift, which came after a trio of opinion polls, stheed the campaign leading by significant margins was most marked in government bonds or a series of records were smashed as they flowed into the relative security of sovereign debt. the federal reserve chairwoman janet yellen will hold a news conference today at 2:30 after her meetings here in washington after two-day meetings, and she's likely to be asked about what is happening in the markets related to this vote on brexit and leaving the e.u.,

and also what does that mean for interest rates? you can watch on c-span.org, 2:30 p.m. eastern time. , disagreeing ey with the president. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning, thank you for taking my call, c-span. the president, seems he's talking about the use of words and labeling, and i'm sorry to say this man has labeled people and things his whole entire presidency to the point where he compares a young man to himself, or could be his son. he says how police acted stupidly. it's funny how he likes to politicize -- that's what the speech was yesterday. it was a political speech, and he was angry at the opposition, the republicans. if he doesn't to want label people, why does he keep saying the republicans? it's just ironic that a man who says let's not label people, and there's no use labeling people, and we don't need to use radical islam as a term, he

uses terms that divide us all the time. it's just sad to watch this. i can't wait for him to be out of office, and i'm not a donald trump fan or a hillary clinton fan, but hillary clinton is a sandrill a liar, and donald trump is a -- we don't know yet. he's kind of scary, but i'd rather have somebody who's going to stand up for america than somebody who's about to sell america down the river to anybody with the highest amount of money to give them. host: all right, that's john. president obama traveling to orlando thursday, tomorrow, to console families of the victims , "the washington times" reporting that this morning. in reaction to what president obama said in his speech at the treasury department yesterday, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said the administration is trying to contain the is i can state known as isil rather than defeating the group. he said congress could help by facing a bill by facing a

detailed threat from the white house. tom, hollywood, florida, you agree with president obama. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i absolutely agree with everything he said right from the beginning with the orlando incident, and a lot of people forget, he has a responsibility as the leader, as a government and a country, to speak responsibly, especially in the very beginning. we absolutely absolutely no facts about this individual, other than he called 911 and swore his allegiance to isis. that doesn't mean anything. he has a responsibility to speak responsible when the facts are present. not like a vigilante, like donald trump speaks like a vigilante. as soon as something happens, ok, let's circle the wagons and let's grab what we think is guilty and let's hang them, and

then maybe we'll find outside what happened later. you know, shoot everybody now, and that's his theory. and as a gun owner myself, i've been shooting firearms since i was 12 years old, i absolutely am in agreement we need tighter anything that has a high-capacity magazine, weapons that usually use war, and the gun owners, i'm going to have them to target practice, but they don't need 30-round clips to do that. and you should have a background check. any state in this country should have adopted laws similar to over 30 years ago in maryland if you wanted to buy a handgun. you had to commit paperwork at the point of sale, and the state police would do the background check, and you should not lead with that until

the background check came t. wasn't seven days, three days, you didn't get it until it was approved, and it was ok. and then if it wasn't approved, there was a process to dispute it, but there's no reason why anybody can't just wait until a background check is completed before you get something that could go out like this gentleman and kill 100 people in a short period of time. there's no need for that. you know, if that you want gun, you can wait a few days. you can wait two weeks. host: ok, all right. texas disagrees with the president over the term radical islam. tell us why. caller: well, first off, i'd like to say i'm actually from fort hood, texas. my family is military. all of our friends are military. and we've all been scared of obama since he first got elected, because we believe him to be a terrorist. host: why? caller: because. because of his father and his ties to the muslim community,

and the only just recently converted. everything in his background just points to him being a terrorist, and by him not saying radical islam just supports our views -- host: everything in his background? caller: yes. yes. from his birth certificate and that whole fiasco over his birth certificate, his father being from africa. i forget -- host: because because i'm from africa he had ties to muslims? caller: his father had ties to a terrorist group in africa. that is what the story on the media said and everything. and i had been watching this for years and years. host: where are you reading this? where are you getting your information? caller: fox news, cnn. host: ok. rob, ohio. agreeing with the president. go ahead. caller: hi, yeah, i was just

thinking. republicans keep taking, like death tax, when there's actually an inherentance tax or things like is lake i am terrorism. you can call it religious terrorism, too, if you wanted. it's just how you look at things and what the real truths are. as far as saying crazy things, i don't think i'll try to do that. but the other thing is, on gun control, why don't they just put a $7 or $10 tax on bullets that are for these weapons? that way, you know, crazy guy couldn't go into a gun zpor buy 100 bullets. it would cost him $1,000. at least you keep the kill down. thank you. host: we have five minutes left here before the house gavels in for their morning session, so we'll keep getting more of your calls in. in the meantime, there's a column in "the washington post" this morning, how to cover trucks? how about a blackout.

donald trump has banned , he writes that a just and appropriate response to trump's blacklist is a trump blackout. i don't mean an outright ban of trump coverage. that would be shirking our civic responsibility, but i suggest an end to the uncritical free public is that propelled him to the g.o.p. nomination in the first place. no more lies, wall to wall coverage of trump's rallies and events, the sort of coverage particularly by cable news outlets that be a huge contribution to trump. no more trump calling to tv shows this. enables him to plant little risk to followup. rigorous use of real-time fact checking, pointing out trump's falsehoods in the stords in which they're reported. that's not injecting opinion. it's stating fact. beyond that, news organizations should demand that the r.n.c. reinstate all media outlets that trump has banned. does the r.n.c. to want join

trump in opposing a free press? he reports, he says this, in a eport out monday, it was found that eight top news outlets gave trump the equivalent of 55 million of free advertising last year, and about 2/3 of trump coverage was positive, taking the news media as a whole, the center said the claim that trump's media coverage was worth $2 billion in ads might well be correct. back to calls. danny in biloxi, mississippi, you disagree with what the president had to say yesterday. why do you believe the saying radical islam is important? caller: first of all, thank you for taking the call. i'm basically going to put it as simple as possible. more people have died in the name of religion than any other purpose or any other reason on planet earth. and the difference in reality between radical islam and islam is who believes in sharia law.

sharia law, if you read the koran, which most people don't, you would understand that sharia law -- to simple people in the middle east, and i don't mean that to be condescending, but alookout of those folks are extremely simple. they're not well educated so. they're easily led. therefore, radicalization or radical islam is exactly that. americans have a tendency to get hung up on your words, because we are a free society. if a person wants to be gay, they want to be straight, that's fine. in our country, we have freedom. in countries line saudi arabia and any other -- well, africa, a lot of places around the world, even through asia, if you think you're free, you're not. so labeling it radical islam is

precisely the point. host: ok, so danny, we share this with all of you in the past couple of days, this research, a poll of afghanis and a large majority of them support sharia law, what danny was just talking about it. then there's this piece this morning, prevailing view in afghanistan, indeed, despite being heavily subset, this is one of the most hostile countries in the world, even in areas under the control of the afghan government. gay sex remains a crime, and thousands of men are currently imprisonned for sodomy. then there's also this in "the washington post," trump's broad side after massacre shakes islamic group. "the washington post" reports the orlando gunman did not appear to have been devout. he has ties to afghanistan. his father is from there. he did not dress zsh actively.

e attended local mosque only sporadically. some people have described him as gay and as a regular payton to the club. although trump said it was a monolithic community, they are an extremely diverse demographic, coming from many ethnicities. the precise number of muslims in the u.s. is difficult to estimate, but they go with a figure of six to seven million. a survey showed that 61% of u.s. muslims were worried about the rise of extremism across the country. about half the muslims said they thought muslim leaders had not been sufficiently outspoken in denouncing ex-triegists, and more two in five said they experienced discrimination, including being viewed with suspicion. you agree with the president, good morning, we might have to -- if you can make this quick, because i think the house is about to gavel in. caller: yes, i do, and i'll make it quick.

i'm not really talking about the muslims. i'm talking about another group of terrorist killers that needs to be labeled. you know the ones that go to the high school and gun down everybody. the ones that go to a church and pray and then jump up and murder everybody. and the ones that kill their mother and then go to -- host: all right, ellis, we got your point. again, the house is gaveling in here so we need to go up to the house, live coverage here on c-span. june 15, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable daniel webster to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, prine, speaker of the house of representatives. -- paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house on january 5, 2016, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for the morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties and each party limited to one hour, each member other than the majority and minority leaders andin