10:00 this morning. i had the allegations put forth congress. members of that benghaziis was important. we all know what libya looks like at that time post-civil war, post-conflict. benghazi was an important outpost. nobody knew that more than chris stevens. nobody believed in the importance of benghazi more than chris stevens did, but his was not the only assessment that benghazi was important. it was important that we had representation there, and that is why we were there. you know, it speaks, to be frank here, it speaks to the risk -taking that our diplomats do every day because we need representation in any given place, and we need our diplomats to go there and to be forward

.leaning, if you will we do our best to protect them. we are trying to do a better job at protecting those individuals, but we stand by the fact that we needed our people to be in benghazi. support the presence -- you would accept more responsibility on the bureaucratic decision-making and security posture elements? mr. toner: i think we have a knowledge that in the past, brad. couple of things there, one is we have a knowledge and took seriously the request for security the embassy made and try to provide and respond as quickly as we could to the request for increased security on the ground, i think with a few relative exceptions, and i can get into those if you like, that have more to deal with, frankly, the profile that we wanted to have on the ground, and not necessarily the concert -- security concerns, because we tried to address them, but --

and we also, the other qualifier there is as other past , andtigations have found others have spoken to, including aarb, was the attack on benghazi was intense and we did not have enough assets on the ground to rebuff that, and it would have been difficult to have the assets on the ground to rebuff that. that said, we will take the lessons from benghazi and have been working hard to address them. brad: my last one. there seems to be a recurrent theme in the report and some of the comments at the state department put diplomatic niceties over the actual security needs, that this concern about not defending the libyans, not having boots on the

ground that would put them in a tough spot superseded the actual security needs that would have better protected the benghazi mission and tripoli as well. do you accept that in that you were hamstrung from actually providing adequate security? of aspectsa couple to this. first of all, broadly speaking, taking a broad and then i will narrow it down -- or at least he can, of course we are always assessing, and it goes to the kind of profile you have on the ground. whether that is an enhancement or a detriment to the ground, boots in uniforms can sometimes be a detriment to that security. you can talk to folks far more expert in this than i am, but sometimes you have lower profile and sometimes you have higher profile. that is a unique situation, not just to libya, but around the world.

he does not mean you hold back, you did there, or you do not totally respond to the security needs, but as an ongoing specifically-- somehow there is a military group, detachment, dot personnel that are somehow kept from joining the fight in benghazi because they were not sure they had to change their uniforms or take their uniforms on and off again -- i can say unequivocally that that is not true. i refute that. absolutely. at no point would that consideration, or did that consideration cause any delay in the deployment of military assets. broadly speaking, i will defer

to their actions that night because it is really up to them to do that, but i did want to clear that up. do you think the decision-makers underestimated the terrorist threat in benghazi at the time? mr. toner: a very good question, and i think that as we have seen -- i think that the short answer is we did not, and we have acknowledged this -- have the assets on the ground that were necessary to rebuff an attack like that, and others have spoken to this before me. i mentioned the committees that have looked at this question before, and the fact is that we of ant have forewarning attack of this veracity, this

intensity, and as many saw in the aftermath, there was a lot of analysis that went into who is behind the attack. was it connected with what was going on in the middle east at the time -- that has been talked about in the report, talked about in previous reports, but the fact of the matter is we did not have any forewarning on that night, otherwise clearly will we would -- we would have taken more serious precautions. alreadyion to what we had, because we did have security elements on the ground, just not enough. 26 of 29ys have taken recommendations. mr. toner: that is correct. >> what other recommendations you have not met, were unable to meet, and why? mr. toner: sure. thank you for asking. me, 26 out ofted 29 is not 99% done.

the ongoing recommendations, the reason we have not released them fully, they concern long since -- long-term security upgrades and construction. that takes a wild. we are obviously dedicating the resources and personnel dedicated to doing those operations worldwide. >> you feel if you meet these recommendations, anyone who raises these issues will be satisfied? mr. toner: i don't think we will ever be satisfied when talking about security. >> raising the issue -- will they be satisfied mr. toner: -- i don't know. all i can say is the major concern is providing the best

protection we can for diplomats overseas. we took the recommendations very seriously. we are in the process of implementing all of them. obviously,tinue, given the chain -- giving the changing nature around the world, counseling reassess our posture and take additional steps because you always have to be changing to and adapting to whatever the new thread you are facing is. i guess my point is i don't know if, you know, those out there criticizing our security posture will ever be satisfied. i do not think we will ever be satisfied with the status quo, but our current -- responsibilities to our personnel. >> lastly, do you think the attack on benghazi prevented you from taking further action in libya -- dissuaded you from becoming more involved in libya? mr. toner: you know, i don't think so.

i mean,fair question -- certainly, in the aftermath of the attack, we had to take security members to protect personnel who were still on the ground in tripoli, as well as those, isaac, who were evacuated from benghazi, and that meant pulling out for a time. i know -- for a time. brad: as of now. mr. toner: right, i am sorry, brad. we are hopeful we will once again be back in libya. broadly, sighing, and the president himself, has spoken to the fact that in the aftermath of the civil war and gaddafi's death and departure the united we, states, and broadly our allies and partners, didn't do enough , to providetability

assistance to those elements who could have played a more moderated role in the political landscape there, and because of libya has remained in, state., a very unstable libya has taken steps to work with the new government there, moderate forces on the ground to ensure they have the resources that they need to bring broader .ecurity to the country so, yes, we are trying to address some of those issues.

>> your comments on the changing of the uniforms -- can you clarify what you are refuting? are you refuting the time factor, or that the changes were made? mr. toner: yes, and i'm reluctant to wait too deeply, but i did it, there was an allegation made today, a vignette, if you will, of these forces somehow being kept on hold and not being allowed to deploy because of some issues over uniforms, whether they could wear them or not. speaking, whether our security forces should wear uniforms or not, that is always a security posture question we ask not in libya, but all over the world, and they allegation

that there was a delay in the response because of this is not right. it is not correct. >> can i go back to what you are saying about chaos in libya? it seems like the benghazi attack itself was, kind of, the first real sign -- although there was growing instability, majoras the first sign of evidence of the slide into chaos, and things just continued to get worse since then. i mean, it does seem as if the initial decision to go into libya, for instance, gave way to all of this instability. again, youwell, know, we had a dictatorship. some 40 --year-old dictatorship that was -- some 40 --year-old dictatorship that was -- some 40-year-old dictatorship that

was uprooted and there was chaos and instability because of that. at the a lot about that time. , do think that instability ongoing conflict on the ground, did create an atmosphere where something like benghazi happened , because we did not have all people, personnel on the ground, out of security concerns, and that is always fundamentally at the rate of any type of policy that we have -- foreign policy -- can we protect our people on the ground? so, we had to withdraw. i don't want to draw a direct connection between that -- always it is desirable to have diplomats on the ground engaged or thosegovernment trying to form a government, i guess, in libya's case, but i do not necessarily want to make the

connection that because of benghazi or libya -- libya floundered. >> you have this new government as hope that the pro-government forces will help with terrorism and get their act together, but what would you say about the state of libya today? what i was going to say in response to your previous question, i would hope, and is secretary believes we are turning corner. we have this national court established now. it is in tripoli, which took some doing in getting it established. we have the prime minister who is taking steps to stabilize the country, trying to form a presidential guard, trying to form security forces that are unified, and that has been a huge challenge, and, really, just trying to stabilize the political space there so that they can provide basic services

and basic infrastructure to the libyan people, which is an enormous challenge for them right now. i am not saying we are over the hump here, but we do believe progress is being made. there isrstand progress being made, hope, potential, but when you look at libya right now, what do you see? mr. toner: it is going to be a long process. nobody is underestimating that. we will have to be -- probably we have held administrative level meetings on libya focused internationale community needs to be there to establish themselves in these services. i think it is very fragile, but i think we're in a better place than we were six months ago.

>> would you say it is a failed state? mr. toner: i do not want to necessarily attach that moniker to it, but i would say it is a -- it was a failing state, and that is why we have made efforts, and not just the united states, but we have been at the forefront. a strongtaly played will, and others in the region, to turn the corner to get a government into place that can provide some level of stability and if the structure and support for the libyan people. >> very quickly, on your response to the question -- how can you say there was no delay if the students were asked, presumably ordered to change uniforms four times? mr. toner: again, i don't want to get into the timeline and i do not want to speak to what is essentially the department of .efense's equities

i'm just saying that this allegation that somehow we it didn't -- i can assure you there was no back and forth over them changing their uniforms that caused a delay in these individuals being deployed to benghazi, but as to the specific timeline and when they were deployed or why their deployment was delayed in any way, shape or form, there was -- that is independent -- department of defense question. >> are you arguing the amount of time it would have taken, given the fact they spent hours at the airport negotiating what to do in the first place, that amount of time would not have made a difference? saying?what you are mr. toner: drawing clear interagency lines, i don't want to speak for the department of defense or its equities.

all i'm trying to say is this not even veiled delegation at the press conference that they were somehow -- veiled allegation at the press conference that they were somehow kept on hold because of uniforms is incorrect. allegations is there was not an evacuation plan, and it goes on to say it was a former gaddafi military coming inho ended up and rescuing the americans and bring in the airport. do you have anything to speak to on that -- is that an accurate reflection? sure.ner: let me unpack that a couple of different ways. aware of the allegations of the gaddafi militia -- just so people understand, there was an inangement between our folks benghazi,the and in -- the end in benghazi, and the

militia to provide, basically, on-compound protection, as well as quick reaction support, and that was carried through with on that night. they did both respond on the ground -- compound protection, rather, as well as quick reaction. it just wasn't enough. we talked about this. , breath, and scope intensity of the attack overwhelm the forces on the ground. we have to them many times in the past. at the end of the attack, so, this is hours later in the don, i guess, there was a different militia, and this is the one they referred to, the one referenced in the report is being affiliated with gaddafi, which did provide escort for the remaining personnel to be escorted to the airport so they can be evacuated.

is where, that element they came into play, but in terms of that night, during the actual attack, it was the february 17 militia that did provide a quick reaction. your part about evacuation plans -- of course there are always contingency plans for any post anywhere in the world for evacuations. as many of you have known, who have been in hot spots overseas, a lot of times in the heat of the moment, and incident, battle, whatever, those contingency plans have to be rethought and reevaluated. >> one of the things the report speaks to his the irony that you had gaddafi military officials, which was the regime that had allowinged before, them to get to the airport to that? my understanding is

the only rule these individuals playing -- role these individuals plate was to escort remaining individuals to the airport to get them on a plane. i cannot speak to whether they were gaddafi supporters. >> how do you organize that? mr. toner: i don't have any more details about how we reached out to them and got them to provide us with the escort. >> i know in response the state department said foreign officer hicks had spoken to this at the 2013 oversight committee hearing, but it seems like the details in this report showing that secretary clinton was going to arrive in benghazi in october of that year, one month after stephen's visit, was new. is that something that was occurring, and you have any response to the suggestion that it was a desire to create deliverable for visit that led to stephen's been down there at

that time? mr. toner: it is a fair question. first of all, the fact that she was planning a trip to libya is not new information, as you note. it was raised, i think, previously, by greg hicks, the in tripoli at the time in to the government oversight and government reform committee. the question, and it gets these well,ad's question as whether benghazi was some sort of deliverables were desired outcome by the administration officials, i would rebut that by saying, you know, the state department, the administration, and, frankie, ms or chris stevens -- frankly, ambassador chris stevens, felt it was in

our foreign-policy interests and national security interests to have a presence in benghazi, and that is what was driving engagement there. >> to the secretary have a trip planned for october? mr. toner: i do not know the exact date, but she was planning to travel to libya. >> one more on the benghazi report -- you said we believe in -- essential facts on the attack have been known for some time. can you just say what the essential facts are on the role the video played in the attack? mr. toner: on the role that the video played -- >> i mean, it still seems -- i don't know what your position is. mr. toner: you are right. it still seems like it is out there, if you will. of, stillbeing, kind

presented. let me answer your question writer than me characterizing how it is being -- rather than me present -- characterizing how it is being presented. nothing has changed other than the fact that have acknowledged our initial assessment took into consideration what was happening elsewhere in the region, and elsewhere in the region we had protests at embassies including cairo, including cartoon, based appearedideo that had on youtube that was seen as blaspheme against prophet muhammad. so, in our initial assessment, again, looking at the region, of course that was taken into consideration, but, i think with that waso benghazi,

part of our initial assessment after several days or a week or so. analysisy changed that to better represent the facts as we knew them, which is that it was a coordinated attack on our facilities by an armed force of extremists, and so, i guess i go back to the fact that -- and it is not just unique to benghazi, but in any kind of situation like this, it is hard to get all of the facts all the way, and to present them to the american people, and we, at the time, did to conveyhat we could the facts as we knew them at the time to the american people. >> just to clarify, you no

longer believe that the video played any role in -- motivating these extremists, armed? mr. toner: to be honest, i do not think we have been able to categorically say the video played no role, but what we have been able to say is that this was not a demonstration gone awry. it was a coordinated attack. have no evidence to back up -- you no longer have evidence to back up that initial assessment, that the video was responsible -- again, theno, context, not just unique to cairo,i or libya, but in protests andwere the video did play a role in those demonstrations, but with respect to benghazi, i don't think that we believe -- although we cannot rule out and played some motivating role, we have acknowledged that this was

not a demonstration gone awry were run amok. this was a serious, coordinated attack. >> so you don't believe the video was the motivating factor for this attack? i'm talking about the video. mr. toner: yes. we have said that before. i cannot say that it was -- that it played no role. sayto be -- i just want to categorically that this was not motivated byation the video. it was a cornet attack. please, sir. -- cornet attack. please -- coordinated attack. please, sir.

the europeans will be meeting on britain leaving the european union. have there been further calls secretary john kerry has been making since he returned, and when do we see the next opportunity to discuss this? mr. toner: good question. very quickly -- i thought -- i apologize. to highdid speak representative mobile mini earlier today. -- earlier today. >> to reinforce his message? mr. toner: i don't have a reading in front of me. i think they talked about, as they always do, the number of core foreign-policy issues we are trying to address with the eu, but i sure they spoke about brexit as well. talk he going to have to about this with anyone? mr. toner: with anyone -- he is in aspen today.

he is headed to ottawa or quebec city. ottawa, thank you. for meetings with canadians, as well as the mexicans, and that will be another opportunity to touch base with counterparts there, and evidently, looking next week, he will be traveling warsaw,ato summit in and again, that is going to be a touchstone for further discussions and a chance, know,, for us to, you thisnue to talk about how transition will take place with u.k., butu and the with the understanding, i think, that this is a process between the two of them, the two entities, and the details, the process, how it looks, logistics, timeline, all of that, are for them to work out.

we want to be clear that our role here is simply to be what we have been, which is a strong eu, andand ally to the strong partner and ally with the u.k., and is much as possible, to help >> paul ryan said the u.s. should stop negotiating trade deals with the u.k.. >> i know there has been lots of , what i think is most important is stability and the process going forward. it extends to the financial markets. of trade investment arrangements across the transatlantic community. those are not going to change

overnight. but we believe that the u.k. and the eu can deliberately and in a productive way go shoot forward to ensure that trade and investment can ensure their mutual prosperity. let's important is that there be a deliberate process here that sends a strong signal of stability. >> can you share with us any with therogress humanitarian aid? or even conversations with your russian counterparts?

speaking more broadly about all of the aspects of syria and frankly iraq i would refer you to special envoy britt mcgurk's testimony in front of the senate foreign relations committee. he spoke about our counterterrorism efforts. and there has been real success there. significanten success. the liberation of falluja and oning pressure on daesh the ground. and withrd to syria, regard to humanitarian

assistance, we've seen spotty progress. that doesn't mean it's far from the forefront of our efforts. by any means. we continue to talk to the russians. with other members of the group. it was a subject for secretary kerry in his meetings in italy and in the u.k. and in brussels. those will continue. we'll try to put pressure on both sides, the opposition and also the regime, to get a credible and pervasive or nationwide cessation of hostilities in place but remains a challenge. the pentagon announced a new program training and equipping the opposition.

is that a good idea considering the last programgr spent $400 million only to have very little effect. mark: i preface my response by saying i encourage you to follow up with my colleagues over at the pentagon who can speak to it with much greater skill that i can or depth that i can. what i can say is the revised training and equipment program tried to learn the lessons of the original program. acknowledged that the original program was not doing the job. she was trying to train groups of forces that can be deployed to the field.

didn't do it fast enough. he didn't have enough bang for the buck. but to the hard look at how to make adjustments in that program. they are looking at improving the capabilities of embedded local forces. the numbers of folks that are being trained for lack of a better word our force multipliers. localan return to these forces and share their skill set. the previous idea was to deploy whole groups of people into the field. this is a different animal. to put into a broader context, this is part of our overall efforts where we are providing syrian and kurse

d groups on the ground. this is part of the many pronged esh.rt to put pressure on da the pentagon said they trained under hundred in the hopes that they would lead thousands of people. is that a strategy that can work? i think it can. there are fewer than a hundred enablers. but they can help train more than a thousand arab fighters. it is not a new system. but it's a very smart way to take full advantage of training small groups of individuals who can then play a leadership role

within these forces fighting on the ground. there was aso said campaign on the way to liberate mosul. what lessons have we learned? a couple of thoughts. ministera, the prime was able to manage the offensive very carefully and deliberately. he opened these safe quarters for civilians. he expended considerable effort and sent a message to his forces

on the ground to protect civilians and said any human rights abuses would be prosecuted and people would be held accountable. but i think another lesson learned is with an operation don't underestimate the number of people that will be displaced by this operation. the need to absorb and react to them. we talked about providing additional funds to help those organizations on the ground. we're looking at a donors conference at the end of july to address that. forces are getting more beinge, more confident, able to interact and cooperate better on the ground. there are always lessons to be learned. it is not only a military

challenge by the political one. mark: it is trying to deal with the sectarian tensions that exist in iraq and trying to mitigate those and trying to create a conclusive, i mean inclusive government and political system that allows all of these groups coexist. a question about cuba. they have a hotel run by the cuban military. is this what president obama mention when he said helping investments in ordinary cubans? letting hotel chain take over a

military hotel? mark: i don't have the details on that deal. we were not involved in the negotiations. we are not authorized to speak issued.ses broadly speaking, there are some benefits to this kind of investment. lodging andequate safety and security for authorized travelers. that will increase people to people contact and that will benefit the normalization process. it will help develop that sector specific know-how among cuban employees in the lodging and travel business.

this is just one deal. we want to keep seeing a steady increase in these kinds of investments. certainly in the tourist infrastructure for cuba. >> a center was set up at the state department about global engagement to counter terrorist propaganda. how is it doing? has expanded? it expanded? beyond its current mission? it has been established. it is working hard. engageeinventing how we on the battlefield.

countering violent extremism is important and we have to be present in that space. it has been reinvented in a sense. they are working hard. i can try to give you more information tomorrow or after this briefing on what the future holds for that group. are looking at new ways of engaging in that space. innovative ways. i liked him to do it justice and talk about it more, handsomely. you started bombarding the k rg borders. what does the usa have to say about these issues? i think elizabeth spoke to this yesterday. we are aware of these reports. i don't have more specifics to share with you at this time. when we do, i will let you know. sorry have to run.

i have to run.

>> our next guest is henry olson. he is the author of the book before theses of the republican party. a bit about the public policy center. can you describe what it is? : we study public

policy from a judeo-christian perspective. more on the center-right than the hard right. my field of study is elections. i take a look at what is going on in political demography and public opinion and trying to figure out how conservatives can react to this. th conservative principles to build -- to build a majority. host: because of the decisions that were made yesterday, do those become election issues in your mind? guest: yes it a lot of people are concerned about texas abortion case. obviously people on both sides have strong opinions about it and it will continue to be what it has been for the last year's or mobilize on a partisan basis and a swing issue for people in

the middle. of justicesmination to the supreme court, how does that plant to that fact especially in the campaign cycle? is a factor pushing people on the right to support donald trump people who are uncomfortable with donald trump are very concerned about the future of the court. in the last couple of weeks, we have seen a number of four for orisions -- 4-4 decisions 5-3 decisions that the way conservative actions would like. people who care about that more likely to gravitate behind donald trump rather than support a candidate. host: how do you think donald thep is doing, that he is kind of person conservatives can support? guest: i think he started well coming out with a short list with a lot of strong conservative names. a good selling point. he has done well with evangelical leaders.

but yesterday he was criticized for not immediately coming out and issuing a comment, which led people to fear that maybe this guy is not with us given his life i'm -- lifelong lack of advocacy on the issue. host: an advisory council had reached out to church leaders, is that enough in your mind? he needs to continue to assure people. it is not somebody can just walk away from it particularly in light of yesterday's rolling. socially conservative leaders are going to want real assurance that this is something that is not just a talking point but that matters for him. he will have to continue to provide it. a stronger statement would have gone a long way in your mind. guest: that would have gone a long way to reassuring socially conservative and pro-life recent that his

statements on their behalf were sincere and heart out. organization you represent taken a stand on donald trump? can't no, we don't and take stands. everyone individually does. as an analyst, i will chronicle his rise or fall no matter what happens but personally, i will not be supporting him. i do not think he has the character for the white house. host: in terms of? guest: i think you need to have a political temperament, i think you need to have a temperament capable of leading in a political factor -- fashion. not a business fashion. you have more of a freedom of when you are the leader of a political mother -- and he has not yet in my mind gender -- demonstrated the ability to lead in a political way.

presidency ofe the united states is no different than the presidency of the trump organization. that is not the way liberal democracies operate. host: our guest is with us until 9:15 or so. want to ask questions, you can do so. -- host: if you want to post something on twitter, you can do so. also on our facebook page, you can post comments. recently, donald trump held a meeting with evangelical and christian leaders. the point ofhink all that is as far as mr. trump is concerned at how much mind changing do you think he is doing for people especially on offense? guest: he is ringing -- on the

he is bringing people on board. hewould be better for him if was more consistent in ratifying those messages rather than going off message sometimes and being the old trump. but the evangelical community is very important to the republican party and he needs to get over 90% of republicans in his corner to have a chance of when the election. he is getting close and actions like evangelical leaders talking tout things that matter socially conservative and conservative republicans are the sorts of things he needs to do to get closer to that 90%. host: as far as him getting the number, how does he compare to mitt romney? are those numbers consistent or is he getting christian voters to support him? guest: it is hard to say. threes pretty clear is

weeks ago, he started to run behind romney among republican voters and the last couple of polls have shown he is rising backup among republicans and not among independents. it is getting close to or comparable to figures where romney was at this stage in the campaign. how does he get people on board? guest: i think he has a challenge in front of him and his chance of becoming president is to become the agent of change for people who really want the change that in order to secure the presidency, he needs to convince a certain number of people that he can be trusted. he needs to be an agent of change, but a trustworthy one, not someone considered to be -- reckless. a tight road for him to walk. when he moves into his more rhetorically florid statements, he can ratify -- ratify with his faith, people want somebody who

they considered to be trustworthy and sound. he has to do both to win. statements like the ones we saw in the lando shooting recently? -- the orlando shooting recently? guest: yes. the change to bring is for forle who trust him to do all americans as close to being divisive and angry. he needs to show he can be a copy to executive and not simply a competent business executive p or political executives do not do the sorts of things at -- after orlando. host: for republicans -- hear first up from cedric in south carolina. you are on with our guest, henry olsen. [indiscernible]

they are throwing stuff buffett -- stuff up against the wall [indiscernible] caller, i am sorry to you are breaking up. talking about the texas decision, i think. guest: i could not get where he was going with it because of the breakup. host: as far as donald trump is about thisyou heard effort of republican delegates notention later this year being bound to donald trump, what do you think of the effort? guest: it is likely to lose because in order to do that, you thed have to change interpretation of republican party rules and basically tell the voters at home that their vote did not count. they thought they were actually selecting the presidential nominee, but they were not. i do not think the majority of

republican delegates are willing to take that political heat. it may show up in other ways and you might see more resistance to this because they are unbound on the vice presidential nomination. except or rejected. you might see more opposition or an alternative candidate emerge on the floor, but i do not think it will succeed with donald. of the cofounders, making her case as far as why the effort is worthwhile. listen to what they have to say and get your take on it. >> 60% of republicans who cast not cast themdid for mr. trump. he does not have a majority of of those who cast their votes in these primaries and caucuses. process ofhin the the republican party or nothing illegal or shady or behind close doors. this is very much out in the open.

the reason you did not see this happen after the romney cam the -- candidacy nomination and weer the mccain nomination, are not just people who said we are disappointed. go and try and disrupt things just because we are disappointed hear it for most of the people involved in this movement, this is very and goes to what we see is the core nature of the candidate. we do not believe that mr. trump first of all and bodies republican party principles, being a democrat part of his life and having donated heavily to democrat candidates over the years, and a lot of other things on policy and temperament and so forth. we do not see him as being the right person for the republican candidate and we do not feel that even if he were nominated, that he would win. 60% did not vote for

trump and it does not mean there was a majority that would have supported him in the lower rates. most of those were cast when they were in some cases in the early races 17 running. to one-on-one, trump won a majority in virtually every state that had majorities, including conservative indiana and liberal new york. idea that there is a majority of anti-trump, there may have been a majority of non-trump, but that does not mean there is a majority of anti-trump. to have a majority of delegates, many of whom are not trump loyalists, try to overflow the returns of what the voters say would cause political havoc. the nominee they would put in trump's place -- said he does not embody republican party principles. is that something you agree or disagree with? agree,whether or not i

it is the voters themselves who choose what republican party principles are and the voters in the primaries and the republican party have chosen doll chomp by overwhelming margins and when it came down to a choice between somebody who i am sure she would argue does embody republican donaldles, ted cruz, trump one massive majorities in conservative indiana, modern -- moderate pennsylvania, and liberal new york. it is clear someone who is a republican who seek -- who she says is not, the republican party voters preferred donald trump and i think convention would be wise to listen to that. guest: -- host: carol, pennsylvania, republican line. -- carol, north carolina, republican line. caller: just does not get it. it does not matter whether it is republican or democrat.

it is still with the people want you to do. this government don't belong to a republican or a democrat. this government belongs to the people. going for donald trump and bernie sanders because they are saying, you are going against what we want, so we are just going to go -- it does not matter what the sensible is. you are not listening to the people. the president is saying one thing before the people in the different countries who make day hecision, the next says something else spirit i am 72 years old and i have watched through the years, hillary clinton and the clinton's lie, lie, lie. i have watched the bush's lie, lie, lie.

are sayingn people it is not a republican or a democrat thing, but the fact you are not honest with the american people and you do not care what the american people want. host: thank you. of the majors one appeals behind donald trump, the fact that a republican activist would say he does not represent republican frank -- principles is a huge positive in the sense that not he is non-republican but he is not someone who walks clear set of ideology and says i will be bound by this. he is somebody who speaks more andnly and more informally someone who conveys to the american people i am on your side and will get things done for you. i think what she says is exactly what has animated trump supporters and why they are so passionate. caller: i, too, am a person not

for abortion, but i can see the westitution and how it says have -- we all have our equal choice in that. do poorame time, why people and others make christian thele have guilt if we are ones who have to be part of paying for these abortions and that, why can't they just leave abortions, then -- and pay forwn it your own self, do not make christians feel guilty and have to pay for something they want no part of. i think that very

adequately and emotionally sets out the way a lot of questions feel, that it is not simply a question of a woman's right but a question of forcing people to act directly or indirectly against their very deeply held -- religious belief. that is why you continue to see pro-life and socially conservative oriented politics. it is not just that they are not winning, but the idea that they are being forced into a position where they have to live against their faith. i think progressives would be well served to listen to statements like that and the people like that and take it to heart. decisionause of the yesterday on abortion and previous decisions on gay marriage, our social issues diminishing? i think it is changing and will over time. it will change a little over time because younger people are everyocially liberal and

few years, they are greater numbers that tilt toward social liberalism or social moderation, something that gains stronger. it is also a number of christian who have activists, relies they are probably not turn back the clock with expect -- with respect to the advance of it. if nots a strong popular majority, then a strong close to majority that is very supportive and are willing to push back aggressive court action in ways that would probably not meet their muster if done on behalf of conservative causes. going to go away, particularly abortion, but i think you will find over the next few years, socially conservative and politically active people trying to think about different ways to fight those battles. so many times, they locked up the hill. i think you will find them more

focused on abortion per one issue where it remains relatively strong. cases holdssome high and pro-choice. .t is unlike any other same-sex marriage has turned 25 points in favor of roe same-sex marriage over the last 20 years. you will talk more about family issues as opposed to questions of sexual morality. questions of how we defend the nuclear family and how do we make child raising and child rearing easier, ways to talk about social issues that are less focused on sex. host: bill is up next, independent line. go ahead. .ou are on with henry olsen caller: my basic mistrust

[indiscernible] -- cycle, weery voting her problems with registration of people voting, missing ballots, the whole gamut. about recording all this stuff in a big black box. i do not trust it. a realm of possibility there for these guys to manipulate these things. what would help regain that trust? i would be happy with a ballot box that you look at and you keep it forever. guest: we have problems with the voting process. we vote on so many things. the rest of the world does use paper ballots.

we go a long way to professionalizing our voting system by requiring more , but i agree that i do not think the idea of going with a paper audit trail is safe, and a lot of people have been trying to reverse that trend for pure electronic voting without it he would trail for some time and i think they are having success. our guest previously served as the vice president director of the national at theh initiative american enterprise institute and also worked at the manhattan institute. we cannot go through it all, but what is the just of your book? you have four factions fighting over the same issues for 40 years and you have people who said the republican party should be the vehicle for the conservative movement and they divided

socially conservative and fiscally conservative. people said no, we should be the pre-conservative republican party. and all the elections, nominations were decided by the people in between, the biggest group, who said they were somewhat conservative. donald trump appended that by bringing millions into the party but the basic thrust still stands. the reason donald trump is the statee is because in after state, he won the somewhat conservative vote overwhelmingly. , twoery conservatives factions on the right, where the majority of the republican party, then people would have picked ted cruz as the nominee. conservatives, people not bound by ideological conservatives, people who might like john boehner over ted cruz, overwhelmingly chose donald trump in state after state and that is why he is the nominee.

somewhat conservative is the heart of the republican party and republicans need to understand that if they want to figure out how to turn the party around. host: columbia, maryland, democrats line. on as ai know you are very conservative representative of the republican party. what is your thought behind donald trump's multiple marriages versus hillary clinton for giving her husband for his --ustry actions indiscretions and staying with him and preserving the family unit? how can you justify supporting donald trump with his immorality while mrs. clinton, who made the difficult choice of staying with her husband even after being publicly humiliated by his indiscretions? iest: as i mentioned earlier

personally am not supporting donald trump so that is not an issue for me. there are other republicans that will need to consider that. he would be interesting to see how mrs. clinton handles that. particularly since mr. trump has president'sformer behavior into the race by saying she is an enabler of him. it will be very interesting to see whether or not that comes up on the campaign trail for the debate and if she is able to turn that to her advantage precisely by saying some of the things you talked about and trying to gain a sympathetic ear by saying i made the tough decisions and i kept my family together. host: on the democrat line in california. you are next. caller: yes. i have a question. how do you compare the second amendment right to bear arms and the right for a woman to choose

what she wants to do with her body? the -- i don'tof know whether it's the constitution or not. if the law. -- it's the law. pro-life, i may be pro-life or whatever, but it's my choice. how do you say i can't do what i want to do with my body and you can say you have the right to bear arms? that's my question. guest: as a constitutional matter the right to bear arms is written in the constitution. the right to choose to have an abortion is not a clear constitutional right. it is something that was pronounced by the supreme court in roe versus wade as an interpretation of a more broadly stated right in the constitution. personally i believe that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her own body.

the issue is at some point during the pregnancy there is a second body. there is a human being with a separate dna strand. with all the markers of personhood. and that happens to live within a woman's body. the debate ought to be about when and where that takes place with certainty so we can say the separate person within the woman has separate right and it's within that reason that i am pro-life. i believe at some point within the pregnancy that separate person has enough right to life that they ought to be protected. oursh and hope that more of abortion discussion could focus on the fact that there are two people within one physical form until the woman gives birth and the baby is outside of her body rather than trying to pretend that it is simply one person. host: west virginia. we will hear from jeff on the independent line.

go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. first i would like to say that the lady from maryland was spot on there. our politics have become too much like a sporting event where is my team versus your team. vote these people in. they get in and it all changes. -- the then they become lobbyists takeover. pro-gun, antiabortion, big oil, pharmaceutical companies. it's not until we get rid of all that lobbyist stuff that we can truly have a government that represents the people and not outside interests pushing these politicians for their own specific agenda. i would like to have your opinion on that. thank you.

freedom of speech as something that is guaranteed in the constitution. lobbying is a form of freedom of speech. it's a different type of speech. it's people were coming to washington to present their ideas. one can argue that it's protected under the first amendment under the freedom to redress grievances. everyone who has been in washington knows there are people who cross the line on both sides whether it's the representative or the lobbyists. but most loving is above board = onhere are lobbyists on both issues -- equal sides on both issues. i think the real issue is my team versus their team. hardenedthat we have into a red team which always opposes the blue team.

almost more like a sporting than public business being done and that's part of the reason you have the trump candidacy. saying, that's the way it is supposed to be. i think it is showing that people can control their government and they can move their elected representatives in a direction that will be more conducive. it's going to take a lot of effort and probably more elections where the establishment sees the anger and faces the consequences before those have set in. host: there is a story over the last couple of days about the columnist george will saying he's leaving the republican party altogether because of trump.

what do you think about that action? guest: mr. will is an extremely thoughtful and principled man and i respect his action deeply. given his position it's the logical thing for him to do. it does not mean he has abandoned his ideals. it does not mean he little longer feels identification -- no longer feels identification formally with the republican party. there are people doing that every day. host: part of the reason he said it is because of paul ryan's support of donald trump even after the trump university case. guest: anybody who is in public office is in a very difficult position. they are accountable to primary voters. in mr. ryan's district, donald trump lost overwhelmingly to mr. cruz. most politicians don't have that. certainly the people in mr. ryan's caucus overwhelmingly represent areas where in some

cases up to 75% of the voters supported mr. trump. unless and until there is a movement to start an entirely new party, those people are going to be electorally conflicted and it's understandable that they would choose discretion as the better part of valor and mr. ryan has clearly decided it is better to lead a caucus that has those issues than to separate himself. aboutwhat do you think the libertarian candidate, gary johnson? is he going to spoil it for somebody? guest: he and jill stein both. one of the things that is quite clear is there's a very large segment of americans who would prefer neither of these candidates. if each of these candidates were running without the other they would be the most unpopular candidate ever to be nominated by a major party. every time that uphold asks the question -- a poll asks a

question that includes gary johnson and jill stein, those votes go between 10% and 20% before either of those people have received any publicity. it could be that the protest vote decides the election because which candidate's nominal supporters are most obstinate in refusing to vote for them. tim is next in wisconsin on the independent line. go ahead. caller: yes. how are you doing today, pedro? i don't know where to start really. if you read the constitution and the bill of rights, and you see how the pilgrims came over to get freedom for religion, you look at now what's happening with this country especially in the last 100 years or so with the progressive movement, and i would just encourage anyone to read any books about the progressive movement.

and how in the country first byck people weren't humans the supreme court so obviously the supreme court is not a perfect entity. they have made the mistakes before -- big mistakes before. human back in world war ii. now young babies in the womb aren't human. if you look back through the progressive movement that is recently who has been responsible and who has advanced these, i would say outside the constitution principles. and today or yesterday you had hillary clinton, i mean this wasn't even really about abortion. just, youe, you had, know, these women come in and get the same type of medical care anyone else would get for an app and deck me or something

-- appendectomy or something. these five justices somehow made up another, saw another right in the constitution that didn't exist for people to -- this is just becoming a real horse. farce.e -- guest: i think it is clear the intellectuals today have a very different view of constitutional power and judicial power and legislative power than conservatives and probably than many of the founders did. they definitely believe in a much stronger national government. a much more expensive view of what a right -- expansive view of what a right is. particularly when it comes to matters of sex and personal behavior. ultimately that is a political choice. these beliefs have been ratified

through numerous elections of people who espouse them to the presidency, congress, and the senate. if people want to have a constitution that is more restrictive, more in line of what we had in the 19th century of federal power and its relationship between the constitution and personal behavior and sexual behavior, they need to show that by coming up and electing people at the ballot box support those views. the progressive movement did not happen in a vacuum. in a political context where many people over many decades have supported that. even at times it has been a minority supported by a court. ben: then is up next -- is up next on the independent line. good morning. caller: how are you doing, cesir?

the problem is people are not making decisions when it comes to shaping their anymore. -- shaping their foreign policy anymore. with a corrupt system you are going to have a bad outcome. nowthe united states right in participating in so much corruption and ungodliness, people really don't have common sense. we need wisemen in this day and time to make decisions for the people. wise men that's connected with the understanding of god as far as the instruction of god and how we as a people can become less. -- blessed. this country is really headed toward doom and destruction and that's just a fact. people stand up to these people that corrupt. this political system is corrupt and it's only going to get worse you know, with the abortion. you know, it's just common sense. when the seed is planted, life starts.

with the murder of children, with the homosexuality, it's not a natural lifestyle. common sense tells you it's not a natural lifestyle. it's an abomination. i don't know where people's minds are. people are actually insane on this planet and it's going to lead to a destructive result. that's the bottom line. has expressed what many americans feel. many americans feel the opposite. that's why you have the deep and emotional debates we have over westerns like same-sex marriage -- questions like same-sex marriage and abortion. people have deeply held views of morality and how that intersects with personal liberty and the american promise and that's why social issues are perhaps our most divisive and emotional in the political sphere. come fromuse you have

a place with ethics in its title, i want to get your thoughts on yesterday's supreme court decision on governor mcdonnell's decision. what does it mean for corruption in the political world? guest: on the one hand i can understand why it was a unanimous decision. one of the few unanimous decisions we have on very non-technical cases. the question was the definition of an act. and is setting up meetings and act. that if iteld was was an accident virtually anything that a public official did other than listen to somebody could be considered corruption if they received any sort of benefit including a campaign contribution. i think that's likely correct. on the other hand i would hope there would be some rule of reason. that a meeting arranged by somebody for a constituent is different than a meeting arranged by somebody who has power over the person who nominally makes the decision but they know that if they make the wrong decision that there will become to quit is for them -- consequences for them.

betweeneople delineate the formality of the act and the reality of the act. so you won't have people who can basically act in a corrupt manner and hide behind a phony fiction that somebody else has formal decision-making authority anybody who knows the way things work that that was not an independent decision. chris from new york.ost: republican line. you are on the henry olsen. go ahead. caller: i have two comments. one on trump and the other one on his position on the middle east and our allies. i just want to say that i am excited that trump is running. because it gives not only me but most americans fade that this th that thisai

country may be great again. he is the kind of person who draws massive crowds because people are really sick and tired of this country being run by corrupt politicians. i think he will make this country great again. person thatnd of has massive potential. we won't continue down this path of destruction. he will stop it. i just want to say that he said about the issue of security, i believe that looking at the orlando shooting that happened to be the worst gun assault in our country, he was right. and donald trump is still right. all of the fanatics come from a country in mideast called saudi arabia with their out ecology and their hate -- ideology and their hate.

that aggression in the u.s. this terrorism which has made our country a lot less secure these days basically has its origins from saudi arabia. because they apparently preach a man-made strain of islam which clusionistped by extrusion and ultra radical -- guest: certainly chris speaks for millions of americans. there are millions of americans who believe in donald trump's ability to make america great again. what's notable to me is when you look at donald trump's rise, it's when he issues the idea of a ban on muslim immigration that he jumps from 25% support in the national polls to 35%. that's according to the exit polls. support for that, which he is now beginning to back away from

-- the exit poll suggests that issue more than any other is why he went from being a contender to a champion. islam,spect to wahhabi that is definitely a stricter more puritanical variant of his long. islam. it's also very difficult to cast with a broad brush and say that saudi activity is the reason we have people go off the deep end and suddenly become domestic terrorists. host: donald trump speaks that 2:30 this afternoon from pennsylvania. you can see that live on see c-span. the last call is from jerry from texas on the republican line. calling to respond to the lady from california comparing the second amendment and a woman's right to abortion.

i have a 2015 almanac that lists the deaths -- about one third of them are homicides. posted two thirds are suicide -- close to two thirds are suicides. choice.he a woman's abortion right, they have a choice. they can choose not to have protected sex and get pregnant and with that right also goes the right to get an std. hiv. they have the right to do with thei what they want to their body. -- unprotected sex both: i think people on sides of the abortion question

want to protect a woman's health. i think the question of choice is central to this debate. question as to what and where the rights of choice impact another person. that ayou believe fertilized ovum in the womb is a belief is atrsonal some point it does become a person with the right to life, then that leaves you in one direction. and if you don't, you don't. that is where the argument constitutionally thought to be taking place. host: henry olsen of the ethics in public po announcer: at 8:00, the house benghazi committee releases a

new report. propose changes to medicare payments. and on c-span3, remarks from eric fanning on the state of the u.s. army and current challenges facing the military branch. also tonight, c-span's "road to the white house" continues with donald trump on economic policy and trade. he spoke today with reporters in pennsylvania. 915 -- ate that on 9:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. we want toorning, open the conversation on the benghazi report to you with your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets . we will move the conversation to immigration policy, including the recent supreme court

decision on president obama's immigration order, and more on our recent visit to texas moment spoke with customs officials on immigration. we will also look at the immigration debate surrounding the brexit campaign and the united kingdom. the sure to watch -- >> earlier today, several house democrat members discussed the sit in over gun legislation. they are planning additional citizens in their house recess. speaking first was representative steve israel of new york. this is happened our. -- half an hour. good afternoon. we are here to remind the

american people that we do not have a bill. fly, no do not have a by bill. despite the fact that the overwhelming majority want us to take this vote. despite that, the republicans have walked away from the safety and security of the american people. they turned off the microphones, turned off the cameras. today we are in washington making the point that the american people deserve a break and a vote. they will be holding their own day of action. to useoing to continue every tool that we have or in town meetings and set in.

to make this point that we deserve a vote. with that i was healed. >> since the syrian, -- sit in, 177 americans have died. colleaguesublican are doing is twiddling their thumbs. were talking me to me in .he streets this is what people are thinking about. show that 90% of americans want a vote.

it is absolutely illogical to say that they can go on and by any gun they want. you're going to keep the pressure up. the american people are demanding reforms. therepublicans may shut off mike's and the lights. they cannot shut up the american people. we are not going to stop until we get one. a very terrible thing. congress cannot continue to passingits thumbs while millions of things. we do not want any more violence. are going to keep demanding this and telling the republicans that you cannot hide.

>> i am really concerned and upset that i keep hearing certain individuals hang that we are going to make america great again. let me say this we are the best country in the world. we have more freedoms and liberties than any country. whenever biggest problems is the being killed by semi automatic weapons. americans want us to do something about that. that is why we're here today. votee're asking for is one to be debated like we do every day. this is what the american people sent us here for. and i'm asking the speaker to get with our leaders and come together and find a way to resolve this very serious

problem that the american people want us to do. they want us to solve the problem of innocent people getting gunned down with automatic weapons. let me say this, too. we're not talking about taking away second amendment rights. that's not what the issue is about. we're talking about semiautomatic weapons. in this case, if the individual who might be sick or a terrorist or whatever, if that individual did not have a semiautomatic weapon, sure, he might or she might have killed a couple people but not 49 people. also, what is wrong with a background check? this is what we need to do to make sure that we keep our families and our country and our communities safe. so let's come together, republicans, democrats, and let's do this for the united states of america because we are the greatest country in the world. mr. israel: ms. matsui. ms. matsui: thank you very much for being here.

last week we had a sit-in led by the wonderful john lewis and we had a sit-in because we're standing up for the american people against the intrang jens of the republican majority. we're asking for a vote, a simple vote. and these are not votes that are partisan. these are nonpartisan votes, very bipartisan. in fact, no fly, no buy, expanded background checks. i don't know about you but i hear every single day about violence, not only mass killings but also the devastating violence that happens every single day in our communities. sometimes you don't hear about it in our communities because there may be one violence, one person killed throughout the neighborhood instead of maybe three or four with mass violence. this impacts everyone, and in particular, the young people of our country. i still think about newtown and what happened there and those wonderful, lovely kids who went to school that morning with

their backpacks expecting to come back home to their lovely parents and the parents who today do not have those wonderful people, those young people. i think about every time people go to church and expect to be able to be there in reverence. and i think about it when young people go to the movies. you know, my grandson just went to the movies this last weekend and i got to tell you, there was a little thought in my mind about, oh, my goodness. and when you think about schools, i just got a letter from a substitute school teacher who said that this is something that has to be addressed. she -- when she goes to various schools around sacramento she has to go through a protocol because now you have to think about protecting the children in the schools because of the guns. so where are we today? we are just asking for a vote. that's what we're asking for. not only for the american people but especially for all of us and the future people that we have coming up, the young people who

are our future and i want to make sure this country is safer for them and we what we need today what we need next week and we're not going to go away but we want a vote. mr. israel: gerry connolly from virginia. mr. connolly: thank you for being here. last week we spent 26 hours on the floor in a sit-in to highlight the tragedy of orlando and the need to have a vote on one simple idea. people on the terrorist watch list ought not to have access to guns. is that really so hard? and what are you afraid of denying us a vote on that? the speaker called what we did a stunt. i live across the river in fairfax county, in prince william county. nine years ago at virginia tech we had the single worst mass gun massacre in american history until orlando.

that week my community buried five young people. i'd like to introduce the speaker to the families of those young people so he can explain to them how what happened last week in highlighting the heartache and tragedy we see every day in our country is a stunt. i think even his heart might be turned if he had the opportunity to talk to the families of the victims of gun violence in america. mr. israel: al green from texas. mr. green: thank you, steve. there does come a time when you have to take a stand. we have tried regular order and we have not had any degree of success, so we have to take a stand. rosa parks took a stand by taking a seat on a bus and in so doing she ignited a spark that led to a civil rights movement that led to integration.

john lewis took a stand by marching across the he had monday pettis -- edmund pettis bridge and he took a stand and in so doing law was passed to give civil rights to those denied in this country. so we, democrats, have decided to take a stand by taking a seat on the floor of the house of representatives. it is not our first option. it is the option that we have available to us, and it's an option that now people expect us to follow through on which is why we are here today. we made a demand. we took a stand. we were not heard. we will continue to take a stand so that we may be heard. gun violence has to cease.

we should not allow people who cannot fly on planes to buy guns. no fly, no buy. this is our hue and cry. mr. israel: thank you. a final comment before we open up to questions. if speaker ryan believed for a moment that we were going to spend 26 hours on the floor of the house and then go quietly into the night, today is a sign to him, it's just not going to happen that way, mr. speaker. if he thought he can send his members home to districts, we will meet them there. and if he thinks he can bring us back next week and there will be more silence, we will meet him here and we will keep doing this until we get a vote on no fly, no buy, and enhanced background checks. we'll open up to questions. reporter: and the speaker yesterday on radio stations in wisconsin argued he wasn't going to tolerate, his word, any more of these discussions between the speaker's office and security officials about how to counter that. i know you guys are itching for a fight and some people say, mr. green cited the edmund pettis bridge and civil disobedience. are you willing to stand up for security officials this week,

get arrested, get hauled off the floor? what are you willing to do? mr. israel: let me say two things. number one, really, none of that would be necessary if speaker ryan just brought to the floor of the house these bills. we wouldn't have to be talking about violations of decorum and security. all it takes is for speaker ryan agreeing to give us a vote. republicans can vote yes on no fly, no buy, but give us a vote. and secondly, i don't think any of us enjoys violating the rules of decorum. none of us likes to do them. but there are violations going on in america and that is the violation that everybody who walks into a restaurant, a movie theater, a nightclub feels when they fear the possibility of being wounded or even killed. mr. green: you mentioned that the speaker has spoken to security. it would be judicious for the

speaker to speak to our leadership, a conversation with our leadership would not necessitate any further action. this can be resolved in an amicable fashion, but it requires people to do something that we have not done enough of and that is have collegiality, conversations. this can be negotiated. it doesn't require demonstration. negotiation is the best way out. reporter: i understand the importance of the american experience of civil disobedience, as you cited, mr. green, but some people say these were, some people said, egregious violations of house rules 4 and 5 and those types of things, regardless of what the grievance might be, shouldn't play out on the house floor. mr. israel: 49 people killed in

orlando. and they live streamed on the floor of the house because republicans cut off the cameras and the mikes. >> outrageous. mr. israel: there are degrees of outrage in the world. mr. green: i hate to continue. mr. israel: please. mr. green: let me share with you. we are not the first. our colleagues across the aisle were the first to violate house rule 4. they did so and my question would be, where was the speaker's voice when they did it? i would also add this. 177 people have died since we were here last. that is worthy of our continuing what we're doing. but let us not forget that gabby giffords, a member of the congress of the united states of america, doing her duty as a congressperson, was shot. it is only by the grace of god that she's still with us. what we did not do then we must do now. ms. matsui: may i just say this, i'm not usually the one who would sit on the house floor but it's important because quite frankly we need to do something.

we have to do something and it is, as members of congress, i think it's our duty to represent our constituents. we hear this an awful lot. what are you going to be doing? we had no recourse so we sat down, led by john lewis, who we know is our moral leader when it comes to things like this. i would do this again and quite frankly it doesn't have to happen again. i believe that we could have, as said before, a conversation here because i believe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel much the same way too. we can all win on this thing here, win for the american people, and that's why we're here. mr. connolly: i want to take premise with your question. the question is not protocol or decorum or even technical violation of the house rule.

we're elected members of congress representing people. we want a simple vote. we didn't ask for complete rewrite of public gun laws in america. we asked for one simple commonsense public safety measure and an opportunity to vote and lose or win fair and square. we wanted our voice to be heard. we didn't turn off the cameras. we didn't turn off the microphone provoking the democratic side of the aisle. you want to -- if you want to ask a question about decorum, why not put that question to the speaker? why aren't you respecting the right of members to be heard, especially when the overwhelming majority of americans agree with them on this right to vote on this issue?

mr. israel: eliot. mr. engel: this is one of the most important issues. this is a disgrace, the congress is not doing its duty. over in the other house, in the senate, they have means available to them. they have the filibuster. we don't have that here. so we need to make clear to the leadership that we demand a vote. that's all we're asking for. now, a vote could be voted down. it was voted down unfortunately in the senate, but to not have a vote i think is the epitome of arrogance. i think it's the epitome of arrogance toward the american people. forget about us. we're only representatives. we're representing our districts. it's a spit in the face to the american people, not to us, to say on this very important issue that people in america are talking about that is definitely an issue in the presidential election that the house of representatives should be denied a right to have a vote. so i would say that the

violation of the law or certainly the spirit of the law comes from the house leadership that's refusing us to have a vote. and what are they afraid of? vote up or you vote down. why can't they give us a vote? if they have the majority they can outvote us if they want to, but they won't even have a vote. so i think when we look at who's violating what, i would look no further than the house majority leadership because i think their refusal to allow us as representatives of the american people to debate this very important issue is an absolute disgrace. mr. israel: dutch, do you want to say something? dutch and then we'll take next question. mr. ruppersberger: those of us who are appropriators in a hearing said we didn't know john lewis and about four of our peers were on the floor. when i got back to my office my staff said, you better get to the floor. there's something going on about a protest and not being able to have a vote. so we all went to the floor, and i saw my members there. i at that point said, well, it's not my style to do this but on the other hand, you got to take a stand.

i'm representing my constituents and i want to make sure my constituents get the best representation we can get and give them safety and health. i thought i was going to sit down with two artificial knees and all and it wasn't easy. anyhow, when i was there and i watched every member in our caucus, almost every member talk and what they had to say was from the heart. this was not about something trying to get press and we had to take a stand. you know, in the united states senate you have a filibuster and the only alternative we had was to be able to call attention to this and the american public wants us to do this. and look at the polling. what is stopping the speaker or what advisors does he have to say not put this on the floor so we can do what we do every day? we debate and then we vote, but is it because the speaker is concerned that the american public are with us on this? does that make him look bad? i don't know. i'm not sure.

i don't know what the reasoning is, but i'm calling out to the speaker now to get with our leadership. you know, a lot of issues that we fight over the floor and why americans are really upset with this congress is that we don't sit down and talk about these issues and resolve them before we get to the situation we're in right now. so let's turn this around. let's come back. let's have what we need, put the bill on the floor, let's debate and let's do the rest of the people's business because we have a lot to do there also. mr. israel: one more. two more. ok. mr. israel: i don't know. you have to talk to the leadership. i do know we've been organizing a series of events in members' districts across the country. that's been our focus, but you'd have to direct the question specifically to the leader. ok.

reporter: a couple members in your caucus -- \[inaudible] was this a wrong move to do? mr. israel: listen, the n.r.a., through its political actions committee and the gun manufacturers raise and spend tens of millions of dollars trying to defeat members of congress who are for no fly, no buy and extended background checks. we don't appreciate the amount of money. we're going to do what we have to do until we get a vote and can pass these sensible measures. >> i am not interesting in making any money off of this. i am at it again the american people the right of safety and legislation. anything else anybody else raises is to blur the situation. we want to see sensible gun laws.

you walk up and down your districts, talk to people in both parties, they agree with us, thank us for what we are doing. no one is trying to prevent second amendment rights. no one is saying people cannot have guns. we are saying for someone to buy a semi automatic gun that can mow down 49 people without changing clips is not something the forefathers of this country ever imagined could happen. we do not want to take gun rights away. we want sensible gun control. the american people are not stupid. the only people that seem to be tone deaf is the republican leadership. reporter: -- [indiscernible] [laughter]

reporter: she said this sit-in last week heard efforts for the bipartisan bill to pass. what is your response to that? mr. engel: my response would be there is -- there was a bill. now they're going to show it. the only reason we sat is what came first, the chicken or the egg? the only reason they sat is because they have not done anything to bring the parties together. look, there are good members in both parties, good members that want to see this happen in both parties, but not allow us to have a debate and vote on it is shameful and disgraceful. >> and she had a vote. >> i would add this -- we tried regular order, subcommittee, committee, trying to get it to the floor. it is a basic premise of the

american democracy that the rights of the minority have to be respected. our rights are being disrespected. when your rights are being disrespected, you have to take action to protect the rights of those that you represent. we're not here for ourselves. we are here because there are countless american people who have voted to have us here to stand for them. finally, this -- the american people always expect us to always win, but they do expect us to always fight for what is right, and that is what we are doing. i say take the facts of truth, slanted into the tree of circumstance, and let the chips fall where they may. reporter: -- [indiscernible] mr. israel: i am not saying that. we will continue to reach into the toolbox. rights are severely limited.

if the speaker writing insists on denying this both. some will be blunt. some will be sharp. some will be blunt and share. we are putting the republicans on notice, we're not going quietly into the night. keep doing everything we can just to get a vote. speaker ryan can end the scene being my scheduling the bill for a vote. one other thing on your question, we will you speak and read that appeared senator carl senator collins may argue that sit in the efforts, but multiple moments of silence were not working. they were not passing the bill. mr. engel: i was going to say before the one thing we're not going to do is do nothing.

we're not going to fold of our tent and go home. we represent the american people and we believe we revisit the majority of the american people, and you are not going to stop these protests one way or another until we have a vote on the floor for viable gun control legislation. >> one short comment speaker -- i think the speaker has a family, wants to the right thing, but you are a leader for the united states of america first, not the democratic party or the republican party. that is what we have to come together. that is the message that hopefully the speaker will listen to to resolve this issue. the american people want this to be done. that is why we're all here to take a stand your -- and. mr. israel: stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen. >> thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> this weekend, a lot of art explorertners will moons rare books. including brigham young's copy of the book of mormon. >> he wanted to have this printed. by the soldiers. they had a falling out. anyone can print it. anti-mormonism

in america. and the origins of the animosity. not only are they a religious minority. over time they have figured in disproportionately visible ways in the debates about religion for. of the museum of paleontology. he talks about how the fossils were gathered in surrounding states. when you can hide it, the animal looks alive in the sense feeling thatthe these are bones but it brings life.

they began setting up satellite communities. weekend watch the city store saturday at noon eastern. sunday afternoon at two on american history tv. .-span city store tonight, the house benghazi committee talks about their final report on the 2012 attack in libya. then house democrats hold a reason to introduce gun legislation. donald trump gives a speech on trade in the economy. next, house in gaza committee