former u.s. ambassador to mexico, talks about immigration and trade. as always, we will take your calls, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter as well. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. a live look at the u.s. capitol. when the senate returns this week, a series of bills that would potentially ease regulations, trying to make reforms to the dodd frank bill signed by barack obama. legislation is expected to be introduced. state senate in tallahassee voted down the proposed ban on the ar-15 assault rifle. guns came up in yesterday's debate in the 18th congressional

debate in pittsburgh. we will have that only c-span network ms both parties gear up for the midterm elections, we want to find out from you if the gun debate will set how you vote in november. you can join in on the conversation. the area code in washington, d.c. of courses 202. for democrats, (202) 748-8000. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . you can also share your thoughts on twitter, we will read them which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] -- we will read them @cspanwj, four on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. president trump met with lawmakers, and this morning, headlines from the "washington post," the florida senate rejecting the band. to senate voted down a bill ban assault weapons, and those immediately pivoted to a moment

of silence for the victims of the shooting of parkland, florida, many survivors of the shooting that left 17 people dead at marjory stoneman douglas high school, blocking the statehouse and days after the attacks from lobbies. you can read the full story add washingtonpost.com. the meeting with the president and the debate over the nra and guns came up and c-span's program.rs" our guest is tom perez. here is a portion. [video clip] the whiteting at house with it the president and i bipartisan group of senators, the president has basically raised a lot of democratic proposals when it comes to gun control. seize thiscrats opportunity and make a deal with the president, or do you have doubts about whether you can trust what he says at the meeting?

perez: it is like charlie brown with a football. remarkable meeting with senator durbin and others where he appeared to say i want to help do this. we have seen the off the cuff statement about enforcement. he is not reliable. that if the problem we have here. it is a problem for the american people, for the american workers. he tells dreamers i am going to pass a clean dream act. common sense gun violence reduction members and the second amendment can coexist, and we will fight for it, but i do not have much faith with him. he met with the nra the same day, you saw him backtracking within hours. host: that is tom perez, chair of the democratic national party, and susan perez from "usa

today -- and susan from "usa today." amendment affect how you will vote in the upcoming election? (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. with reference from this story we read at the top of the program from the "washington post," the florida state senate senate voted down a ban on ar-15. --s from donna "thoughts and prayers." send us a tweet which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] @cspanwj. caller: i would never begrudge anyone a rifle for hunting or a handgun for protection, but the nra, that is a different story. they used to be a pretty respectable organization way back in the day.

time, they supported on registration, which they felt was part of the responsible gun citizenshipd a good . somehow along the way, they lost their way. in more recent years, they have become this very militants, uncompromising organization, and you have companies right and left that are cutting off business dealings with the nra. as far as i'm concerned, any money hadhat wants my better not be providing any kind indeals to the nra or members, and any politician that wants my vote had better been able to prove to me they have not accepted any money from the nra. companiesou support like delta, who will no longer support nra members? caller: absolutely.

host: thank you very much for catherine ino to iowa. i want to show you this poll from csn bestie.com. the headline is gun control seachange. a few months of course before the november elections and primaries coming up in states run a country, whether or not this particular issue will affect how you vote in this upcoming election. catherine, good morning, also on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. thatlected leaders know there is a gun problem, and the way that you can tell that is you cannot get into the senate, you cannot get into the supreme court, you cannot get into the house of representatives, you cannot get into a courthouse, you cannot get into any public holdin building where they are employed. they make sure they are protected.

it is our children that are not protected. are open game for anybody who has a weapon, and it is past time. i am a mother, i am a grandmother, i am also a great-grandmother, and i am disturbed that my elected rights overect gun the rights of our children to go to school safely. not asking fore something that we as adults cannot give them. we went to school when we could be safe. why can't our children be safe? doare not asking you to something you can't do and that you do not know how to solve it. they know that guns are the issue. the unskilled people. we have -- guns kill people. we have proven that we cannot have guns because we kill each other with them, and that is just the plain truth. it is time that our elected leaders -- i call my elected

leaders almost daily. they recognize my voice, and they know that i don't believe in this second amendment as you have any, you want. is fine.nt a gun, that but to go have an automatic weapon, to go into a school, to go into a theater, to go into a place of worship, to go to a concert and to be killed because you want your second amendment rights to own an automatic weapon is insane. host: thanks for the call. i want to show you also the front page of the "washington post," and it is available at washingtonpost.com, in the mind of an alleged school teen shooter. the age of 14, being tried as an , they said hease wanted to kill 152 as many as 200, taking his fathers truck

and then shooting up in elementary school. there's a photograph of jesse osborn just below that. boyd will beolina -- a south adult carolina boyd will be tried as an adult. us from sanjoining antonio, texas, republican line. good morning. will the gun debate affect how you vote? caller: it already has. i am voting for my second amendment. whoever is against it does not get my vote. i am 72 years old, and if i did not have my pistol -- the only way i could defend myself is to eat somebody to death with my oxygen tank. i need protection, and there are a lot of people on my street where i live that have no way to keep themselves safe except for

their guns. i hear this automatic -- automatics are already outlawed. a totally automatic gun is already outlawed. killing people is already against the law. these in same people are not going to obey the law, and if you take away the guns, like these other idiots, they will jump in a car and run over somebody, they will make a bomb, they will set something on fire. if you are going to be a destroyer, you are going to be a destroyer. at least if i am around, maybe i can take a shot and stop them. if my son is around, he can take a shot and stop them. mike demanded here in texas just about like -- like the man did here in texas about 30 miles from san antonio, he heard the shots, he took his gun, he ran, and he stopped them. host: banality, do you fear for your life and your residence in san antonio? since i have lived

here, there have been men beating on my door at night trying to get injured my son, fortunately, has put some good locks on for me. what time it took the police one hour and 22 minutes to get to my house. if i had not had that gun -- i just showed it to him durin through the window. i have never shot anybody caret i'm perfectly happy for them to live, i just do not want anybody to, to my house to kill me. host: penelope, thank you. the quinnipiac had a new poll came out. u.s. support for gun control ever,-1, the highest according to a recent survey or you can read he tells that quick yet.edu -- at quinnipiac.edu. murphy, a democrat from texas, senate during.

the sandy hook shooting at december of 2012 that resulted in the death of 20 preschool, kindergarten, and first-graders and six adults. [video clip] murphy: mr. president, thank you for taking this seriously. our hearts go out to parkland, you know, having gone through this in sandy hook, and that community will never be the same. i want to bring it back to this issue of background checks them if i could, because i think there is real opportunity. pres. trump: i agree. murphy: 97% of americans want universal background checks. in states that have universal that projects, there are 35% less gun murders than in states that don't have them, yet we cannot get it done. there is nothing else like that where it works, people want it, and we cannot do it. pres. trump: you have a different president now. you went through a lot of presidents, and you could not get it done. i think people have a different attitude, too. people want to get a

it done. why itrphy: the reason has not gotten done is because the gun lobby has veto power. i wish that was not the way it is, but it is. it just is not worth it. we're not going to make a difference. so i'm glad that you sat down with the nra, but you will get 60 votes on a bill that looks mee the mansion-to compromise on background checks, mr. president, if use o you supt it. manchisay we will do a bill, it will get passed, but if the test they notions of future compromise, then it will not get past. we have a unique opportunity to get comprehensive background checks, to make sure nobody buys a gun in this country that is a criminal, that is seriously mentally ill, that is on a terrorist watch list, but mr. president, it is going to have to be you that brings the republicans to the table on this, because right now, the gun lobby will stop it in its

tracks. pres. trump: i like that responsibility, chris, i really do. i think it is time that a president steps up -- i am talking democrat and republican presidents. they have not stepped up. host: from the white house this weekend, the full event that runs one hour and five minutes has been posted online. you can check out any time at c-span.org. we welcome our listeners on sirius xm, the potus channel, c-span radio. gunre asked me about the debate but specifically whether or not it will affect how you vote in the midterm elections. if a reviewer sending tweets, including this from john smith, who says yes, the american people want to protect the constitution and the second amendment. there is this -- those who support the nra support turning our schools into bunkers instead of dealing with the actual problem. vete them out. sandy beach says yes more red meat for the gun grabbers this morning. good grief.

from edward -- i am a ransom for my son, grandfather, brother, matthew, do not change our schools into mini maximum-security facilities. our next call is on our democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we sure can't. good morning, karen. and my i am a democrat, voting in the next election will definitely be informed by the candidates' stance on the second amendment. one thing of the previous caller -- i would say a couple of things. is we arederstanding not going to take away individual handguns. i understand that assault rifles are very easy to buy. they are not outlawed. we know every single country around the world has figured this issue out, and the united is evident problem

amount ofredible people who die by gun violence, including these mass shootings. these kind of debates go on and on after every debate that we events that we have, orlando, las vegas, all of them. one thing we are lacking, for research.al my adversary is bcdc and their attempt of the federal level to do research on gun violence has been stopped because i will congress will not fund it. so research has been done by entities, but it is not enough. we need to have the hard facts to be able to have the arguments -- in mycounter opinion, counter the gun lobby and those that are fighting against increased background checks and decreasing gun access. but for the other side as well. i am sure the evidence will tell

us, based on everything i understand, that we have to move forward to increase our gun control, and hopefully people would be able to see this they mightd perhaps shift overtimes. not to add two more people like theich it feels dialogue is moving a little but after this incident and parkland, but can we please move people's opinions or just the conversation without people dying and with more evidence? i think that is a low hanging fruit. andink it is neglectful almost criminal that our will not find of real evidence and research at the federal level. host: karen, we will leave their pure stella has this tweet what are they after, gun nobodynes, insanity,

able to defend against the shooter, lack of security measures in school. robert says "no one is talking about taking away your guns." in opposition leader venezuela under house arrest during the opposition leader in his country and crumbles. can venezuela be saved? cumbre story of the -- the cover story of the "new york times" sunday magazine. " -- thekly standard need to generation gap with the hashtag. magazine on this oscars sunday, "lights. camera. power." our next call is on the republican line 30 good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate you taking my call. i am very passionate about supporting the second amendment. i do understand that there are

those on the left that want to ban guns altogether. i do support common sense gun laws. i do support that checks, increased background checks. i do support bump stocks, which are not very necessary at all. i doa target shooter, but believe that the left, the democrats, are basically come in my mind, hijacked by marxists. people do not understand about the second amendment. it is not without protection. yes, to extent, but it is to protect us against our own government getting out of control at some point in time, which is the purpose of the founding fathers grading the second amendment. i am a big supporter of the ar-15. if we were to van that, people would find another way. there are already guns out there that can create just as much damage. in new york and new jersey, it is very difficult to get high -- especially in new york -- to get

high-capacity magazines. someone can sit outside a school at 3:08 with a handful of rounds and kill many people. should we protect our schools? yes. but banning the second amendment is completely insane and wrong. if you give up your guns, you give up your freedom. host: caller, nobody is talking about banning the second amendment, are they? in washington? caller: there are those on the left that i think want to ban the second amendment. not only that but the ar-15. host: that is part of the debate , the assault rifle, but even the democrats have said they are not trying to ban the second amendment, they just want to these restrictions. it may be a subtle argument, but i am talking about the policymakers. caller: there is hidden legislation. for a couple of reasons -- i am a chemist by trade, but i am a part-time gun fan. these guns in general,

especially assault weapons of our dangerous themselves. you do not want somebody who is mentally ill playing around with them. you need to care for that weapon. it is not a toy. and airsoft is a toy. i am saying if we give over guns come if we give up the ar-15, if we try to ban assault rifles, we are going against the second amendment. -- to tell thet people on the left we need the guns to protect themselves from the government. wake up. stop watching cnn. it is a reality. host: give us a tweet, send it to us @cspanwj. gun control is not a solution. it is a part and we shall see how big a part it is." the past week, he said the following "strong leaders do not automatically agree with the

last thing that was said to them. we have the second amendment and due process of law for a reason. ditching any constitutional protections simply because the last person the president talked to today does not like sent." by the way, sasse is a member of the senate judiciary committee. here is the president. [video clip] pres. trump: people get complacent. you just one thing, and now you're happy and complacent. don't be complacent, because if they get in, they will repeal your tax cuts, they will put judges and that you do not believe, they will take away your second amendment, which we will never allow to happen. [cheers and applause]

crowd: donald trump! donald trump! pres. trump: remember that. thank you. thoseill take away massive tax cuts, and they will take away your second amendment. a the way, if you only had choice of one, what would you rather have, the second amendment or the tax cuts? go ahead? second amendment? tax cuts? second amendment. i am going to leave it at the second amendment. i do not want to get into that battle. host: that was the president at the cpac conference. that is on our website at c-span.org. donna has this tweet -- "weapons of war do not belong in the street, period." to seth next from virginia

on our independent line. caller: good morning. i agree with the last caller for the most part. our rights shall not be infringed. the knee-jerk to pass more laws -- i think the failure of the existingcement in the laws in place and them acting in florida is a major player. that needs to be reiterated. another thing is the incentives from the federal government to be schools not to act on the crime, the behavior of the students getting in trouble. money from the federal government not to act. the third thing, the type of drugs these people are on. i am sure these kids are on something. something, and one of the side effects, what are the side effects of these drugs? that is it. host: thank you for the call. we will go to roger next from

wake forest, north carolina. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: yes, while the united states assists in the bombing of children in syria and other countries, and while the united states is going to deport children back to countries they barely know, and while our airrnment is poisoning the and water that our children are going to be using, we are concentrating on ar-15's. if my representatives think they're going to be able to play around and hold up the object, i will let them know they will not be representing me anymore. taken all of the issues care of, not the shallow breathing, sean hannity comments that just make crowd feel every time our president -- who the rest of the world has gone whiskey tango foxtrot about -- makes them yell and scream and

where you little red hats. host: thank you. steve says "age restrictions on the buyer will not make a difference. in sandy hook, his mother bought the gun that he used." share the conversation on her facebook page, facebook.com/cspan. haley says "maybe not midterms, but because kids who are calling for gun control are smart and organize, and these younger, more liberal voters will outnumber bloomers soon. the gop's days are numbered." justin says "water c-span asked the most controversial questions? epidemics of shootings is going to have no bearing on the upcoming elections, "we needr." steve said murder control. it is murder. you all get a little too wrapped up in the how of it -- it is murder. whether i should you, stab you, strangle you, dad is dead.

is it the number that gets you? apparently, that's not it mary says "if they discuss actually physically securing the schools nationally instead of making laws that only affect law-abiding gun owners, maybe he." caller: we have two problems that are closely related. number one, we do not have a space to put people for treatment. ao, we do not have place to put people for long-term drug treatment. they are so intertwined, it is unbelievable. and it is not on the nra, it is on the aclu. you don't think somebody who is a psychopath cannot play nice for three days while they are getting an evaluation and then they are released on the streets again? drugs don't fix broken brains. confinement, security, and

keeping a watch on them in a place like a sanitarium, silent, or whatever. abysmal have an abyss track record of what the asylum's used to be, hopefully welearned our lesson, but need that back. people who do not have insurance for their children or insurance period don't have a place to be, and they are roaming the streets. we need to bring back places, because we did not have this problem when sanitarium's existence. host: thank you for the call. journal, aughkeepsie new poll was released, in the wake of the high school shooting in parkland, florida, 71% of the american say gun laws should be more strict, including 58% of gun owners, according to the whole. 93% of democrats and 53% of republicans belong to that group, and a majority of president donald trump supporter

stricter gun laws. youress, you should repeal gun free zones in the halls and on the floor of congress. this from stephen "the word "gone" is not in the constitution. to single shot muskets, not 30-round clip killing machines." .end us a tweet @cspanwj our next call is on the line for independents. good morning. hello. i want to inform everybody that the background check laws are all illegal. it's whatever the crooked politician wants to call you. section nine, congress passed the retainer.

other ones are extremely dangerous. they can take your gun rights from you because you're annexed can't, they can take your licenses because you are next conjured they're both just individual rights. these are extremely dangerous. thank you. host: joe, thank you very much for the call. this tweet says "the democrats are not going to take away guns or your tax cut, but trump may let the russians do it." back to our facebook page, bunny says "if we are going to grow some day and become a civilized nation, common sense gun measures will be a topic for candidates." neal says "it needs to. to behould start one-issue voters -- our version of profile, family values, etc.

crazy that the alleged pro-life party values guns over people. cope " your comments on her facebook page at facebook.com/cspan. from michiganis on the democrats line. the sunday morning. caller: take you for having me. i think the congress and the senate and maybe everybody should see what they do down there. maybe that will change their minds. host: mike, your next from akron, ohio. good morning. independent line. caller: good morning. the second amendment basically has two parts. the first half, we cannot even agree what it means, and the second half is the last nine wards "a right to bear arms shall not be infringed," i think we should change it to "abolish." so no right is absolute. you cannot even cross the street

unless you look both ways first. it may not be a law, but common sense says prior to crossing the street, you have to look both ways first. as far as the nra is concerned, i would like c-span to do a special on the history of the nra, 1871, the general for the union army, just five years before that or six years, he was part of the civil war. he probably saw thousands of men die. they lost a lot more soldiers from even know the union won the war. -- even though the union won the war, they lost a lot more soldiers could it is not about gun safety -- it is about gun rights. promote an organization that would promote a civil war. if you saw your federal soldiers die by the thousands, why would you want another civil war?

is nothing special about be nra. it is all about gun safety, not about gun rights. host: mike, thank you for your we should point out that it has been years that we have been trying to get when lapierre, the head of the in, the executive director, we have an open invitation. quite friendly, it has been difficult to reach them, and we have had no response to getting them here on the program, but we would love to have them here to take calls and talk about the second amendment, so thank you. if anyone from the nra is listening, open invitation. we would love to have you any time. why are republicans afraid of universal background checks for gun purchases? what do they have to hide? this from jim -- "what is the point in asking if gun control laws should be more strict? it is already against the law to kill. ."ch nonsense

caller: good morning, steve, how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: will school security affect your decision? i mean, you just answered your own question to a certain degree. help demonize and propagate the demonization of an inanimate object, and you wonder why the nra will not come on your show. [laughs] host: but might, let me take your point, and you can take it the other way, you can say if they are going to control guns, because i support the second amendment, so there is no hidden message in the question. i just want to be clear about that. caller: i am not sure i understood your statement. host: the other side of the argument could be if you are going to control my guns, that will affect the way i am going to vote because i support the second amendment, and i do not want any restrictions on guns. so you can take it anyway. caller: well, yeah.

but again, is this issue truly back, whichwe step is almost impossible anymore, it manyy is, you know, how people -- the car analogy is old, and a lot of people jump all over it, but we do not demonize, you know, when somebody gets killed by a drunk driver, we address the drinking problem, the drunk, the alcoholism behind it. same thing with the opioid epidemic, ok. demonize the inanimate object that is the tool being used by someone who is either addicted to a drug or addicted .o alcohol and then in the throes of that addiction, being possessed by that particular whatever -- i am getting way off where i wanted but we have drunk driving classes in school. is not rallies outside of gm, chrysler, ford, bmw, and porsche to restrict the

horsepower of engines. again -- but whatever. i will get back to will it affect my vote -- you bet it will. i do believe, like others have said, that there is an agenda at work, and it is not about school safety, it is not about protecting the kids. there are ways to do this, ok. airports, guns in banks, guns in museums, all our politicians, celebrities, protected byare security, metal detectors, concerts, rock stars, everybody, they all have security around the. would this cost money? of course it would. what do we have come a 90,000 plus individual schools in this country? but again, we keep coming back to guns, cons, guns. a short, hop,t is skip, and a jump from a semiautomatic rifle, ok, too semiautomatic distal spirit

-- pistols.mi it is the semiautomatic pistols that are causing issues in chicago. like me areeople drawing a hard line in the sand saying no more. go, youere you basically answered the question we are asking. will it affect how you vote in the midterm elections? caller: it will, yeah. the open to a candidate on the left or right, if they want to talk about securing schools, which it appears president trump is willing to talk about, but it is always about the guns from the democrats. that leaves me only one team to play on or to join. i am going to leave you there because i want to move on, but quick final point, others are waiting, but thank you for joining in on the conversation. caller: thank you, steve. have a great day. host: house democrats leader nancy pelosi this past week on the gun debate. here is what she had to say.

[video clip] pelosi: what we did do is to pass our mental health parity legislation. it is not just talking about the issue. we have to do so much more. republican members came to me, and i do not name the names -- they are not in the congress now -- but they said we could never get a bill, a hearing from our only worship over these past leadershipom our own over these past years on mental health. we had a hearing, we did pass the law, it was part of the affordable care act, which now they are trying to unravel. so that was one of the fundamentals of how do we , withingun violence mental health. the important, and

representative of california mentioned this is part of what they are on doing with some other legislation now. something where we have to have public demand, because we need the majority to get it done, apparently. i wish that were the case. i have said over and over -- i would rather pass gun safety legislation than reelection because people die from this. is a priority for me and one i have always had. now that i'm a mother and a grandmother and seeing these children at risk in a place they isuld feel very safe an just unthinkable, something that should never happen in our country. host: that was the house democrats leader nancy pelosi jernigan, no gun legislation on the house or senate floor. we mentioned it because the promising to move on

bills, but lawmakers focusing on other agenda items. we are asking you whether or not it will affect agenda items. the gridiron club dinner that took place last night of the results until in washington, d.c. madeleine albright, the former secretary of state, who was in attendance. jared kushnerd and first daughter of ivanka trump along with the attorney general jeff sessions, who was in attendance. congressman ed markey. it was essentially a who's who. there is a ivanka trump and jared kushner, who has been under intense scrutiny. it is a white tie event. it is close to cameras, despite our repeated attempts to get a camera into the events. it is full of reporters. congressman ed markey also there and commerce secretary wilbur ross in attendance. the daily beast has the headline "trump jokes that melania might leave him at the gridiron

dinner." this is what the story looks like a dailybeast.com. it reads as follows -- "president trump excuses his late arrival by announcing that jared kushner could not get through security. he said jeff sessions was invited to the event, but he "recused himself." he combined an attack on cnn with a shot of his former chief advisor saying it has been a very tough year for cnn. they have lost a tremendous amount of credibility this year, and your best reporter, steve more than the titanic. boy, did he leak. so many people have been leaving the white house, according to people in the room, that it has been invigorating. i like chaos. who will be next to leave? melania?"er or

again, the full essay is available at the dailyb east.com. todd is calling from wisconsin. good morning. caller: i am with the second amendment, but i do believe they should go through -- you should have a drivers license some asian have a gun owners license. from 18 to 21, you take a six-week course, and that way teacher can do a background check, welfare check, approve their mental stability. there are so many kids growing up that do not have a family or even a family grouping where they learned gun protection, gun .afety where they could go through the line with everybody. they have a gun owner license, that with a good expand it, or the ar-15. if you want a multiple shotgun, you have to take this class, get the license to sell or trade guns -- at any age. everybodyould control

to be able to get whatever they wanted to get, and then you would also have them providing how, they would know about much ammo people are buying, if they had something that popped hey, that guy just bought a thousand rounds. why? take a check is gun license, the what his family status is, if there are any issues in his multiple different styles of illness. host: thanks for the call. one more thing between the president and senator pat toomey, republican of pennsylvania coming as been opposed to restrictions from the second amendment. this from the white house. [video clip] pres. trump: if i could ask joe and pat, in your bill, what do you do about the 18 to 21? toomey: we did not change

that. pres. trump: are you going to leave that? at 21.n buy a handgun i am just going to have to say it. buy -- i mean, think of it, you can buy a handgun, you cannot buy one, you have to wait until you're 21, but you can buy the kind of weapon used in the school shooting at 18. i think it is something you have to think about. i tell you what, i am going to give a lot of consideration, and i'm bringing it up. a life people do not want to bring it up because they are afraid to bring up. by a handgun at 18, but you can buy the gun used in this horrible shooting at&t are you are going to decide your the people in this room pretty much are going to decide. but i would be very serious. i can say the nra is opposed to it, and i am a fan of the nra. no bigger fan.

these are great patriots. they love our country. but that does not mean we have to agree on everything. it does not make sense that i have to wait until i am 21 to get a handgun, but i can get this weapon 18. i don't know. so i was just curious to what you did in your bill. i think you are afraid of the nra. sen. toomey: that never came up -- pres. trump: it is an issue right now. sen. toomey: you are right. pres. trump: a lot of people are afraid of that issue, raising the age of that weapon to 21. frankly, the vast majority of 18, 19, and 20-year-olds in pennsylvania who have a rifle or a shotgun, they are not a threat to anyone. they are law-abiding citizens. they have that because they want to use it for hunting or target shooting. to deny them their second amendment rights are not going to make anybody safer. that is my reservation. pres. trump: i understand that.

no, i understand that. i think it is a position, but i think if we are going to use you as a base, the two of you, i think you will have to iron that out. i will ask that question almost more than any other question -- are you going to 21 or not? host: the president and senator pat toomey at the white house this past wednesday, and again, the gun debate as he met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers. our question on this sunday morning, and to those of you listening on either c-span radio or serious xm, the potus channel 124, whether or not the gun issue will determine which way you vote in the midterm election . from ted cruz -- "our elections are about gun legislation. i choose to defend texans' rights to keep and bear arms. #nra." "why are republicans afraid of

universal baccarat checks for gun purchases? what do they have to hide? " -- whattweet from jim is the point in asking if gun control laws should be more strict? it is already against the law to kill. such nonsense." "how about for starters, we don't force teachers and school workers to be armed, but we don't forbid them from being, either." john? caller: about the second amendment, we need to bring it into the 21st century. we need to amend the amendment to make it more modern. we had some that shot muskets. now in the second, i can get a shotgun or a handgun that is in no way an assault weapon. we should put that in the second amendment.

we should have to clarify other peopleecause say different. host: all right, john, thanks for the call from massachusetts. brian mast from florida saying the following to the "new york "no firearms are evil, guns are built to seville the toent of the users, -- built fulfill the intent of their users, good or bad. but we have seen the rifle of choice for many mass shooters is the ar-15. the second amendment is unimpeachable. it guarantees the right of citizens to defend themselves, however, that is not guarantee that every civilian can there arms." all lenny is joining us from salem, massachusetts on the independent line. good morning. our lawmakers should

start to position themselves to make a privilege, not a right. we need to register them every couple of years, why not the same with guns? a weapon of war -- it is ludicrous. it is a money thing, really, with the legislators. they are accepting the money. thanks for the call. host: ok, thanks for the call here we go to mark joining us next from lady lake, florida, republican line. how far are you from parkland, florida, by the way? caller: good morning, steve. good morning, everybody. i am visiting here. i am really from richland, virginia, but i just want to three sentences from the front page of the tuesday, december 2, 1997 "new york times ." "a 14-year-old boy fired on

fellow high school students at a prayer meeting in west paducah, kentucky yesterday. three girls were killed, and five other students were wounded before he was restrained. afterward, a young woman screamed as she viewed the scene of the shootings." thank you. have a good day. host: mary, your next. good morning from pennsylvania. caller: i agree with president trump. the schools and also protect the second amendment. sorry.o ahead, i am caller: they are not strict enough on these kids. -- the sameap everywhere. host: mary, you are breaking up. thank you for the call. wtae hosting a debate in there last night.

it includes conor lamb, the democratic candidate, and rick saccone, the republican candidate. from a to fill a seat congressman who stepped down. this is the 18th congressional district. the full debate airing tonight at 6:30 p.m. eastern time here on c-span, also on c-span radio. among the issues -- guns and trade, including the headlines that the president is about to embark on a trade war as he place terrorists on steel and aluminum. here is part of the exchange yesterday. [video clip] >> i do agree we have to take it to a level playing field. our steelworkers have worked for a long time to for too long, china has been making cheap steel and flooding the market with iterator it is not fair, and it is not i actually think this is long overdue. how this plays out. it is not clear who it will fall to. i would follow our president for

the steelworkers jersy said we should focus on china more so than our friends currently the important thing to me here is the steelworkers. for theto stick up t steelworkers, and to do that, we need to use the steel or use it to build a registered to get started on that right away. gridlock,en a lot of even though everybody seems to agree we need infrastructure. cc representative sai one. mr. saccone: unfortunately, many of our competitors around the world have slated the playing field, and i think president trump is trying to even that scale back out. i have always supported the steel industry, and my purpose is to protect jobs in western pennsylvania. i think it is very important what he is doing. i think this is the first volley that president trump put out there. i am sure there will be more negotiations, but we should wait and see.

host: from yesterday's debate that took place courtesy of wtae, the abc affiliate in pittsburgh. they have granted us permission to air it and also posted on a website. it is airing at 6:30 p.m. eastern time. the trade debate is in the headlines this evening, first in the "new york times," and frumpy ," trumps tradet war heats up with allies as the president takes on the reprisal threat. also, george well talking about trade and politics in the election of the visiting 18th district. george will in the "washington post" and syndicated nationwide. will gun control affect how you vote in the midterm elections? donna is calling from las vegas. caller: good morning, steve. i am so glad i called you this morning.

i am for the second amendment. i really am for it, you know? what happened recently in that i livethe fact vegas, i had to change my thought process. i really had to change it. the second amendment -- the bottom line -- a gun is power. a gun is the ultimate power. now that we have established that a gun is the ultimate power that an individual can have, all and we askede go this very important question.

with power comes maturity. and we know that the young man that shot up the high school, he was young, he was unstable, he had power. but he did not have maturity. we talk about mental health, but there are other aspects that you need in order to have the individualwer for an . or disastrous things will happen, like in las vegas, my beautiful city, and like that high school. i am a retired high school teacher, and i had to really, really shift gears. everyone that was on the second amendment, like , i believe it is the

ultimate power, but when you these things that happened in las vegas with that gun, he killed those people. host: thanks for the call from las vegas. a couple of comments on our facebook page. lauren says "anyone who would vote for gun control is not electable." share your comments at facebook.com/cspan. michael says "you cannot call it gun control anymore. they never have." marianne says "no new laws should be passed until laws already in place are enforced." again, facebook.com/cspan. bill is joining us from montana. good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. , am for the second amendment and my thought is, unfortunately, we are always going to have mass killing.

politicians,ed our including our judicial system, to subvert our moral compass in this nation. we allow our kids to sit in their bedrooms or basements or whatever and play with their electronic devices. they do not interact with their peers. they watch these videos about shooting people. when i was a kid, i could pick up a sears roebuck catalog and buy anything i wanted to come and they would ship it to me in the mail. we even had shooting clubs in high school. happened?t we have allowed this moral compass to degrade to the point where we are never going to turn it around. that is my comment. thank you. host: thank you, bill. michael, you get the last word from new york. will the gun debate affect how

you vote in the midterm election? caller: yes. i just want to add a couple of things. i have been watching your show. me and my wife have been pondering -- why hasn't the nra come here and said ok, let's talk about maybe a solution to this problem? when you look at it, when the kid murdered those people down there in a high school in florida, he used to an ar-15. the ar-15 was designed for the military. it was not designed to hunt or even for target practice. i talked to people in the military. this.un is not made for peers the solution -- and that gun should be redesigned where it can't do what it did in florida. if we had passed legislation on the way these guns are designed, you could still call them and ar-15. you could put a name on the is still a, and it

garbage can, but if you change the way it is designed, you are not infringing people's rights, you are eliminating the power of the gun. that lady talked about power and the mental state, that high school teacher, and i commend her. you have got to grasp the whole thing to not really prohibit this thing but to change the way it is designed maybe, and if that is not going to happen, then any to be prohibited, because you cannot have it on the street. host: michael, thank you for the call. david has this comment "they make cigarettes have warnings. sell an ar, on the box, they should have crime scene photos from sandy hook and parkland." calls on theur issue of the gun debate and its impact on the midterm elections. the debate for pennsylvania's 18th district is at 6:30 p.m. tonight, our thanks to wtae,

have a serious question. who still works in the government? who still does an actual government job? at this point, the government is like the dead will in your hometown. it is like a couple of raccoons fighting in the jcpenney. hope hicks announced that she planned to resign to pursue other opportunities. bad when aings are 29-year-old with no experience who worked directly for the president of united states says "i have to get out of this dead-end job." theresigned in the way that people on the titanic said they wanted to start seeing other boats. -- the only guy who makes me look ethnic -- lost

his top level secret security clearance and steve bannon got his first direction in years. >> trump called for more gun control but nra officials say that after a private meeting, he has backed off that position. oh, so he was alone in the room with a bunch of the gun officials and they managed to change his mind. i recently spoke out about gang violence but in a very private meeting with the bloods, i change my mind. host: our guest this week is tom perez, the chair of the image credit national committee and we have an excerpt coming up in a minute. later we talk to jonathan wetzel ren.l, and mona chai

the first real primaries of the year our next tuesday in texas. and a firestorm over the democratic campaign committee. two things. was it the right thing for them to do and number two, does this with thentention progressives in your party who have a lot of energy and less liberal elements of the party that may be concerned? was that the right thing? >> i would have done it. democrats, we did this in for genia.

they did talk about campaign issues and we did come out of their strong. so i would have done that differently. >> in illinois there is another primary with a spirited debate coming up the week after next. democratic, and a lot of women's groups are mobilizing. you are neutral in that race. but there's -- but is there a place for someone like dan lipinski? whohere are many democrats play an important role in the democratic party have a different view on that. i do think that the democratic party has that place.

at the same time, i am proud of our platform which is very clearly saying that a woman's right to choose is not simply a matter of roe v. wade. it is also a matter of empowerment. believe in that platform and at the same time i want to make sure that -- gets reelected. mid term election politics. that was tom perez, chair of the democratic national committee. that premieres on newsmakers and you can watch that anytime with the c-span mobile app. we do hope you will tune in. tzl.ing us is jonathan me thank you for being with us. we begin with the issue of

mental health. who sufferividuals from that any more of a risk for being a mass shooter? guest: thank you for having me. this is a lot of the work i do in my scholarship. and in my teaching and things like that. understand why i return to mental illness in the aftermath of shootings. we are so traumatized by the idea that somebody sane could do that. many mass shooters do have complex psychological histories. putting also against a mental health practitioners at the heart of that issue. the kind of stereotypes in the news that we hear after mass shootings, persons with often lessesses are

likely to commit violent acts towards other people. and particularly gun violence. so across the board, the rate of gun violence is 3%-4%. a lower rate than the general population. so people with mental illness are less likely to commit gun violence. fact, some studies show that they are more likely to be the victims of gun violence. the second point to keep in mind is that there is no diagnostic tool that a psychiatrist has. it isn't like when somebody comes to a psychiatrist and says they are suffering from psychiatrist cannot use the diagnosis of schizophrenia and say, you are more likely to commit a violent act. it is a symptom of mental violence -- of mental illness that you will shoot somebody else.

there is relatively little they can do. hospitalized someone but many people who commit mass meet the don't criteria for serious mental illness that winds up putting someone in the hospital. so in that regard, the people who commit mass shootings are not the kind of people who we commit to a mental hospital. so even though it is an important part of the conversation, it does have to be one of many factors. tore is no predictive value say that somebody will go on and commit a mass shooting. host: there is the story in the washington post of another who isual, 14 years old accused of opening fire on a south carolina school in 2015 and he killed a six-year-old that he detailed his motives in dozens of online messages.

he said he is a research other school shooters and was determined to kill 50 or 60 to take his father's truck to become the most notorious mass shooter in history. my question, is this a young male problem? guest: people who talk about this talk about toxic masculinity. it is a term that gets thrown down a lot. there does seem to be demographic similarities with the people who commit these mass shootings. and certainly when you start to think about the characteristics ,f something like a grieved isolated gun owning white male, factors like that. so we can start to paint pictures of people who have committed these mass shootings that do seem to be consistent and certainly, unavoidable that

a lot of the shooters wind up being men. although not just young men. the problem we do get into is that there is nothing predictive about that story. we learn this in retrospect. so there is nothing on the front end as a mental health pack dish and are, to say that anybody who has committed a mass shooting will jump out from the armed -- from the other hundreds of thousands of people who across the year beat that criteria. there are plenty of young, angry men around. and we don't lock up all of those people. there are things that do seem to link this. post i want to share with our audience facts with men between the ages of 13-18. 20% of young people between

these ages have a mental health condition. 20%. 11% have a mood disorder. 10% have a behavior or chronic have beennd 8% anxiety disorder. can you or any other experts predict a day, month or year and advance when a certain person may be a mass shooter? guest: the blunt answer is no. in the work that i do, i argue that mental health is an important part of this conversation but it is an important part of this conversation but not prediction. the youth meet this criteria for psychiatric illness. so you are talking about an awful lot of people. and even people who meet the criteria for what we just talked about, the profile of a mass

shooter, the angry, gun owning man, it isn't like a psychiatrist could pick out which would go on to commit a mass shooting. so in that sense there is nothing predictive about psychiatric diagnosis. so really where mental health expertise needs to jump in is to say that we can see patterns of how gun violence spreads across the country. and we want to prevent that from happening. not rejected. host: is receiving some sort of mental health or seeing a psychiatrist and that individual wants to buy a gun, will the person who was selling a gun know that that person is seeking mental health assistance? guest: it is congregated. there are two possible answers to that. if somebody is severely mentally

ill to the point where they have been hospitalized involuntarily and are deemed by a judge by a mental illness court that they need to stay in the hospital passed a particular point in very-- so we're talking severely mentally ill people. if they have been hospitalized in that way then they should be reported to the federal background check system. so there is a small sliver of the most severely mentally ill populations. probably people who aren't at risk, to be honest. shootingg a mass requires advanced planning and people who are acutely psychotic lacked the organizational capacity to do so. but there is a background check system, obviously and gun say thatre supposed to if someone has been in a through theey go

background check. but many gun sales as we know don't happen through licensed gun dealers. they happen through loopholes like gun shows. so many are not recorded in the background check system. as we saw in the texas school shooting, there are problems with reporting the entry into that check. i realize that is a long answer but it is complicated. people who have been hospitalized should be in that system. host: we are talking with jonathan metzl. author and based on the media recordings of nikolas cruz who killed 17 of his classmates and teachers, why do you think he did that?

and was questions -- if you could sit down and ask him, would you? guest:and was questions -- if yu could sit down and ask that stot of the crime and work backwards what drovefigure out somebody to commit and acts like that. what drove somebody to commit and acts like that. killing classmates and people he knew. in that regard, the honest answer that anybody in the mental health community should say is, i have no idea. i have no idea why somebody would act like that. isaiah to guess, it is probably a combination of factors, having to do with mental illness but withother factors character or logic and life stressors. no main one is access to firearms. living in a state where it is unbelievable easy for someone of his age and history to purchase a semi automatic weapon.

some of these factors have to do with his psychology and some have to do with the bigger context of gun policies that make it easy for people. if i sat down with him, that is such a hard question because nothing that any mental health person is going to ask will bring back the lives that were lost. regard, i guess i would want to know, what was different about the day he committed the crime versus the many other days when he planned it. what set him over the edge? host: we are dividing our phone lines regionally. ron joins us. good morning. caller: there are a lot of

factors of profiling bad characters in society and one of them starts with the younger guys who do criminal acts to animals and abusing siblings and other things that they do. these are character flaws that you, as a health professional and mental health professional should have diagnosed and found out off the front. you could ask him about whether he uses violent video games and about what drugs they are taking a how often they take the drugs. there are a million questions you could ask to be definitive. ist is holding people back the concept that you are saying, well, i can't do anything about this. of course you can, you can report it. but you have to reported to an ncic action and then it would be part of the legal process and

part of the legislation that is necessary to fix. the gun itself doesn't do harm. it must take someone to pull the trigger. guest: a great question. and i want to do whatever will work. i think we all want to come together to stop -- kids should be safe in school and a shouldn't be worrying about this kind of trauma. so i think we're all trying to figure out what works. and the caller makes some good points. there are levels of reporting that people can do when they go to a therapist. if they are some kind of threat towards a specific victim. the problem we see with that kind of reporting is twofold. one is that if you just think about the profile that the caller just mentioned -- somebody who is angry and is a white male and he plays video games and is hostile and threatening -- think about how

many people would fall under that umbrella. we of the population, as heard before, has a psychiatric diagnosis. so we are talking about reporting an awful lot of people. and at a certain point, there is a question about what you are going to do. you going to report everyone in that criteria? are you then surveilling more? are they denied the use of a particular firearm? do they have a temporary block on the firearm or do they go to a mental hospital. there certainly are profiles. but the profile that even the caller just mentioned is incredibly broad. we would be talking about a lot of people. so the question is, what do you do with that amount of information because psychiatrists, there are no tools that say that one person out of the thousands of people that profile are going

to go on to commit a mass shooting. so the question is what you do about that. that is really the issue. host: talking about mental health and gun violence. more statistics now. the prevalence of adult mental health bill misses, 16 point 3% are diagnosed as hispanic. 19.3 are white adults living with a mental health condition. 18.6 are black adults and asian adults are 14%. you can get more details online. from detroit, good morning. caller: good morning. said, the answer he gave about the profile, was so right. so many people could fit in that profile. and they become stigmatized if you start to report them and you

don't really know if there is going to be any type of violent behavior. so with that said, it boils back down to the guns. is, i don't understand, all of the medicine i see on tv. they advertise if you have a problem for this, urinating or holding your bladder or pain or whatever. a lot of this medicine also says that you could have suicidal tendencies and it could come up and depression. it could cause depression or suicidal tendencies. ingredients? that they are using in these drugs that gives off that? so that should be looked into. that is all i have to say.

put on your medical professional hat. guest: i appreciate that. the issue of psychiatric medication comes up a lot, particularly after mass shootings. we know from the columbine shooting on down that the columbine shooters were taking ssri antidepressants. so there was a searing national debate about the relationship between antidepressant medication and mass shootings. we run into the same problem. think about all the people who .re on the ssri medication millions of people. think about the mass shootings which are horrible and horrific but it is such a small percentage. we cannot say and pick out among the many people taking these medications who will commit a violent act. , it is annly

unbelievable minority. and as horrible as mass shootings are, they are just a small fraction of the gun deaths we have in this country. most gun death is everyday gun violence. most is among social networks with people that people know. most isn't with the ar-15, it is with a handgun. so in that regard, we have to look at things we can do to stop everyday gun violence. that might be more effective than our attempt to stop mass shootings. i do feel like that should be a focus as well. host: here is the headline from broward county -- is the florida senate saying no to a ban on assault weapons and voting yes to arming teachers?

peter joins us now from vermont. good morning. caller: good morning. ask the doctor referring back to 2005 when the fridge and a tech shooter was diagnosed in high school as being suicidal. at when he was a senior virginia tech, he did purchase a gun legally and killed 12 people. law should the hip a be revisited? guest: fantastic questions. that that thereagain are psychological histories very often with mass shooters.

certainly, there is a flow of information problem. we saw that after the texas church shootings were not all the agencies who know about somebody at risk is able to share that information. so in that regard i think the virginia tech shooting is a perfect sample of how information is not conveyed. and i'm notside -- trying to be insensitive about this point i just want to push back on some of the stereotypes that have been promoted primarily after the florida shooting is that meant all mess is just one factor in these crimes. and if we look at a bunch of other factors, treating alcohol, for example, a past history of violence. a history of partner violence. stocking kinds of behavior and access to firearms, these are high risk behaviors and trends that can help us identify a

broad picture of somebody. i think we need to tell the full story. what i'm trying to say. host: al, go ahead. you're on with dr. jonathan, go ahead. caller: i finally just heard your guests say that guns aren't committing mass shootings but committing mass shootings. i worry how your professional -- how your profession would be used to incarcerate more people like they were during the -- years. i understand that is coming back. guest: we could go on for hours about that.

if you just look at states that have reporting mandates for therapists, it isn't about political power -- which it will get to in a second. it is also a liability question. many patients -- i'm a psychiatrist and when someone comes in they say, i hate when mother and i hate my boss. .hat is what people say people are mandated to report people who are voicing a threat towards someone else. the worry is that if they go on crime, they are held liable. but there is a dramatic overreporting of people through federal and state systems in that regard. -- we want, it does

them to be surveilled. but i think it brings many more people under the mental health view. so this is something we have to decide as a society but certainly it is a risk. and as we know from history -- thatast book i wrote, in book i looked at how psychiatric diagnosis has been used not just for treatment but political purposes. i looked at how mental health diagnosis has been used to diagnose people who are deemed as a political risk. and i think that is always a risk we have to think about when we combine a social diagnosis. host: this is what the president tweeted shortly after the

shooting. "so many signs that the florida shooter was mentally disturbed. banned from school for bad behavior. classmates knew he was a big problem. must always report such instances to authorities, again and again." guest: i think that was an irresponsible tweet. it came right after the shooting before anybody knew anything about the profile of the shooter. and blaming people along the way for not catching that -- even though of course there were warning signs and think should have been done differently in this regard, the question is, first of all, the question of mental illness is one of the factors as they keep mentioning. presidenteel the

jumped the gun, a massive deflection. case file.the and there is nothing in the florida shooter's history that would have not allowed him to have a weapon. in that regard. a toxic personality, a really toxic personality and access to a firearm. so jumping the gun and calling it mental illness by a person in leadership is a deflection. said, this is somebody who came to the attention of law enforcement all along the way and of course i do think there were warning signs that were missed. but the question many to ask ourselves is, was there a point when they could have come and take in his weapons? should they have hospitalized him? someone with that profile has a character disorder, more than likely. a disorder of personality. so a person like that won't go into an asylum for the rest of

their lives. it is important as we look at warning signs to keep in mind what options did authorities have? do they have the option to take away the weapon? did they have the option to lock somebody away? and unfortunately, they didn't have much leeway in that regard. host: i want to draw your attention to a piece that is available online and the headline is "i am adam lance's ." her she discusses her own situation. let's go to darlene in the vada. good morning. caller: i work for men who is a paranoid schizophrenic. unfortunately didn't have with his family is that they never

took the time to address his mental illness. age 13 when he stabbed a child in school and was thrown his family,l and they just moved him out of state and sent them to older relatives. in histhe time he was early 40's, that is when he psychiatricd a break and nobody knew except for me that there was a loaded gun in the apartment's family had .ut him in we need to de-stigmatized mental health. so that people like this gentleman won't have families have some alcohol. by some marijuana. nobody took him seriously except

for me and i called the police to do amand it him check in. he tried to lock his neighbors in their apartments. guest: a brave caller. wonderful. there are so many things going on in that narratively hurt. and they are important things to keep in mind. we do need to invest more in the mental health system. trump who sayst this is a mental health problem that weat the budget are trying to pass and see if we are investing in the rental .ealth coverage more investment needs to go into treatment, i agree with that. there is stigma as part of that story.

and certainly, we do need to do everything we possibly can to combat stigma. and obviously, there was a level of severe mental illness that was linked to firearm ownership. when people are in states like that, i don't think they should have access to a firearm but it is important to keep in mind that one of the first things that trump did when he was a letter did was to make it easier ,or people to meet the criteria people who may not be able to keep track of their own affairs who have a guardian, one of the first things he did was to make it easier for those people to own guns. so in that sense, there is no legal pathway to take away a gun from somebody like that. i think we should invest more in the treatment of mental, is but it is important to be consistent in the kind of firearm laws that we pass.

host: in his most recent book, politics of american firearms. our conversation with dr. jonathan metzl. he teaches at vanderbilt university. and if people want to follow you on twitter? guest: yes. you canys on twitter so find me there. host: stella, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. -- hestion for the doctor said he examined the case file am i on? host: you are. theer: he said he examined case file of the shooter and i'm not going to say his name out. guest: nor will i.

caller: did he miss the life stresses that the shooter was going through? guest: i probably know as much as anyone else here. the question is, why would he do this to other people. ofknew there was a history depression. a history of psychiatric historyon and maybe a of some kind of autism or attention problems. these were all things mentioned in what was made public in the case history. and there were stressors at school. and i agree that all of those things of course contributed to why the florida shooter and it up committing this act. sense, think about

what happened in this case, as horrible as it is, on one hand, here is someone who actually did come to the attention of authorities more than most people for high-risk behavior. he was followed with law healthment and mental practitioners and everybody voice concerns in this regard. people who probably tell themselves, i wish i would have done something. i wish i would have done more. and there were clearly missed signals of trying to get in touch with law enforcement factors like that. this is aer hand, state, florida, where it is hard to do something about it in relation to the firearm, it is unbelievably high. so nothing of his history that they could have gone and taken away his firearm. so in that sense i want to state incredibly

complicated. and the other fact is that this isn't someone who was psychotic -- leadingactively up to the case, he hit this from a lot of people. even the people he was living with. his stepparents and people like that. it was seemingly as much as a surprise to anyone. i would say it is important to keep that in mind. host: there was a suicide that took place in front of the white house yesterday shortly before

noon. when about the issue of suicide and mental health and guns? guest: gun suicide is here. a huge problem. shootings itn mass is linked to gun access. and thislly hard really is the access to firearms. so many people are dying. we need to find ways to bring people together. host: jonathan metzl, his website is jonathanmetzl.com.

coming up in just a moment, a haren.sation with mona c we will talk with her about the state of the republican party is later, earl anthony wayne a current fellow at the wilson center and he will discuss the state of u.s.-mexico relations. we have a program that will air together and here is saint gregory's abbey. the story of the oklahoma monks and how their arrival impacted the native americans. check it out online at the c-span city tour. here is a preview. >> the original monks arrived in had aneans thinking they

invitation from the bishop to establish a monastery then. and when they arrived they said, what are you talking about? these for three years, two monks were looking for a home and they couldn't find the right situation where they were wanted. at the same time, the american indians people were being removed to this territory whitee of the increasing population, they didn't want them in the land where they were trying to expand. so they were being removed. chosens territory was because -- to put it bluntly -- no white people wanted this territory. so the monks that nobody wanted went to a land that nobody wanted to survey people who

nobody wanted. a match made in heaven. host: we travel to shawnee, oklahoma this weekend. book tv.n c-span part of the city tour to visit all the state capitals including our trip later this year to alaska and hawaii. joining us now is mona charen. thank you for being with us. , weave to talk about cpac chatted on the radio but you ine at national harbor maryland and you were booed by the audience. guest: i felt it was necessary to say a few simple truths about our president and things our president has done and decisions that cpac made.

it is dangerous because they are moving cpac, a prominent organization, in the direction of the nationalist, albright, european-style politics. and it was particularly outraged theirir impatient -- by invitation to marine le pen. you were asked about the me too movement and you said? guest: my fellow panelists and i agreed on many things, about where feminism has gone wrong and other issues. i felt it was hypocritical on without acknowledging the major figures in our party, including the president, who have been accused of atrocious behavior towards women. not only accused but

acknowledging it. the president has acknowledged having multiple extramarital affairs. moreover, this party with the president's leadership with roy moore, and accused child monster, picking up any kind of barriers over decent behavior in politics. and until we as republican women stand up and shout about that, we will not have any credibility when discussing the me too movement. two let show our audience. we did cover this in our integrity. this is outside of washington, d.c.. >> let's get you riled up.

i could say that the misuse of data, the $.77 on the dollar figure, a figure that is i'm going to twist this around and say that i'm disappointed by people on our side. abouting hypocrites sexual harassment and abusers in our own party and who are sitting in the white house and him brag about extramarital affairs. who brag about mistreating women. and because he happens to have "r" after his name, we look the other way. this was a party that was ready to endorse roy moore, for the , even though he was an accused child molester. we cannot claim that you stand for women and put up with that.

host: you focused on this -- i'm glad i got booed at cpac. this is the conference that serves as the launching pad for ronald reagan. guest: among many other things. cpac has a checkered history. sometimes they have been mainstream. as i said in my piece, the ways that they have been unconventional has been in things like posting conferences about whether the flat tax is the way to go or whether all taxation is best, that kind of thing. last year they invited my low mila yeahlists -- who thinks it is

to praise the alt-right and you think that is funny to be singing and have people do the nazi salute at a bar. advocate guess is an for some kind of pedophilia -- maybe some other term when it isn't quite pedophilia but older men having sex with teenage boys and he is for that and that is the kind of thing that cpac has to send it to. so part of it is just bad judgment but part of it is the triumph of the entertainment aspect of conservatism over substance. attention.t they want the outrageous. fears.nt to create we have shown they are willing to throw away standards about

what is decent in politics. lo the invitation to mia and marine le pen, a national front member in france and she thinks her grandfather, a racist anti-semite nationalist, she thinks he is a visionary and that he has been more right than wrong and so forth. asyou have heard presented -- what did he call her? a classical liberal. she is the exact opposite. host: we are talking with mona charen. a couple ofo bring issues on the table to get your reaction and then get to phone calls. this is from the new york times.

a widening of the russian it resets follows. the number of times goes on to write that investigators have asked about his role in policymaking, suggesting that the special counsel has gone beyond russian meddling to include united arab emirates influence. the focus could also prompt investigation on how money for investigation flows through the

trip europe. what we have now is radical non-transparency from this organization. and the voters except at this. when donald trump asked to reveal his tax returns, he first promised he would and he said they would be beautiful and then he gave a variety of different excuses and in the end, it didn't do it. voters just accepted that. ofnow we have a black box what goes on in the financial dealings of the ministration. there arenow whether all kinds of influences. it certainly is possible. it is not proven. but this is something that is worrisome and maybe we will learn our lesson after this about the importance of knowing quite a bit more about the finances of any person who puts himself forward or herself

forward as president. i should hasten to add that was not exactly pure as the snow in her finances either. with the confusion about the clinton foundation. host: your colleague has a piece and it is available this morning. saying "the white house is a lackhole." next to that is the reporting of ashley parker from the .ashington post "eight see a president isolated and on edge." they were at the following -- over the weekend, and air of anxiety with an uncontrollable commander-in-chief at his center. in atare the darkest days least half a year and they worry how much further trump and his administration may plunge into unrest and malaise before they start to recover.

as one official put it, we haven't bottomed out. inmp is now an official transition, at times angry and isolated. he fumes in private that just about every time he looks at the television screen, another scandal. he voices frustration that jared kircher -- that jared kushner has few on-air defenders. he revives old grudges. " guest: one way to see this up ministration is a long running reality show. where the president has a keen appreciation for trauma and for public's attention and he is a genius at changing the subject or creating a new controversy to cover up yesterday's controversy. reports likeen this before. so much chaos, how can this

continue and basically, it has continued. there was a time of calm for a few months when kelly took over. it -- but now we are returning to the mayhem. if there is this much chaos and confusion -- the president was all over the issue of gun and fired off in order for new tariffs about informing the state department. he seems to be careening around like a balloon with the air coming out. and this is all happening at a time when the economy is growing and there has been no international crisis. things are relatively calm in the market.

plungeh the doubted after the steel tariffs. but what if there is a crisis? the mayhem in this administration and white house is worrisome. host: our guest, mona charen, a journalist and author. she served as an editor assistant at the national review. and congressman jack kemp. she was a commentator and is a senior fellow at the ethics policy center with another book coming out in june. guest: yes, it is called "sex matters. how modern feminist lost touch with science, love and common sense." i had help on that one from my

dear friend and colleague. this subtitle was mine but he came up with the main title. us on theone joins democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. that mona charen has no pen, to attack marine le who i think is a great french patriot, and to hold a niece for the views of her uncle is un-american. and marine le pen is for france, for the french. i do have a question. about theow she feels forcible expulsion of 60,000 pgas pgas that israel is --

apparently there is very little opposition. any european country who would do what is forced -- criticism of the true more refugees, you wouldn't hear the end of it. -- israelis are guest: ok. first of all, get your facts right. thes condemning granddaughter, not the knees. i think you are an anti-semite because the first thing you want to talk about is israel. so i think that sort of suggest where you are coming from. marion le pen is for france, for the french.

if you talk to french people than they will tell you that her the frenchance for includes cozy relations with vladimir putin, for starters. host: let's go to patrick from baltimore. thank monaant to charen and the media as the democrats. elevatorame down the -- the escalator, i was hooked. he was my guy all the way. and i hope you guys keep it up. this is one of the main reasons he won. the unhinged way that people talk about him and every little thing that they pick apart, they everythingfamily and there is opposition.

this is so crazed. better -- there is no way you could have better publicity to get him reelected. so i really do appreciate that. keep up the good work. host: the president did announce his campaign manager as supers to run in 2020. guest: the caller may be surprised that i partially agree with him because i think the tone of media coverage has been excessive. if the president reaches for a cup with two hands, that is good for some new cycles on some networks. in atunately, we live world where we now have msnbc and cnn and others who are nonstop crump criticism and so forth. some of it is justified and some of it may be overdone. and then you have fox and breitbart and other sites on the internet where it is nonstop

adoration and praise and worship so we are becoming more and more polarized. it is difficult for people to figure out what the truth is. but it is our obligation as citizens to say, yes. i agree. msnbc is sometimes over-the-top with the descriptions of donald trump but that doesn't mean i check my rational ability to make judgments in the closet. tell, despite the fact that msnbc may be wrong sometimes but they weren't roundabout roy moore. there is too much evidence. and you then have the editor of breitbart announcing after roy moore lost that he believed the thaters but he was hoping speaking up for roy moore, that he was running interference for donald trump.

host: we welcome our listeners on the bbc parliament channel. washington journal is live. from arizona on the democrats line, good morning. guest: your estimated comment about he trump's taxes. and he did promise to show them. well,en her add-on was, hillary has some shady things to. aren't hillary's taxes for the last 30 years on record? and isn't the foundation records public? and doesn't the foundation have a very high rating with every foundation fact checker? understand, about $.90 on every dollar does go off for charity.

but that doesn't get much news. you just hear these little hillary'sout well, got this shady finance as well. i would just like an explanation of what you mean by that. guest: thank you for the comment. during the campaign and before that, i contacted the clinton foundation and try to get records of the forms they had government various agencies, that they are required to file and they were unavailable and evasive about the information. i noticed that one of the charity -- i think it was charity navigator, i cannot see it for sure, but i remember checking with one of them and they decline to rate the clinton foundation because they were not able to get the right kinds of information. .t least that year i am sticking with this. i think there was a lot of shady stuff going on with hillary and

bill,g contributions to to people involved with having business before the state department, and there is a long list of questionable things. it is a shame it came to that in 2016, that two individuals who were ethically compromised and the choices before the american people -- i hope that never happens again. host: let's go to jay from virginia, independent line. caller: hello. in 1980robably sometime that corporate profit seekers recognized that they could access the first enumerated power of the legislature to borrow money against the credit of the united states, and they began debunking more and more

precise q&a vacation platforms. to manipulate the emotion of the factions, tooth put us in debt and destroy the only reserve currency the moderate scientific world will ever experience. the republic is dying. unless we can determine and overturn buckley the vallejo and united, the united states of america will die. thank you. host: thank you for the call. which oft sure exactly those many points to pick up on. i would just say that yes, our .ebt is a serious problem i do not think it is connected to buckley. i will say though that when we pick up on the reserve currency

point -- i was having a conversation with husband about this yesterday -- one of the great strengths of this country since the world war is the perception the whole world has of us of being stable. when people have a decision to make on do they hold dollars or their own nation's currency, as my husband put it, they had chosen to hold dollars basically because they trusted our country to be stable and reliable, and eventually pay its bills, if necessary, and not to have some sort of collapse or crazy generations of policy and so forth area so our stability has been one of our -- so forth. our stability has been one of our great strengths. it is something to think about, that this president with his highly erotic governing style, and sort of shoot from the hip style of threeing and so forth,

-- tweeting and so forth maybe undermining confidence in a y's stability in general. host: next in ohio on the republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. what the majority -- when the majority of the mainstream media predicted trump would get destroyed in a landslide and they got it wrong, they ended up with egg all over their face because they fancied themselves the smartest people in the world. therefore, they decided to go to war against our president with pure hatred against his family and it has been so over-the-top. it is unbelievable. this is unprecedented in history how much hatred has been directed towards this president. thell never trust mainstream left-wing media again. they are nothing but steals for

the democratic party, the new york times, the washington post, every time they come up with these propaganda stories, it is anonymous sources. wow. whether coincidence. i think trump is doing a great job in this media will not shut up about this phony baloney russian collusion story to try and overthrow the newly elected president, when their side, barack obama, was spying on trump and that scandal is about 1000 times bigger than watergate, but the left lane -- the left-wing media will not cover it because their site got caught playing dirty. thank you. guest: i think that caller is a good representative of the president's fans out there. they interpret everything through a particular lens, and i understand. i do not share it. i do not think everything out of the main stream media is wrong

or they make it up. i think they are talking to, for the new yorkpost, times, and others are talking to real people inside the administration and they have good sources. they may spin things in a way that is negative, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. and, you know, it is to reject everything in a wholesale way that you don't get from fox news or websites or television stations you agree with. i think it is too close minded, just as i have been saying for 30 years, that the liberal side really needs to broaden their horizons and listen to conservatives and try and understand our critiques and our point of you. they have in slow to do it, but let me give a shout out to the new york times for the editorial

page. right now, it is one of the finest sources of conservative commentary in america. it is amazing to say that, but it is. they have bret stephens, barry weiss, david brooks, a lineup of really thoughtful, interesting, and deep thinkers on the right. at the new york times, i think it is something that i did not expect to see, even a few years ago. people need to get out of their own bubbles and acknowledged sometimes we have made progress. host: you mentioned the media and we saw you monday on morning joe, what have you appeared on fox news? guest: i got one call from fox news, and when i phoned back, they did not return the call. that was that. [laughter] host: since president trump has been elected, have you been on box? guest: i have not. host: let's go to ohio on the

democrat line. caller: good morning. this is an interesting call, to hear conservatives come out and start warning us about all of these things that during the campaign were brought up are , all of and democrats these things involving trump's shady business dealings, money laundering, extramarital affairs, not having his taxes, all things brought up, and now to hear conservatives come out and start by warning us with the detriments, it is kind of comical. as far as the previous caller, yeah, the media, this is nothing new. have you ever found barack obama's birth certificate? the real one? have you found proof michelle obama was born by silverback gorillas? host: we will stop there. s in a row caller

illustrative about where we are as a country. they get their news from their own ideological compatriots and do not see beyond it. the second caller says, fine, monday morning water backing and now we hear from conservatives, well, i'm psyched to tell you that some of us conservatives have said this all along, not a secret, lots of us were saying this. if you are to get out of your bubble every now and then and have a glance at a conservative website, you would know that. same with the caller who preceded him. people have got blinders on, ideological blinders. this polarization is so awful and out of proportion to our problems in the country. really. leave it or not, we have problems -- everybody has problems. we can solve them, if we were interested in it. right now, i think we are not. we are enjoying this bitter,

nasty, the tree alec sniping -- the tree alec sniping -- vitriloic sniping and i don't think any good can come from that. host: in new hampshire later this month, john kasich three do you think the president will face a primary challenge in 2020? guest: very possible. host: from yukon, oklahoma, republican line, bonnie. good morning. caller: hello. i would like to say that i will tell all these people where they can find trump's taxes. under [indiscernible] and all that stuff. trump's taxes. i used to be a democrat, no

more. thank you. host: we will go to mike in modesto, california, democrat line. good morning. caller: hello, mona. i feel like this democrats, we start thinking, do the right thing, explain things right and it will work out, and republicans are like, whatever it takes, we will do it. the nature of this election, the 3 million votes one way, squeezed in, and all of a sudden, he asked 80% of the country was on his side and he nominates all these people with 1970's and from the 1960's south, jeff sessions, the epa guy to shut that down and so on. i would like to know, can you imagine the right-wingers, especially if the situation were researched -- were reversed, and

you had the popular vote, and hillary squeezed in like that, can you imagine the love and cooperation is to mark -- cooperation? all the republicans to slammed and now that were crazy, and, it turns it could only be because it can dohem that if you this, you might lose. the only thing they care about is getting reelected. that is what they are going to do, and it is sad. god bless you all. host: thank you, from california. that: i would just say there is no denying that lots of republicans have fallen into line and they are now highly aware that he is very popular with their base, and so they are

reluctant to criticize him. that is certainly true. i would not endorse completely the caller's view that democrats are always doing what is right, moving forward, and republicans are the ones that would use any tactic. just to take one example, the last president -- the democratic president flouted the law by just issuing executive orders, even when he said himself that he was not a dictator and do not have the power to change the law unilaterally and it would require an act of congress and support 3-d said it over and over and went ahead and did it. so there is very often an attitude on both sides but i found it through the two of the democrats. tradition and and lobby damned we want to get, our

outcomes and however we can do it, we will, whether executive orders, courts, or some other methods, they just want the outcome and their less concerned about the process. we all have to be concerned about process because that is what makes us free. the rule of law is the highest priority. host: we will go to kansas. diana, good morning. republican line with mona charen. good morning, diana. caller: good morning, steve, and mona. the reason for my call is twofold. i am a republican, and i voted for president trump because i believe that our country was headed to far in the left direction, and i put that aside or i put that before i put his tweets and things of that nature that concern people, and i think

i am like a lot of people in that regard. the second ring i would like to ask is, ma'am, if you were so concerned about donald trump's sexual indiscretions, quote, unquote, i would ask you, that is that mean we should not have had president roosevelt, president and 80, president kennedy,- president president clinton? how many others are there? these things are going to happen, and as long as we live, they will continue to happen. i would like to hear your thinking, please. thank you. guest: sure. first of all, it is kind of a shocking thing to see the republican party, which claims counted when bill clinton was president and these things are important for setting

a standard about public conduct have now stood completely and say, oh, well, it is an important whether your personal integrity and character about your sexual behavior, so that is ironic. that in theo say case of the president, sadly, his behavior toward women is only one symptom of a very bad character and in other respects, as well. i have been much more worried about some things he has done as that are also signs of character. for example, the pardon of joe arpaio, the endorsement of roy moore, the comments after charlottesville. ,here is this comprehensive bullying tone, and embrace of

strongmen and authoritarian. there is this tone he takes i find anti-cynical to what we conservatives believe. we are small liberals in the sense we believe in the rule of law, tradition, the corn, decency. -- the quorum -- decorum, decency, but to see him praising dictators and strongmen around the world -- to see him saying to a son, like the president of the philippines, who was murdering where extrajudicial killings have become the norm under the sky, and praising him and saying, you are doing a great job with the drug problem. those are really worry some and sentiments and instincts that this president has, so it goes far beyond

sexual misconduct. though, i do not think sexual misconduct on the scale he has done it is a truly of matter either. it is a sign of bad character. host: i want to follow it the national review, but first, joe from new york. independent line, good morning. -- jill from new york. independent line. caller: i just wanted to mention that all of the calls that have been going on this morning have they really a very good example of the diversity that has happened and the divisive that has happened in this country. i would not say it is just because of trump. he just epitomizes the peaks we are at now. it has been happening for decades and with a lot, a lot of different politicians and also, things that have been put in place. one caller mentioned citizens

united. that was a very powerful force that has changed the political system in this country. that was a very good example of in thisgs have changed country. unfortunately, people are not looking at the historical properties set in place from when basically you had fascism under hitler and when he did certain things -- he was voted in. he was voted into office. when he was voted into office, he found somebody to blame for the way that the country was going. host: thank you. is true it did not start with trump. one reform i may have been perversely floating --

frivolously floating is that we need all comment sections on all websites and newspapers and all like that, should require people identify themselves. the and immunity of the internet -- the anonymity of the internet has created a cesspool of where abuse and vitriol spewed out because people are not identified and they can treat somebody who writes or says soething as nonhuman, and our politics, unfortunately, has began to resemble the comment section. you are right that it did not begin with trump though he has arguably made it worse because he is president. but i am sorry, you are the second caller who mentioned citizens united in this context, and i just do not think that is relevant to the degradation of

our public discourse. points, ifinal mentioned jonathan tobin of national review and he wrote -- it is almost impossible to separate donald trump, the man in social media creature, from trump the president. but conservatives must try to do so because his presidency has seen a series of major conservative victories. guest: i hear this a lot for my conservative friends and they say, aren't you happy about the deregulatory agenda, and certain moves on this sense, and other things, tax cuts? my responses, i am happy about many things this administration has done, but the question is things?he done good to have the good things that have happened. it is at what price? i think we are paying the conservative movement, the republican party, is going to pay a terrible price for embracing donald trump.

if you look at the way he and conservatism and republicans are viewed under the age of 40 by voters, it is a disaster. especially women, minorities, young people. we are suffering reputational damage that may be irreparable. host: this is the headline from daily beast -- president trump jokes that melania might be a fan at the gridiron dinner, in part because he excuses late arrival by suggesting jared kushner cannot get the security. he said he offer jeff sessions a ride to the events but the "recused himself." i would not rule out talks with kim jong-un. as far as risks, there a to talk -- as far as risks to talking to a madman, that is his concern, not mine. he said "it has been a tough year for cnn.

they have lost a tremendous amounts of credibility this year. and your best reporter, steve bannon. that guy link -- lee more than the titanic, boy, did he leak. i like chaos. it really is good. who is going to be the next to leave? steve miller or melania? he concluded by thanking them for their attendance, saying they support and sustain our democracy, adding, i mean that. the dinner was last night. your thoughts? guest: he is having a little fun, i suppose, and even kind of funny, good for him. host: mona charen, thank you. come back often. guest: thank you. host: we will take a short break for a plumbing come back, we will turn our attention to relations with mexico. earl anthony wayne served as u.s. ambassador to the country. you are watching and listening to "washington journal" the sunday morning, the fourth day of march. we are back in moment. ♪

>> tonight on c-span's "q&a," politico magazine joshua zeitz talks about his book -- "tilting the great society: inside lyndon johnson's white house." "tilting the great society: inside lyndon johnson's white house." >> within the space of 4.5 years, built all of these programs after they passed congress and signed them into law, how did they build medicare and medicaid in one year from the ground up? how did they create programs like head start or food stamps and nutritional programs for children?

and how did they do this while desegregating one third of the country with hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and fighting a war in vietnam and dissembling about it? >> "q&a" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme policyand public evidence in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome earl anthony wayne, who served as u.s. ambassador to mexico from

2011 to 2015, a career diplomat at the state department, undergrad, berkeley, harvard, extended, and currently a fellow at the woodrow wilson center, focusing on mexican issues -- mexico issues. finish this sentence, the state of u.s. relations with mexico today is what? guest: intense. a lot of hard work going on to try and find solutions to some of the differences that exist and build up the areas where there are important cooperations going on. host: part of the talks include nafta, signed into law by president bill clinton in 1994. the negotiations began under ronald reagan and george h.w. bush. what needs to be done to move nafta to the 21st century and what will happen based on what the president has said on trade issues recently? guest: not surprisingly, after 25 years, you need to update the agreements. the internet was just getting

started when nafta was signed, so everything we do in digital all data ismerce, new and need to be incorporated. other things have been updated great intellectual property have beenother things updated. intellectual property rights and other things have changed, so that needs to be fixed. plus, nafta was the first free-trade agreement we undertook. since then, there have been more, and we need to get the best actresses from those we have done and those others were doing and put that into nafta. the nafta talks are in their seventh round in negotiations. this weakens, they will conclude that seventh round. they are hammering away to get progress on technical issues but there are big ones to solve. host: while that is happening, the headline from "the washington post," -- the president's trade war. what is going to happen? why is this important?

guest: nafta first is very important, 14 million u.s. jobs are tied to trade with nafta, either directly in manufacturing, providing services, or supporting those industries, so that is a lot of economic activity. canada and mexico are the top trading partner of the large majority of u.s. states. in mexico itself, with mexico, we have about 4.9 million jobs supported in the united states by that trade. that compares to only 700,000 when the nafta agreement was negotiated. host: based on your research, retreat over $1 million per minute with mexico. guest: that is right. host: explain this trade debate because the president now saying he wants to impose tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum. if you take american vehicles,

gm or ford, roughly one third is assembled or parts come from mexico, another third from canada, and the remaining third, either assembled parts from the u.s. how does something like that work if you impose trade tariffs on mexico and many of the products made in mexico then ship back to the u.s. as american-made goods? guest: that is right. what we have created with our two neighbors is the most costse production network economy that has ever existed, so we make things together. and we don't just make things, we grow together, we grow livestock together, trade agricultural goods. it will be complicated and raise prices for consumers. host: why? guest: because when you are going to have to pay more for that steel or aluminum when it comes in, it is the people that the costwill just pass

on to the consumer in that case. we could get in as the headline say, we could get into a nasty tit-for-tat with other partners who will deal this is an unfair the countries that will be heard -- the country hurt most by this will be canada, our longtime nato ally. >> host: our guest is ambassador wang, and we will get to your calls and just moments. this person said, how many years in the state department? guest: 40 years. host: afghanistan and argentina.

this from usa today. "41 countries left a u.s. ambassador. why", and why is important? guest: though we have capable teams, if you do not have a top man or woman, it makes it hard , too very make things interact effectively with the public in those countries, the senior ever -- the senior governor ministers. it makes it harder to create effective u.s. policy without senior-level people in the embassies overseas and in the state department and other departments here. there are a lot of vacancies in washington. a number of these people have not yet been nominated. some have been and are waiting for congress to approve them, but there's still law -- a lot of empty space that needs to be filled.

a one for democrats, and -- lee from toledo, ohio. >> good morning. --caller: good morning. when theyears old current commission was written and implemented. detroit michigan. will we still see inequality problems that we haven't and ohio.ichigan people for countries to come together and -- for countries to come together and be equal, we need to implement this. host: think you for the call. this says mexico -- has multiplied by six times. an increase of 35%.

north american trade, canada, new mexico, $1.24 trillion. -- a year. guest: the massive amount of trade, beneficial. same kind of accusations of unfair trade as you get with china, where people argue, with good bases, they have been subsidizing their industries. they have property rights. they will and restricting foreign companies, including u.s. companies in their market. that's not the case with canada and mexico they are building together -- we are building together, making ourselves more efficient against other global trade partners, the asian partners. we have been more efficient, seller things -- selling things at lower prices. american consumers pay less, because we're working with our neighbors. host: the states the most with

mexico, texas leads the list, $174 billion a year. california, michigan, illinois, arizona, ohio, tennessee john -- or do. next on the list pennsylvania, north carolina, new jersey, louisiana, new york. ill, republican line. caller: hi. to say that i'm a trump supporter. worksthe gentleman who for the state department, the ambassador and other various functions.obviously , he is against mr. trump. host: why would that make him against mr. trump, bill? caller:caller: because the president works for the state department, mr. obama. basically, he is against american workers. bad agreement -- bad trade agreements -- american workers have been destroyed by bad trade agreements, nafta.

19 90, american workers have suffered. wages have gone down. care c-span.org about americans. just so we're clear, he's a career diplomat serving under a republican president. c-span.org correct. --caller: correct. host: rex tillerson is a secretary of state. does that make him against the president? caller: yes. he considers the american public is political. he has the same attitude as hillary clinton. she was not elected. >> i do care a lot about american workers guest: -- i do care a lot about american workers. it's him -- important to realize where these jobs have gone. these point to two causes. one is trade with china, which they say caused $2.5 million -- 2.5 million life losses.

the other is technology and activity improvement. certainly, jobs has moved around with trade. some jobs have been sent to mexico. some jobs have moved to other states in the united states. they offer production facilities for the companies. not only inution is finding better trade agreements. it's an offering more support to our support. it's investing more in a better education system. it's about finding ways to develop new technologies. having better in the structure so we can move things more efficiently around the country. post: our guest is earl anthony wayne, a fellow at the mexico

dc.itute in washington charles from south carolina, republican line. thanks for waiting. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question. good morning, mr. wayne. guest: morning. is, if thequestion trade is so good between the united states and mexico, why is it that so many people are that? for mexico, in area are headed north what can't they fix their own problems there, so that they don't have to come here? can' problemst they fix their own? guest: that's question. transit from mexico to the united states has decreased since 2007. there has been in that outflow of the united states back to mexico. there are one million less mexicans here illegally without

documentation now than there were in 2007. a lot of people are going back because there are drugs in mexico, because they want to live in their own communities with their families. the flow coming into the united states, there are still mexicans come. the big flow has been from central america and other countries trying to come into the u.s.. years, the several largest number was over come about not people coming across the border. and, the number of non-mexicans is higher than the number of mexicans. host: based on that, what would be a bigger deterrent of keeping illegal immigrants from coming into the u.s. -- a wall, or security and guards on the u.s.r, or going after employers who are hiring these illegals? guest: it's important to have enforcement of, our laws which

includes employers hiring illegals, and have a better system for doing that. if it was hard -- if it was hard to get jobs once you are here, that would be an effective deterrent. sot want to make extra money they're coming. no question. if it's harder to make that extra money, you're going to have a deterrent. secondly, that the second deterrent to something mexico's economy's growth. the manufacturing sector in the sales to the united states, the rest of the world. agreements with over 40 other countries, free trade agreements. accordingaying well, to a lot of mexico's young people. they're happy to stay and work. already had a free trade agreement with canada. we want to embrace mexico. as our southern neighbor,

we had an interest in mexico being more prosperous and more stale. host: the president had promised mexico will pay for the welfare campaign. that was one of his promises throughout the campaign. will mexico pay for the walk? guest: they've been clear they will not. host: joining us from the democrats line. good morning. caller: think for having me on. my phone just went off whenu youmm were talking about the, t the trade war. trade work.m, the first, the american people got a tax break. let's have this for the lower income people. now we have a trade war. we will be paying more little plus one and minus one. cuts,e years -- then tax

now, we are at a minus one. it probably will continue. like the greatest stamp on the american people so far. host: thank you, iris. we will get a response. guest: thank you. it's important to do what you are starting to do, the pluses and minuses. starting day and -- trade wars is dangerous. you can't figure what's going to have. get into a series of reactions, counter actions. it's hurting our economy and others coming. there are cases where there's clearly an unfair practice that needs to be counted. that's been our case with china. there does need to be firm action there.

you start tagging your friends and allies for things that are .ot on the base that could cause americans and consumers, but also workers in those industries. for example, the industries that use steel and aluminum employ do there workers them steel industries -- or the aluminum industries. it doesn't mean you should neglect any of those workers. you have to balance the effect on all of the american people. you have been, you have been at the state department for 40 years. how many secretaries of state? did you count? guest: from kissinger forward if you want to count at. the secretary of state who -- as a young diplomat host:. james and san diego, republican line.

good morning. caller: good morning. here, asand this issue far as labor goes. if you are paying a mexican , the amount you would pay the wages you would pay to an american worker, i understand the disparity. that doesn't sound like trade to me. if you produce the product in -- u the money would stay in the united states. nited s and my incorrect in that assumptiontates,? >> -- and my incorrect in that assumption? guest: you are correct. countries have different standards of living. they forced their way up the ladder. mexico is doing that. no question. what mexico has done as a whole for our economy is have allowed competitive both

with european producers and asian producers who are not only into our markets but around the world. in the process, mexico is becoming more wealthy. workers there are making more money. people have this tied into this north american trade, are making more money. it is true that we have to assure that those workers have the same labor rights to organize, struggle to get higher legal methods.se that's certainly the case. host: it surprised me. looking at mexico, you assume other items would you one of the leading exports. it is a next part, but leaving the list of vehicles, followed by electrical machinery, equipment, nuclear reactions.

guest: that's right. what's happened under nafta, mexico has been integrated to the north american production. they sell a lot of vehicles. to the united states, in canada, one of the interesting things 40% of thoseout to theturers coming back united states were u.s. products. those are inputs coming into mexico being assembled. there was a great case of a honda crv being assembled in mexico, where librarians. 70% of the feet -- where ga la jora is. back into the united states, it looks at a mexican vehicle. 30% of putting that together. the rest is from the united states or canada, mostly the u.s.. integratedh an

production chain. since he was consumers a couple thousand dollars on that car. jobs have shifted around, no question. when you look at it, what's happened in a number of these jobs is that other drugs have been created in our economy. host: we've also have the rise of automation. guest: that's right. themation, we now have highest, i think it's the highest in our history for worker in the manufacturing sector. that's because there is new technology, new processes being used. needso means that sector a higher level of education for its workers, to be able to work with all this new technology. as we know from other predictions and studies coming out, the pace of change is only going to continue. or going to need better training

and education for our workers. >> guest: remind our radio audience on c-span radio, close to close on serious accidents ont to coast on serious xm, your rap, -- your app. conversation with former u.s. ambassador to mexico, anthony wayne. there are -- we are talking about mexico. there an election coming up in july. we will talk about that was -- in a moment. bobby in connecticut. good morning. caller: the morning. thank you, earl, for your service. the question, how is this sustainable for any but the wealthy? guest: i think one of the key things that we have to do with our economy is invest in our workforce. i think that's going to make it sustainable for everybody across the economy if we really do that. if we try and give people the

opportunity to get educated through apprenticeships, to get jobs, be retrained when they are on the job, i think there are and will be highly paid, very good jobs for the future. they aren't going to be the jobs we had 20 years ago. we need to know how to use this new technology. american workers are capable of learning and adapting and succeeding in this world. if we get the right kind of public policy -- that includes trade, but it does include workforce development, and those opportunities that we can help americans.graduate host: from the host: university of california, berkeley, also ministers from stanford, princeton, and harvard. that's a trifecta there. [laughter] but go to david in florida, republican line. good morning, david. caller: good morning. i looked about that.

the u.s. economy. -- i would like to talk about that. has enabled -- mexico imports u.s. corn in huge quantities. they are able to important at a much cheaper cost than it was able to do themselves. many, hundreds of thousands of small corn farmers went out of business in mexico. jobs.ost their i don't know my many thousands became illegal immigrants, the united states. that was one of the better effects of that.

to cause some of these host: problems of illegal immigration. is he right -- problems of illegal immigration. host: is he right. -- right? i think so. thank you. we need to think about the side effects for all societies involved. at the same time, what has happened over the past 25 years as mexico has become a much more competitive agricultural reducer. despite that initial hardship, are now very effective and -- there are effective and productive farms. people who now writes raspberries,and small farmers. they didn't do this for. they now raise quality fruits.

they sell to mexico and the united states in the off-season, when driscoll can't grow in the united states. so, all of us can go get fresh berries in the wintertime for, coming from mexico. farmers are doing well. that doesn't mean that was easy on farms producing corn earlier. that was a difficult transition. we've also seen that in the united states. the farm population is dropping. drastically. from the late 1800s to the late 1900s, so these transformations do take place. we need to have the best public policy possible. understanding what might happen, might take place, to support our do face thesethey kinds of difficulties. that's what we need to do now with workforce training programs. diplomat is host:, i should say, it was described as a frank

conversation, others described -- described it as a call between president -- trump and another president. what happened based on what you know? what does this mean in terms of relations between these two leaders? i'm not privy to whether that what was said in the theersation, but i do know staff members of both governments have been working very hard on a whole series of cooperative agreements. not separate from these trade agreements, but homeland security on fighting terrorism, being better, keeping bad immigrants far away from both countries, extending the borders to all of north america. this kind of things. they've reached a number of agreements. that these people could last -- bless the agreements. when they got on the phone the started talking about the border

wall. i don't know the specifics, but they were clear that mexico wasn't going to pay for it. frustrated,ump got used a word that was indicated. the call ended with an unhappy spirit. the two governments are going to keep working, because it is in their interest to solidify cooperation from a in antidrug trafficking, work together along the border, these other things. there's no question it was a shallow feeling on both sides of the top, when the phone call ended. the guest: -- there's an election -- host: there's an election on july 4, correct? guest: yes. the house of representatives, one third of the senate, nine governors. 2000 local officials from mexico.

the outcome of that would be important for the two countries. right now, and the thing about the united states and mexico, positive in 56% 2000 18-2016, to 30% positive carried a significant drop. that quite possible candidates who are critical of the united states in return will get additional electoral support for voicing that in the election. we will have to see how that plays out. there are three main candidates coming. -- lead is a gentleman maintained -- a gentleman who is a left of center candidate who has run a couple times before. i think it would be fair to say he puts emphasis on mexican sovereignty and the importance of mexican identity.

a= nationalist approach, you might say. he has a 10 point lead. to him joining us from in the line. good morning. caller: good morning. that when rex a secretarycepted of state position. he signed a contract traded exxonit had to do with mobil are. i'm wondering if you could recall that, and whether it was supposed to expire. it seemed like it was only a away,e was going to stay conflict of interest. that was my question. i'll hang up that you can answer. host: thanks, tim. are you familiar with this? guest: thanks, tim.

i remember reading the press report, saying he was going to get a payment for his service at exxon mobil, but it was only -- it would only come after a year or so. i don't remember the details. you're right, jim. hise was something tied to employment with exxon mobil -- mobile. jan from oceanside, new york. caller: ian. host: i caller: apologize. that's all right. caller: -- host: i apologize. caller: good story. the wall will be built. another thing. back 5006le came times to murder somebody, 15 times, drunk driving, runs over somebody. it's on the national interest. they flood drugs across that border. 60,000 people died. 20,000.

host: the me just jump in on that point. it's not also an issue of breakdown in our legal system here in the u.s.? caller: say that again, i'm sorry. host: do you think that's a breakdown in the u.s. system, and our failure to send them there,? keep them caller: rather than allowcaller: them reenter it's all of the above. host: mmhmm. caller: let's just say they give him a gun charge, he murdered somebody. if i have a gun in my home that kills somebody, i'm responsible. this guy wasn't. they say, we are going to report him. they just come right back and re-attend. 70% of cars and parks are here. it's a few thousand. we do away with jobs in detroit, the people. people like countless lose their jobs, nabisco, carry out. they stayed here. jobs are what's important.

never -- and never forget that. people pay more in their vehicles to know that an american has a job and is shipping money out of america. host: we only have a minute left. we will give our guest chance to respond. i agree fully. people need jobs and we should be creating those jobs. i just note that when nafta started, we had 700,000 jobs with trade with mexico. now, we have 4.9 million. somewhere, we have created jobs. jobs have been the limited. as i noted earlier, a lot have been eliminated because of new technology. much bigger chunks from nafta art trade with china. trade we need to create these jobswith china. need to create these jobs.

it goes on both administrations, republican and democrat. we haven't had the kind of policies that help our workers find new jobs, when those jobs that they are in all ar -- are in are eliminated. whether removing from south carolina or detroit or mexico, we need to create jobs. there is no question. we need to remain competitive also. if you have a sports team and are losing a few games, you work harder on the training that's needed to make your team a better competitor. that's what we need to do in the united states. host: when was the nafta agreement be resolved timeline wise? what your best guess? mexican hope before the presidential election. you have a new congress they're coming in in september. you get close to our own fault elections, which makes it much more sensitive here.

i hope, they are going to in the next couple of months, able to make significant progress. apparently, the result at least one chapter during this last week. think they will close on some others. i hope it gets there. that's the last word. host: -- that's the last word. we think you for being with us. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] host: we hope you tune in tomorrow morning for c-span's washington journal, a busy week in washington. stephen denis, who covers the senate for bloomberg work -- news and josh krakauer serving as political editor in the 8:00 eastern time our, and -- our. and our money segment, and our guest is marty sullivan, chief tax analyst. that's tomorrow morning at season washington journal. newsmakers is next. things for joining us on this sunday. hope you enjoy dinner -- the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead. ♪