morning on "washington journal"," certainly getting under way at 7:00 a.m. eastern as it does every day here on c-span. coming up in just over 15 minutes, 20 minutes or so, we're going to take you lye to american university here in washington to hear from former national security advisor susan rice, that's at 4:30 eastern. just a bit later on, christine lagar, the managing director of international monetary fund in conversation on this international women's day. she'll be interviewed by opinion writer katherine rampel of "the washington post" coming up at 6:00 p.m. eastern. while we wait for the event at american university to get under way at 4:30, part of today's "washington journal" focusing on trade as a matter of fact. peter desk, a democrat from vermont. issue ofin with the guns, a lot of talk about potential or new legislation in

recent weeks. is anything going to happen at this point? guest: it's up to speaker ryan. there is a majority in the house that would vote for what i would call commonsense gun legislation, if the speaker would be willing to put it on the floor. likely that is our job. i think we would pass background checks, i think bump stock legislation would pass. i think there is an emerging debate about the use of combat weapons, which belong in the battlefield, and efficient get into our school. -- schools. the bottom line is, if these bills word to go to the floor, i believe they would pass. the way it works in the house, the speaker has the authority to say yes or no to give the house a vote or not. what i'm seeing speaker ryan with respect to guns, is the same thing i'm skiing with reagan -- speaker ryan -- i'm seeing with speaker ryan in regatta daca, net

neutrality, they have this congress that is stalled largely because the speaker will not move ahead due to his own divisions within his party. host: you mention come at weapons does a second ago, i assume you mean assault weapon bans. could you define what an assault weapon is? challenge.'s the i have it .20 two, that is a semiautomatic. but an assault weapon is an ar-15. a republican from florida wrote an extraordinary article about the ar-15. he was in the military, he lost two legs from the knees down. he's an extraordinary person. he spoke about the hours of training the soldier has before there even allowed to fire an ar-15. then they start firing it, and they practice.

they get immense training. those things are designed to kill and to the maximum damage. in we have a situation florida were a 19-year-old walked into a gun store, buy it, never be trained, walk into a school, and kill people. we can get to the definition, because those of us is support commonsense gun legislation totally understand. in vermont we do not really have gun laws, but a tradition a very safe use. there is a wonderful tradition of parents and kids getting out into the woods and hunting and target shooting. and the question for congresses can you have sensible gun safety legislation and continue to respect second amendment rights? i think we can. host: on the phone weapons ban, with that in your mind include a hand full of guns like the ar-15 ? are you talking about hundreds of different kinds of semi-automatic rifle's. guest: i would be talking about

the weapons largely used in combat and the knockoffs of that. the ar-15 is a good example because it is a combat weapon. brutality of it, if a bullet hits the person coming from ar-15 is much different than a noncombat weapon in terms of the damage it does internally. it is to kill. guest: a lack of movement from speaker ryan on this issue, how much to blame the nra? host: edwin speaker ryan. when you have a job and policy -- i blame speaker ryan. there are going to be pressures all the time. the nra has its point of view. in is in my view that the nra protecting second amendment rights to an advocacy of trying to arm america. it represents the gun industry more than the gun user. think, isre here, i

something that the speaker always has to stand up to. let me just say, it is not just the gun issue. net neutrality has been ripped up by the new fcc chairman. most republicans would support maintaining net neutrality rules that we had in place before they were ripped up. but the speaker will not give us a vote on that. practice which has unfortunately deviated from what speaker ryan, who was a colleague of mine that i respect, before he came in to speakership he was arguing that the house should do its will. and he is right. we should be voting on issues. and then the american people know where we stand. they know where we stand on guns, net neutrality, and daca. callers who call for more gun control are concerned about the nra influencing members of congress. have you ever received money from the nrk -- nra?

i have a thousand dollar contribution in 2008, and i have a d-rating with the nra. if you want to join in the conversation for republicans (202) 748-8001, for democrats (202) 748-8000, for independents (202) 748-8002. mark is on the republican line. caller: good morning congressman, how are you? guest: i'm doing good. caller: i have two things for you. i need to correct you on something, because i'm a former marine. there's a big difference between the ar-15 and the m-16 that the marines use. the m-16 has a selector switch which puts it on fully automatic. the ar-15 is a semiautomatic

weapon meaning that you have to pull that trigger every time you fire around. the m-16, no. that is a combat weapon. the ar-15 is nothing but a glorified 22. my second thing, you mentioned something about education. i was a range instructor when i was in. training, insive construed down m-16 and put it back together blindfolded. i know what the weapon does. out, doslation, hear me not change the age limit to 21, if they want to buy your so-called assault weapon, they should go through training with a paid instructor. they should go through the training, get a diploma upon completion, that way the hands-on 101 with the instructor

can evaluate the attitude and train the person in the use of the firearm. you see where i'm going with this? guest: i do, and i think mark has a point. the way it is now, a 19-year-old and walk into a store, buy a gun, with no training whatsoever. and training makes a difference. ultimately does the person more than the gun. a lot of people are extremely responsible using weapon. one of the approaches we take, i think that makes a lot of sense, not as coming from a military person who went to the training. that is a good idea. jerome, on the democrat line. if you go way back, when columbus came over here, he took america with guns. that is what he did. when he took america with guns,

we can go back in history and learn what they did. came, he came back here, and slaughtered the indians. gun.ok america with a that is what i think about guns, it is pathetic. host: would you like to jump in? guest: you are talking about not just guns, but about how native americans arsenal -- were slaughtered for so many years. you're right about that. but it was not just guns, it was the displacement of all of these people who had been here for a long time. , and athe trail of tears lot of issues more than guns that went into what -- into the suffering you just described. do you have thoughts on

arming mortals in school? guest: it's such a local issue. it is not approach i would take. the bottom line is that i think we have to take measures that make sure that people who are dangerous do not have guns. we need to have a significant background check, or the kind of training mark was talking about. if you have guns in schools, that such a local decision. who has it under what circumstances? what is the collateral damage in the accidental things that can happen? if you have a well-trained , in anwho has a pistol attack with some of the ar-15. i see that is something that can be addressed on a local level as opposed to washington dictating that. host: cody, on the independent line. caller: covers and the question i have for you, is if you want to take away the guns and the

ar-15, i do not agree with that. a hundred 87 people were killed with gasoline. what we do next? what else are we going to take away. , all of the civil rights have been destroyed. as an american i have no trust in you guys. you guys never make a decision to help us. the only decision you make is to hurt us. and 91 ago after guns. -- and now you want to go after guns. guest: you have a second amendment right, and i'm sure you are responsible using guns and have had training. in vermont it is a wonderful family tradition where fathers, and mothers, teach children how to hunt. i'm with you on that. but none of our constitutional rights are absolute. speech, you free

cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater because of the harm that can happen if you do that. hope, there would be a possibility of having gun and safety laws that would not allow mr. cruz to get a gun to do what he did. and what i'm hearing you say, is what i hear a lot of folks say. there were removal go overboard. and that is the argument against doing anything. thet the trust issue, and fact is i believe that we can do something defensible that will protect the public, and our kids in our schools, but not interfere with your legitimate right to have access to guns. host: another issue with talked with you before when you came on, was opioids. i know recently or governor, phil scott, was on capitol hill, testifying about this issue. what would you like to tell your colleagues on capitol hill --

what was he here to tell your colleagues on capitol hill? guest: he was here to tell is what we all know, the opioid crisis is devastating. it is not a red district or blue district. everyone has folks that we know who is suffering from opioid addiction. .t is had an enormous impacts he was here talking about vermont, what we call the hub and spoke system. was the predecessor, first to really focus on the devastation of opioids. we began to treat opioids as a health issue, muche t treatmene community there be places where you could get medically assisted treatment as well. he was promoting that. he had a good reception from the republican subcommittee chair, who is extremely gracious.

-- was extreme and gracious. the hope is that of the federal level, we will get resources for first responders. big bipartisan issues and governor scott is following up on the leadership. guest: you mention raman's been doing this for a while, do you feel like you have reached a turning point in the -- you mention vermont has been doing this for a while, do feel a give reached a turning point in the opioid crisis? better, -- weten have gotten better, but there are folks coming back to communities where they have been peddling drugs. we also have prescription drugs leading to addictions. unremitting, the effort on the part of predatory people and the perceptive ability that people have, and the physiological grips that these opioids can get on you. i think we have done a lot better with public awareness, and i think what was so important that we are now seeing

in the country, is being discussed openly. it is a problem that can affect all of us. guest: tom, on the republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wanted to say that convicted , they pose extreme danger to americans with their ability to vote. i was wondering if the democratic party, if it supports bans on voting by violently convicted felons, and if not why not? host: it's a state-by-state rescission -- decision. in the state of vermont, felons can vote. even if they are serving. is that people go to jail, they pay their price -- the price for their crime. if most of them get out, some

don't, that's a separate category. but most get out. we want as much as an opportunity to have those folks not commit another crime as possible. and any responsibility that people take on to start living a productive and honest life is a good thing. and voting is an important component of being a citizen. so person commits a crime, a felony, but they do their time, and they want to reintegrate and get a job and participate in civic light -- life by voting, i'm in favor of that. line, goode democrat morning. i think the second amendment is an important constitutional right. i think we should have a common sense law, and psychological evaluations before you actually get a gun, and it should be revisited after you purchase a gun after several years. host: that make sense to me what

you're saying -- me,t: that make sense to what your saying. it sounds like a background check. you want to make sure that there's not some dangerous conditions, that the person who is getting the gun can use it properly. that make sense to me. have 10 minutes left, peter welch, democrat from vermont. note that monday was supposed to be the day that the deferred action for childhood arrivals program officially came to the end -- to an end. it was delayed after supreme court ruling. there were protests still yesterday about this issue from daca supporters. some of those protests taking place in front of democratic cap --rings, saying democrats democratic gatherings comes in democrats have not done enough. what is your message to those daca recipients today? host: the cause is righteous

-- guest: the cause is righteous, and the president and my viewers -- and the viewers knowledge that. the daca people, some have served in the military, police after the floods in houston it was many daca people who work on the lot front lines -- on the front lines. really they have earned a legal status, and the only reason we are not doing that, again, is because speaker ryan, who is the authority to give us a vote yes or no to provide legal status to dreamers, will not allow it. they are in jeopardy now. and the bottom line is that there is enormous frustration and anxiety because some people are being deported to countries that they do not know. they are being ripped away from their families. this is not the way for americans to treat some of our friends and neighbors.

we could resolve this if we had a vote. host: when he began his interview, the president was tweeting this morning. here's what he had to say it 8:00. daca byaction of democrats. a deal can be made, where are you? the bottom line, dr. fouts, independent of all the other contentions issues that we have on immigration, deserve a yes or no vote on legal status. the president did not wedges that dream -- the president acknowledges that dreamers have the right to a legal status. a has nothing to do with legal immigration and border security issues. but he is injecting them into those contentious debates. using them as a hostage to get his way on some of these other contentious issues. i think it is wrong, and kroll. -- and cruel.

the president shall is have a vote on the dreamers, then we can have a debate on the border wall, border security, the issue of what he calls chain migration, or family unification. these are the issues we have to talk about. but we have to do that independent of these hostage -- of the hostagetaking of these dreamers. guest: are you against the front -- host: are you against the funding of a border wall? guest: i'm against a -- i'm for border security. when he said mexico is going to , and mexico objected, and he just that i'm going to make a 10 feet taller. the wall is really the campaign rhetoric of the president. and the rhetoric of the president is that mexico is going to pay for. it is absurd. and he knows it. and most of the american people know it. when it comes to border security, where do you need a

barrier? wearable electronics work? that is what we need to be focusing on. host: on the independent line, good morning. caller: just getting back to the gun solution, i think the best way to solve the problem is to bring back gun education to schools like they did back in the 60's. i do not know why they would take it out. currently hollywood is educating the children about guns. , the murder in the movie theater in colorado being the matrix. if we have responsible education on gun safety, we would not have to worry about people -- crazy people attacking children. and like the gentle men earlier who called, in the 90's a guy used a couple dollars worth of gasoline and murdered about 90 people. and you are attacking guns? what is wrong with you guys. you cannot take away my rights. you raise a point.

first of all i appreciate your comment about education. and the earlier caller talked about training. making sure you go through a course. those make a lot of sense. but can you have gun safety measures, including a background check with the requirement that you have training, without interfering with your second amendment right? i think you can. and i think your objection that if we do something reasonable, it could become something unreasonable, -- the argument that people can kill in other ways, the fact is that these guns, especially in public places, like places of worship, nightclubs, movie theaters, and most terrifically our schools, that's a real problem. a thing going on with

young people. we have this in vermont. our local police did a great job, within a half-hour of a report, they have their eyes on the guy. into his high school, and this is -- and this is a real concern. we want to keep our kids safe in school. host: nickless, on the republican line. nicholas, on the republican line. caller: the second amendment is not a right to harm, but rather the protection of oneself against the two radical government. surely to protect oneself from the government, even in ar-15 is not going to be enough. haven't we got to face the you are going to

allow the citizens see a no holds barred approach, that they should be armed with whatever they want on themselves with? we should repeal and revise the second amendment. i do not understand, did he say we should repeal the second amendment? host: >> "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. find this online at c-span.org. we'll take you live next to american university in washington. former national security advisor susan rice is on your screen, expected to speak this afternoon about global security issues. live coverage on c-span. >> welcome to american