attorney michael:. of donald trump's personal attorney michael cohen. history, -- c-span, where history unfolds daily. to bring youtinue unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought the supreme court hears president trump travel ban case today. journal, on washington we talk to los angeles times supreme court reporter david savage about today's argument in trump versus hawaii. s gives hisean

thoughts on scott pruitt's management of the epa. later, a conversation with former trump campaign economic zder, about hispu latest book. ♪ good morning -- host: good morning. it is wednesday, april 25, 20 18. the house is scheduled to meet today before adjourning to prepare for today's joint meeting with congress in front of emmanuel macron. we will cover it all for you on c-span. until then, it is the washington journal, and we begin today discussing a presidential cabinet in flux, with president working to fill top administration positions at the state department and his epa administrator under fire. if you think the president's cabinet and his

nominees have been treated fairly. our phone lines this morning -- republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. morning to you. you can start calling in now as we show you a few headlines from today's paper, having to do with the president's cabinet and his nominees. here is usa today this morning. their headline -- senators delay the a nominees hearing over serious allegations. a picture of ronnie jackson, who the president has picked to head the department of veterans affairs. the new york times today speaking about epa administrator scott pruitt -- and battles directors and allies says ethics questions are a concern. scott pruitt is expected to be on capitol hill tomorrow to answer questions about how he

runs his agency. of thee op-ed pages washington post, the cases of mike pompeo. he was nominated to serve as secretary of state, and this from the front page of the new york times today. trump's punches with a salute, talking about the attorney general jeff sessions, soldier for the president praises and tries to ignore his boss. the so many stories about president's cabinet, we are asking you do you think his cabinet, his nominees have been treated fairly? the phone lines are republican, (202) 748-8001. democrat, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. ray is from california, line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't think that the president has actually picked people who

are qualified for the positions that they hold, by and large. there are so many examples -- ben carson having no housing background, betsy devos having , and ittion background is a very sad thing. though he mays as be makes the decisions based on a gut feel, and that the people there forere are not -- purpose of upholding the of each of those departments that they run. host: the president and republicans complaining about democratic obstruction. do you see that in the vetting process that is going on? caller: first of all, it does not seem that the candidates have been vetted before they appear before the senate committees.

i don't see obstruction. what i see is democrats pushing back against having people in very high places who have no background, no experience, no training in the areas that they are supposed to be leading or that they are completely unequipped to take the department they are leading, like the epa, and the rollback of things like clean air, clean water, and so forth. host: thanks for the call this morning. amy in l.a., line for republicans. go ahead. caller: yes. i think they have been treated -- verynfairly, unfairly, given that it is taking them so long to come to conclusions about making sure that they are going to be seated one way or the other. he is the commander-in-chief.

he is the president, and it is taking far too long because the full and theo get congress needs to get full, and this is a mark on the americans, because if we do not have a full house, we basically don't have anything. andink it is a lot of bias personal attacks on the president that is unwarranted. host: on the pace of cabinet nominations and confirmations, a story from the front page of the washington times this morning. the president lagged well behind both of his recent oval office predecessors when it comes to filling government jobs. as of april 15, senators had approved 421 civilian nominees since trump took office, roughly 150 nominees behind president obama at the same point, with 569 confirmations. nearly 250 nominees behind president george w. bush. mr. trump says at the rate the

senate is going, it would take nine years to confirm all of the to fill.has tyrone, new york city, line for democrats. do you think the nominees have been treated unfairly? caller: i think they have been given a lot of we wait i think the problem is that the president, you know, he is biased to the people that he picked. he says he only wants rich people. he doesn't deal with different minorities, and he already he does not -- the democrats as far as putting them in the cabinet, and he is always going to have this party as long as he continues to be strictly biased on the people that he picked. now he is criticizing the judge that he put in the judgeship, gorsuch, saying that he is too liberal.

if you go down the road of itcrimination and hatred, has no boundaries after a while. it goes after everybody around you poison that type of idea. if he continues this role of isolating himself from the people that are supposed to help him, he is going to continue to have this problem. host: in georgia, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to thank you about the tie. you are wearing a good time today. cabinetnts about the that donald trump has picked is, you know, i have talked on here before about it. did y'all coming off -- cut me off? host: no sir, keep going. caller: i called you about scott pruitt when his lobby group came through to try and sell him, and he was no good. i already knew the history of

him. mr. mullaney comes from the he -- i knowor and his history. if you can read his little line the daybbyists here before, those are the only people he is going to talk to, the people who are going to give him money. i am not against trump's people, i am against the ones he picks. you have 300 million people here in the united states, and this is all he can come up with? ofs has to be a little bit cronies going on here with the people he is choosing. i hate to sound bad, but that is what is happening. host: is there anyone in the president's that you like, that you think has been a good pick? caller: i can't say. most of them have run and hid. i have to say that the treasury secretary, he gave a -- does a good job from time to time. the old man, i am trying to remember his name, the one that

hedles all of his economics, is smart but he has a lot of baggage as well. he brought people in that were top-of-the-line, but they brought baggage with them. because heis fault, does not have time to get all the people through, he did not have the people picked out what the transition team. that was a god awful transition team. they left him a mess. david in georgia. you mentioned mick mulvaney's comments that have been fairly comments heted, made at the american bankers association conference in washington. here is a huffington post story about it. mulvaney, the acting head of a top consumer watchdog group, raise eyebrows on tuesday with an anecdote about his time in the house. we have a hierarchy in my office, he said, if you are a lobbyist who never gave us money, i did not talk to you. if you are a lobbyist to give us money, i might talk to you.

maldini, a republican who represented a south carolina -- ulvaney, who represented a south carolina district from 2011-20 17, said he also spoke with constituents even if they had not paid him. that hepaper reported was encouraging the industry to lobby lawmakers. ford, missouri, line democrats. has the president's cabinet been treated fairly? caller: are you there? host: go ahead. caller: it is interesting how all of this is playing out. if anyone can jump into the future of little bit, you can forady see trump's campaign the next one coming up, but he is going to step all over these republicans and say i showed you the swamp. there you go, now get rid of them and get me a bunch of democrats in here that we can strengthen this country with.

anyway, have a good day. host: kerry in kansas city, missouri, also a democrat. go ahead. caller: hi, what i think is going on right now when obama was in office, the republicans opposed him on health care, infrastructureen and judge garland. i think the democrats are just getting their revenge against the republicans for the way that they treated obama. presidentust opposing trump's agenda in the same way. i do not think it is very fruitful, what is going on, but i believe that is what is happening. host: the headline from politico this morning, their story about the v.a. nominee. about how trump botched the ronnie jackson nomination. he was chosen with little vetting, angering several white house agencies, and eating chief of staff john kelly. now a whisper campaign of allegations has threatened to

take his nomination. this offers a window into how the president compulsive decision-making has created problems for gop senators as well as his own aides. tuesday, senate republicans were upstairsefend against saturated allegations of misconduct again the veterans affairs committee nominee. when gop senator said the hope is that trump withdraws nomination sooner rather than later to avoid prolonging the pain. yesterday, he was asked about the ronnie jackson nomination. [video clip] dr. jackson, what do you need it for? we will see what happens. i do not want to put a man through who is not a political person. i do not want to put a man through a process like this. it is too ugly and too disgusting, so we will see what happens. he will make a decision. >> are you saying, mr.

president, that you will stand behind him? >> oh, definitely. i will always stand behind him. he is a fine man. i will let it be his choice, but he is a man who is an extraordinary person. his family is extraordinary success -- great doctor, great everything, and he has to listen to that abuse -- if i were him, in many ways i would love to be i would not do it. i would not do it. what does he need it for, to be abused by a bunch of politicians that aren't thinking nicely about our country? i don't think personally he should do it, but it is totally his decision. i would stand behind him. host: the editorial board of the wall street journal today saying president trump has a lot served his nominee to run veterans affairs. the normally conservative editorial board saying the person responsible for this mess is president trump, saying it dr. is run out of town with his reputation trashed, mr. trouble

take theven harder to -- mr. trump will find it harder to take these jobs. as we show you some of the stories about the ongoing nominees and the upcoming hearings, let us know what you think. republicans, 242, 748, 2001. republicans,- (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. caller: you ask if president trump's nominees have been treated fairly? absolutely not. from the moment he won the election, it was a resist, resist, resist, and we are going to impeach, mph, impeach. my gosh, yesterday he was meeting with the yesterday of france and all the media could talk about was that they said it

was a stupid question and melania trump's hat. good grief. let it go. he is the president. start working for this country or everyone is going to get fired. host: do you think ronnie jackson should be the next head of the veterans affairs? we lost the caller. he is, chicago, line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. supporters are very difficult to discourse with because of the high degrees of tribalism. it is not about fairness to the nominee, it is about the quality of the nominee. the senate has a job to do -- confirm appointees. all right?

we have -- we can look at the cabinet, it is like a clown show. pruitt people like scott dismantling the epa, and democrats never should allow that. the american people do not want the epa dismantled. of hud,carson in charge now the largest health system in the u.s., second-largest, the v.a., run by a guy that even his own administration did not that, so that means the senate has to do it from scratch. and no administrative experience at all. this is the privilege that you he or about all the time -- all the time.

we have insane judges that are pro-segregationist being nominated. we have to make it difficult for them. don't let them on the bench. host: keith in chicago. senateay, minority leader chuck schumer talked about the cabinet and its nominees. [video clip] >> our republican colleagues bemoan the pace of the nominations, but we see with the administration of the quick, thepy vetting process that process to that nominees is more important than ever before. we need to look at the cabinet. it lies in shambles, 15 months into the trunk president e. secondnt trump is on his hhs secretary after the first one designed -- resigned in disgrace after problems. his nominee for labor secretary went through after troubling ethical issues.

undera administrator is siege for blatant corruption. his nominee for cia director faces serious questions from both sides of the aisle about her previous engagement in torture, and now the second nominee for veterans affairs is on the rocks, simply because the trump administration did not adequately vet him. the cabinet is turning into a sad game of musical chairs, and the american people are losing out. the administration has repeatedly named nominees and asked questions later. we are proud of our role in thoroughly vetting the nominees, because the administration is not. host: chuck schumer yesterday at thesenate stakeout after party and lunches. if you want to watch that entire press conference, you can go back and see it in its entirety at c-span.org. in the meantime, in the first hour of the washington journal, we are asking the question, do

you think president trump's cabinet has been treated fairly? give us a call on the phone lines for republicans, , ascrats, and independents usual. the house is scheduled to gavel in very briefly at 9:00 today for morning business for the day. they are expected to gavel in and gavel out shortly after to prepare for that joint meeting of congress to receive french president emmanuel macron. that is officially expected to to start at 10:19 this morning. we are expecting remarks from the french president to that joint meeting at 10:30 this morning. on c-span.ch it we are here with you until 10:00 on the washington journal, and want to hear your comments on this question about how you think president trump's cabinet has been treated. willy in hawaii, line for independents. go ahead. caller: good morning, how do you do? can you hear me? host: yes sir,

go ahead. caller: good morning. this is my first time coming on c-span. i am really disappointed in our senate and congress. they have not really given this president the opportunity to .eally show what he can do he has been passing bills, he has been trying to work on both sides of the aisle, and they are more about his ideals than what he is personally doing for us. i wish the senate and congress would sit down and look at themselves and see that it is them that is affecting what is happening in the united states. we send them up there to do a lackadaisical,et

and they only have their own agenda in mind. we the people are suffering, and they are still making out. get fresht we can people in with fresh ideas. for you --uestion you started by saying the president has been trying to work with both sides to move legislation. what is an example of that in which he has been bipartisan, trying to reach out to democrats? the big thing in that was the daca. they wanted to pass the daca, but the president was more concerned about us, taking care of our borders, and stopping the illegals and the drugs. i don't mind that they take care daca, ifirst and then do not have a problem with that.

but the democrats want their agenda. it is just like president obama. when he came in, they said we are not supporting him. great, --ow -- really really quick, but we know trump was doing business with the russians before he ever, ever decided to run for office. we know that. but yet we use that to try and make it look like he is in collusion with the president, when we know he was dealing with trump. host: willy in hawaii this morning. willy mentioned the daca program. some news on that front -- this is the cnn story. another federal judge has overruled effort to end the popular immigration program, this time saying the government has to accept new applicants. they noted the ruling excepted on the deferred action for

childhood arrivals program will not take immediate effect, with the judge delaying the ruling for 90 days to allow the administration to make its case and a new memo justifying the end of the program. the bates concluded that wind down was arbitrary and capricious because the department of homeland security failed to adequately explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful. they also accuse the government of providing meager legal reasoning to support the decision. that decision is something we can talk more about in our next hour of the washington journal at 8:00. until 8:30, we will be joined by j the challenge -- david savage to talk about a busy day at the supreme court, but we can talk about the stock a ruling as well. maria in pennsylvania, independent line. go ahead. caller: yeah. i think overall, the current president has been unfairly,

unfairly treated. everything he does, every nomination they really give them a hard time. sometimes i get to watch the nominees being questioned on how they vote. it is really along party lines. i remember when hillary clinton was running against president obama. they did not give hillary clinton a chance when the democrats -- chance. when the democrats want to crucify you, they will truly, truly be against you. i used to be a democrat, and i became independent when i became disgusted with how they treated their candidates at the time, because they wanted obama to be the nominee. unfortunately, even now, hillary clinton is not able to become the president of the united dates. from being a democrat to independent. now i can see clearly how the

democrats, they are just -- they are very, very mean. it will not allow you to do anything. nothing is going on, nothing is happening fast enough. who suffers? it is the people. host: a caller from conway, missouri, democrat. morning, thank you very much for c-span. chuck schumer -- i was watching him on the news. he was in charge of the securities and exchange commission. madoff got away -- they did not find $45 billion that he had scammed. everyone on the securities and exchange commission should be examined by the fbi or some agency, because there was a lot of payoff there, and he gets up and starts running over people other people down? i can't believe it. here is a message for chuck schumer -- greatest gift god

could give us is to see ourselves as others see us. host: what do you think about the cabinet? caller: i think donald trump is trying to clean house. chuck schumer should have gotten rid of all those people on the securities and exchange commission, because as far as i was concerned, they world paid off by matt off, but they never found the $45 million. host: are you talking about the oversight role for the committee that he was in charge of in congress? caller: yes, and they never find -- found the money. on the president's cabinet, as we noted earlier, senators have decided to delay the v.a. nominees hearing over serious allegations. the usa today story noting what some of those allegations are. democrat onranking the committee that would oversee that nomination told npr that there were complaints that jackson oversaw a hostile work

environment and allowed the improper prescription of drugs and drank on the job. an investigation concluded in 2012 that jackson incident -- exhibited "unprofessional behavior" and suggested that the white house consider replacing .im jackson has served as the white house doctor since 2006. we will see what happens with that nomination, but tomorrow, to very high -- two very high-profile members of the cap and be on capitol hill. scott pruitt is expected to testify for two house committees, and on the senate side, jeff sessions will be before the senate appropriations committee. coverage tomorrow on c-span networks, so look for that as we continue this discussion and continue watching what is happening with the president's cabinet. sheila and nottingham, maryland, republican. good morning. caller: yes. and support the president,

i think i will support him come next elections, so i just feel like the democrats are way too much. i don't -- they don't want to all they talk about impeach,h him, impeach. that is really bad. host: mark, louisville, kentucky, republican. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. i just wanted to go ahead and say that trump is being treated unfairly. i believe he is doing the best for the country. i like the way he is not just firing democrats, he is firing republicans too. whoever is not doing their job, he gets rid of them.

and i understand that is best for all of us. i have no problem with him getting rid of people that's not doing their jobs right. is not what you would call an average politician. he is actually a good president. that is all i have to say. host: do you think there has been too much turnover in the people the president has decided to surround himself with? has he made the right picks? he makes thenk right pick as it comes to him, ok? as far as the topics of things that are being done, it is a lot of work for any president, i am sure, to make the right picks. he surrounds himself, i believe, with the right people, if you are asking me that. i believe he's around since up with the right people -- he surrounds himself with the right

people, and makes the best decisions were our country. i do not care if it is a republican or democrat, as long as they are doing the right job for our people of the united states of america. do you think rex tillerson was the right person? caller: are you talking about -- host: the former secretary of state. caller: i don't really know all of his background, so i don't really know on that situation there. host: do you think the attorney general, jeff sessions, is the right person? h, yeah, i believe so. host: why is that? caller: i believe that he is a true -- i believe that he is, you know? , my ownjust my decision. host: thank you for the call from kentucky this morning. a few tweets this morning. president trump's cabinet has not been treated fairly, but

life isn't fair. the cabinet is not qualified. it is unfair to blame democrats for instructing nominees. it is unprecedented that we have removed from the functions they are supposed to leave. we need qualified members and democrats are trying to ensure that. is -- theys this ability to choose reliable, smart people to whom specific response abilities can be delegated is essential to an effective executive. you can't say that none of this is trump's fault. on capitolorning hill, and we are asking you your thoughts on president trump's cabinet and whether it has been treated fairly. we will get to your calls in just a second, but we want to know there is a new member of congress coming to the house after the special election last night in arizona. that,llcall story on former republican state senator eighthlesko won the

district on tuesday night, for a seat that president trump carried easily in 2016, but it appeared to be relatively slim. lesko le 53% tod 47% in early ballots, which accounted for an estimated 75% of total votes cast. the seat opened up after trent franks resigned in december after allegations of sexual misconduct. democrats noted a single-digit margins of victory or lesko could indicate trouble in the fall for other republicans in arizona and across the country, especially considering trump carried the eighth district by 21 points. they could meet again in the general election in november after the special election occurred yesterday in arizona. anthony,our calls -- new jersey, democrat line. good morning. is the president of the cabinet being treated fairly --

president's cabinet being treated fairly? caller: good morning, c-span. you are the commentator and allow all sides of thought to be presented equally without bias. as far as the cabinet, it is the most politically sensitive -- it is all political appointments. they should be under a microscope. i believe the secretary of his wishes toated dissolve the department. thinga seems to be do a -- doing everything he is against, and tillerson was not allowed to infill the most important top seeds. en are notsinessm politically smart enough to do their jobs. as far as the v.a., my nomination would have been john mccain, but i believe the

president burnt that bridge during the general election. be a lack ofo inel in the v.a. -- morale the v.a., and i think mccain, even though he has them health issues, what have been the person to bring a lot of enthusiasm back into that. picks, gives other them a chance. as far as jeff sessions, jeff sessions seems to -- i am not in love with him, but i would say he tries to follow the law. that is the most important thing for the attorney general. that is basically all i got to say. host: anthony, thank you. greg in ohio, independent. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: i would like to make a

comment on cnn and msn and abc and all they do? host: you are going in and out. give us a call back on another line and see if we can get you on the air. tim in virginia, republican line. go ahead. caller: trump's office has been -- i do not think trump's treated fairlyn at all. he has kept his word and said he will drain the swamp when he went into office. he said when i become president, i will drain the swamp. i want people to do the work and not be like all of these other politicians that have been there for years and have not done their jobs. he has done what he said he is going to do, and is getting done what he said he would get done, even though he is getting all the backlash from every democrat on the face of the earth. host: do you think he is picking the right people for the job? this moment, yeah.

i think he is trying to make the best decisions you possibly can at this moment. did you think about rex tillerson, the president hiring him and then firing him for the secretary of state job? think he had a good reason for it. from what i've observed over the last year, you either do your job for you are going to lose the job. i think that is what he did with that. it was not getting done, so he got rid of him. little falls, minnesota, independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to just say that werethe republicans knocking obama a lot, and they still do. he is not even president anymore. they still do. they should just not it on and go on with life. my goodness.

and blaming everything on the democrats is bogus. goodbye. new york, line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. i am a vietnam vet. i did not serve in non-, but i was there. i volunteered. i want to say that president even --cabinet is not he has less of the people than he needs in there, and he thinks he does not need them, but he does. the whole paris peace accord and all that stuff that he dropped out of, it makes america look bad. we went from number one to number 17 in the world because of president trump. host: raymond in new york. here is more from the president yesterday on the slow process

when it comes to his nominees for various positions in the federal government. [video clip] >> but they failed with mike , and that was a big, big hit, because they thought they could stop them. the democrats have become obstructionists. that is all they are good at. they have bad ideas, that politics. the one thing they do is obstruct, and that is why i'm waiting for -- you would never believe this -- i waiting for a very good people, like the ambassador to germany has not been approved yet. it has been in there for 11 or 12 months. we have angela merkel coming to the united states on friday. we still do not have our ambassador approved. at this rate -- many of the papers checked it out yesterday -- they actually set i was right. but it would be nine years before we have these hundreds of people waiting to be approved, and the democrats are taking 30 hours per person, the maximum

time. they are obstructionists. that is very bad for our country. host: one of the papers that has taken a look at the process of nominations is the washington .imes that story noting that when it comes to the president's nominee, what really galls republicans are the vacancies for lower courts and other relatively mundane posters --inations -- nominees posts posts whose nominees are approved overwhelmingly. on wednesday, republicans will take the first steps to change that. he is tryingsaid to go back to a 2013 arrangement between democrats and republicans after democrats complained that mr. obama was having trouble getting his picks through the senate. senatery notes that minority leader chuck schumer said republicans are abusing the so-called blue slip process that have given home state senators

said my veto over judicial picks for their states. he also said the aggressor still atmentver republicans' tre of judge merrick garland. that debate happening in the senate rules committee, and that is happening today at 3:30, if you want to watch it. we are carrying it on the web at c-span.org, so you can watch it there. brian in indianapolis, indiana, republican line. go ahead. caller: yes, i was just wondering why everyone wants to get donald trump out? he is doing an awesome job, and there is no way he could have ever been president unless we voted for him. nobody wanted hillary, and now aboutis something out hillary clinton and some other lady killing and molesting a child. host: what video are you referring to? miliar with it.

caller: it is called fizzle drip. just google it. ,ost: line for independents go ahead. caller: i think picking dr. jackson for the v.a. was a very poor choice. he was not vetted, his background was not checked out thoroughly, and i think that is a nomination that is going to be lost. i think the president has not been very careful in picking nominees for some of the post. he had a very good secretary of then in ron tillerson, and he fired him, and he was one of he best secretary of state's could have had. i think the nominating process has to be improved. they never would have had ron porter in the white house if they had checked out his background and found out he was a domestic abuser.

it is very important that they carefully vet the people they are choosing for nominees. host: jerry in bellwood, illinois, democrat line. go ahead. morning.ood i was so eager to talk to you. a couple weeks ago, you were on c-span with a guy named armstrong smith. he was talking about stormy daniels. host: are you talking about armstrong williams? williams.s, armstrong i am so sorry. he was talking about the porn star. what he said was she was not a role model for america. what he did not say is that melania trump too was a porn star. you can find them on the internet. host: so bring us to the president's cabinet. caller: i am bringing it to the cabinet. the president needs that cabinet. so does his wife. the headrots from

down. the president has a lot of baggage and so does his wife. the media has been very fair to them. they are not talking about them personally, and i do not think jeff sessions was never all of five to be in that job. he was one of the first people allowed in the fbi. hasld trump's whole cabinet done a lot of things that were wrong. they have lives to the fbi, and lied to the congress. out people, like the doctor trying to get confirmed now, the doctor stood there yesterday and said no, nobody ever investigated me. that is not true. navyttorney general of the investigated him. the story comes out five minutes later that this happened in 2012, 2015. he is not being fair, he is not being fair to himself. host: john in oxford, maryland. go ahead. but morning i think trump has been poorly picking

people -- good morning. i think trump has been poorly picking people for his staff because you cannot have foreign people and then have people standing in line waiting to get their jobs. that is not the way it is done. you have to get the people in there that know how to do the job and get it done. you can't keep firing people. you are never going to get anything done. that is my comment. to louisville, kentucky, democrat line. stephen, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you this morning? host: doing well. caller: i am listening to these people call in. let me tell you, it is like a joke listening to some of these people. first of all, the fact that he does not have a fair -- give me a break. trump has been violating constitutional amendments left and right since he has been in thee, starting with annulment clause. no one ever said a word about that. by the way, he has all three

branches of government under his party. how is he being treated unfairly? as far as this doctor is concerned, i think he should have his medical license revoked for playing the role of trump's sycophant. he says he is in great health? oh please. he is not in great health at all, we do not believe that. look at his diet on the campaign trail, pizzas, hamburgers, tacos, and drinking diet cola. do you know what diet cola does to you? it is not good for your health, especially for a 70-year-old man. he does not exercise, and you are going to tell us he is in good health? i would like you exactly what this is -- it is the tea party that is the problem. they have infiltrated the republican party and they are making a mockery of our country in general. host: stephen in louisville, kentucky. 7:45 on the east coast.

in about an hour and 15 minutes, the house will come in briefly today and quickly adjourned as they prepare for that joint session of congress, to receive french president emmanuel macron. that is expected to begin at 10:19 officially. we will be carrying that joint meeting on c-span, c-span radio, and on the web as well. yesterday was the state dinner at the white house, to receive the french president and his gitte.brid the washington post wrapup of the state dinner sang with the thetate dinner, saying answer on tuesday was yes -- this story in the style section of the washington post, on an already symbolic evening that carried the added pressure of into with trump's foray diplomatic branding.

the couple managed to pull off the glitzy party in honor of the president of france and his wife without any major glitches. videoe been showing you from that event. there is the toast that took place last night. the new york times in their wrapup of the toast notes that president trump and mr. macron gushed" over each other. mccrone marvels at their unlikely friendship, saying no one could have predicted two years ago that the men would be together at the white house. "i got to know you, you got to know me. we both know that none of us easily changes our minds, but we will work together and have the ability to listen to one another." the washington post also with the guest list and some of the intos of the various guests their gowns last night and tuxes . among those who were there, you

can see the president's daughter trumpred kushner, ivanka on the right with the french and u.s. flags along the wall in the background. others that were there, cia director mike pompeo breezing past the press without answering any questions about his nomination for secretary of state. john bel edwards was one of the the cut.rats who made apple chief executive tim cook brought along former obama administration epa chief and current apple environmental director lisa jackson. one other picture that you just saw was of two individuals holding their gold medals. that was john's juicer -- john schuster of the u.s. olympic and megan --, a hockey player. back to our conversation about whether the republican nominees have been treated fairly.

go ahead. caller: yes. the republicans, democrats, all underts, they are a long lie in the eyes of the lord. what you need to do is look at this man for what he is, and live the life he is supposed to live. you know, the rich isn't going to have anything. they are not even going to make it to heaven. but some people are backing them . , his watching everybody family is perfect. trump, look at his family. he has been divorced three times . he is scared of them.

host: back to louisville, kentucky for the first time in a third -- third time, republican. go ahead. caller: thank you very much for have the first call in my life. i'm not a politician, but i am so proud of president trump, that i would be standing and i would vote for him 1000 times. he is the best president ever in the world, because he defends america. it is a shame that america is putting a prostitute over the president. that is not fair. thank you for letting me speak for the first time. i'm very nervous, but [inaudible] god bless trump. host: do you think trump has picked the best cabinet that he could? caller: he has the best cabinet he could, but he made a few

mistakes he had to remove. whatever he does we have to go along with him, because he is the best president ever we have in this country. god bless trump. david in baltimore, line for democrats. go ahead. about --es, talking this is the united states of america, not the trumpnited states of america. been in there,as he has been faulting obama, hillary, everyone else. and obama and hillary bushghtened out what messed up, and trump will put it right back on the path of bush. what is wrong with his cabinet is just like him. not acting like him, he wants to get rid of them. caller: what do you mean just

like him? host: the republicans are not for the people. they are just for republican people. democrats are for all people. it is not fair. sam: hillsdale, michigan, on our line for democrats. good morning. karen, in roland, arkansas. caller: yeah. he has definitely been fairly. absolutely. they treatedow obama, he has definitely been treated fairly. i have a question for you specifically. can you tell me why you said that judge garland was a failed nominee? can you explain that to me? host: a failed nominee -- i am not sure that i said that, but it was in the washington times is what i read. i can go back to the story, but they were talking about the nomination process, that the nomination failed to move

through. i believe that is what the washington times was talking about. caller: you specifically said he is a failed nominee. he was never even brought to the floor, so there was nothing failed about it. i wanted to clear that up. thank you. host: ok. sam and hillsdale, michigan, democrat line. go ahead. caller: i just wanted to say that everyone who wanted to get rid of the politicians in the cabinet, every member of the cabinet, except for devos, is a politician. they are all former senators or governors or congressman, so they are not doing a very good job at getting rid of the, -- politicians if that is what they wanted to do. host: a previous callers comment, the story was from the washington times. this was talking about chuck schumer's comments about the potential changes to the nomination process that are being proposed or debated today in the senate rules committee.

the washington times saying that senator schumer said democrats are still sour over the republicans treatment of judge , mr. obama'snd failed nominee in the supreme court. that is how they wrote it in the washington times. the senate rules committee 2:30 today.ening at we will be carrying that live on the web when it happens. florida, line for independent. go ahead. caller: i think trump has been very well trained to drain the swamp. he is going to get a change of her. he is not a lawyer. lawyers are the problem with the country. he is a businessman. draining the swamp means the government employees sitting on their butts with excellent benefits and pay have to go. you have to trim that in half. thank you. host: bill in florida this morning. we showed you this op-ed in the washington post today, we will

read you a little bit of it. senator ben cardin, number of the senate foreign relations committee offering a case against mike pompeo, who has been offered to serve as secretary of state. senator cardin writes words matter, beliefs matter, policy positions matter, and pompeo's actions and rhetoric raise major concern. this could be the largest -- the voice for secretary of state should be the loudest, holdout voice for international diplomacy, dialogue, and negotiations in the oval office. pompeoout his career, has shown little preference for diplomacy and con system in support -- consistent support for militant touristic -- militaristic inventor mentions -- interventions. based on answers to questions during my meeting in in the confirmation hearing, i am very concerned about pompeo's willingness to stand up to the president and deliver a healthy

counterpoint. if you want to read more from senator cardin in today's washington post. cindy, line for republicans. caller: thanks for having me on. trump's cabinet has not been treated fairly. the trump voters have not been treated fairly. how can you expect the cabinet to be treated fairly? we are called every name in the book -- stupid, ill-informed -- i have to tell you, some of these callers are ill informed. by the way, ben carson is also not a politician. said he only has one person in his cabinet who is not a politician. he has a lot of misinformed people that are feeding off of soundbites. they get on cable news and the internet -- soundbites they get on cable news and the internet. obama did not do so great with his pick for agn secretary of state either, both of them corrupt. thank you, c-span. florida, line for

republicans. go ahead. frank, are you with us this morning? we will try frank again as we show you one other op-ed in today's paper. this is from usa today. it is by senator mike lee, and it is his opposition to the proposal for legislation to protect the mueller inquiry. the senate debating that legislation, senator mike lee, a republican from utah, noting wouldhe legislation ensure that any special counsel appointed by the justice forrtment may be fired only good cause, and it allows the special counsel who has been fired to challenge that decision in court. he says to be clear, the president should allow mueller to finish his investigation into the russian election and aaron in a timely fashion, but this legislation, he says, is

unconstitutional and political expedients can never trump the constitution. he says because the powers to prosecute are the quickest legislative authority, any attempts to direct prosecution, including to limit the president's power to fire the prosecutor is an unconstitutional breach in the separation of the preservation of power. senate will not pass this legislation if it advances out of committee. that is the republican senator from utah. if you want to read more, it is in usa today. pittsburgh, line for democrats. caller: hello, good morning. all i have to say today is it is really not anyone's fault that donald trump has not hired the best people. if you would have hired the best people, then we would -- if he would have hired the best people, then we would not be in this situation where we are questioning all of these people. from the time where he had his

transition period, they have been shady and it is not robert mueller's fault, it is not the american people's fault, it is because he has not hire the best people. it is our job to make sure these are the best people to run our country. that is my comment, thank you. host: andrew, white plains, new york, democrat line. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span for having my call. as a follow-on to the lady that just spoke, trump did not expect to win the election. i think that his ability to staff a cabinet was reflected in that. host: do you think that a year in, his ability has improved? you finally get the people that he wants? that is exactly the point. .onnie jackson was a whim he decided to put this guy in because he happened to personally know him. there was no effort to really find qualified people, and it

shows his decision with ronnie jackson's nomination. trump does not seem to learn from his previous mistakes. that is all i have to say, but thank you having my call. andrew, our last caller in the segment of the washington journal, but up next, we will talk about the supreme court. the los angeles times reporter david savage will be here to discuss the challenge to the president's travel ban, and later, national resources deansse council's bob will be here to discuss scott pruitt's time as epa administrator. we will be right back. >> saturday live coverage of the annapolis book festival starts at 10:00 eastern and includes chris matthews with his book, kennedy".

new agenda president co-founder with the list. and journalist garrett graff with his book raven rock, the story of u.s. government secret plan to save itself all the rest of us died. watch live coverage saturday beginning at 10:00 eastern on book tv. >> the news starts to spread parts of the country. there is an editorial cartoon that comes out with a baby , where's myma, ma

pa?" >> the first few episodes are all in my head, they hang around people.ept of we the it was an exploration of gender, , then we moveity into the idea of more perfect .nion there are a couple of episodes about justice, and defense. a combination with the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. washington journal continues. los angeles times supreme court reporter joins us on the last day of arguments of the current term of the supreme court.

set to be heard, trump versus hawaii. david savage, is there any reason why the court save this until the last day? >> it is a big deal. this case has gone through a series of cycles. this was the first controversy of his presidency. the travel ban came up the first week. it has gone through a series of iterations. the short answer, the third version came out in the fall. it was changed, struck down in the night circuit. the supreme court agreed to hear it. they have a three-month time they agree to hear cases and then it is argued. they wanted to get this finally decided that they had to put it on in late april. host: what is the question being decided today? guest: there are two big

arguments. one is that trump has overstepped his power under the immigration laws, and the law does not allow him to pick and choose countries and say no more immigrants from these countries. the challengers say this is about religious discrimination. word, this is a muslim ban. that is what the president wanted to do. this is a sanitized version. they say it is religious discrimination. those are the legal issues. host: what time is this expected to take place? guest: 10:00 to 11:00. the supreme court is wonderful at sticking to the time. the supreme court starts at 10:00. a halfve each attorney hour to talk. then they call in end and that is it. host: we are getting the same day audio from the supreme court

being released today. as soonbe on c-span.org as it is available. set us up for who is making the arguments, and who is representing the plaintiffs. there are two attorneys. appealtration law, the party goes first. the solicitor general, a former lawyerclerk, a very good , he is trump's solicitor general. defendsthe person who the government before the supreme court. he is up for a half hour arguing why the ninth circuit was wrong. then this fellow who will be arguing for the challengers, he is an exceedingly capable lawyer. he was the acting solicitor general in the first obama term. he is representing the state of

hawaii. he is representing all the challengers who say they should be struck down. host: hasn't the supreme court look at the travel ban? guest: i feel it we went through this last year. preliminary a injunction. the supreme court said we are going to act in a way -- they issued a short opinion and found a neat way to split the middle in a way i did not think you could. i think they did not want to way into soon, too much on one side or the other. john roberts is inclined to find a middle way to decide cases. they allowed the travel ban to go into effect, except for people who had a bona fide relationship, which in english aant that you had to have

close relationship. suppose a husband and wife the situation. the wife is in iran, the husband could say i want my wife to travel and be here and see me. or utah at a university. so they said we are going to exempt people who had a close .elationship with somebody the was a way to allow second travel ban to go into effect but also limit it. weres first two orders temporary. they were said, if your member the rhetoric, we need to check the leading systems. we are suspicious about how good a job they are doing. we need 90 days. essentiallyder is permanent. the one that is being argued today, an argument that will be in effect indefinitely. the first were temporary.

the supreme court in this non-decision split the middle allowed it to go into effect in part last year. host: the countries covered by the current iteration, iran, somalia, syria and yemen, north korea and venezuela. read them.glad you i try to keep them in mind. fivenk there's only majority muslim countries left. they threw in north korea. onlyenezuelan saying applies to officials of the government. the fight is over the five majority muslim countries. host: as we talked to david savage about a busy day of the andeme court, republicans democrats -- i assume you're

going to be making your way to hear the arguments. what will you be watching for? guest: i always listen to what justice kennedy is going to say. this looks like an ideological split. house wouldhe white likely prevail in this case in the book because immigration law heavily tilts in favor of the president and the federal government. the president can suspend the entry of any aliens, any class of aliens for as long as he deems necessary if he thinks it would be detrimental. those provisions are so broad. even if these things were struck , thein the lower courts white house, the president would have a big advantage. i just want to see if that is true today.

hour, whenhe first they will ask -- him. if justice kennedy or chief justice is belled third about the government's attorney does that is significant. i would bedes flip interested, whether there was any sign that they are not going to vote to uphold the travel ban. host: what is the government go first? guest: in the supreme court, if you have lost in the lower courts you get to appeal to the supreme court and you are the appealing party. this is trump versus hawaii. hawaii was suing the trump administration. host: the last targets will be from the plaintiffs. guest: that is right. they are -- they are the respondents.

they are basically saying the lower court got it right. host: taking your calls. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. when this band -- the first along, awhen it came lot of these refugees coming , indirectly or directly by us yemen could look at libya. -- by us. yemen. look at libya. we have responsibility to take these people. that is my question. host: is that something the court decides? guest: they are not going to decide that. there is little about the refugee law in this case.

it is good background to say what is our responsibility, but the supreme court is not ruling on the refugee issue. they have a well-founded fear of persecution. anyone who can seek asylum, this is a long part of the law, but it is the asylum provisions for refugees that are not this case. it is a different area of law. this is about immigrants, travelers. it is the father and mother who want to come to michigan to see their son graduate. people who are travelers who want to come from iran or libya. it is immigrants and travelers. not refugees. host: is the core being asked if this is a muslim band? guest: yes. implicitly. that is what neal cassidy is

going to say. the government may have tried to sanitize this and say we are only focusing -- but we know what this is about. candidate trump said he wanted a ban on muslims. that this has gone through several iterations. he is telling the justices don't be fooled. you ought to view it as an unconstitutional attempt to screen out muslims. host: line for democrats. go ahead. caller: they keep referring to this as a muslim band. i thought these questions who don't have a u.s. embassy. would you identify these ,ountries that this applies to and what countries where we have a u.s. embassy? iran, libya, somalia, syria, yemen and north korea, then his way love -- venezuela.

was part of the proclamation removed? correct. the administration's view is this is not a muslim than. if it were a muslim band, there are a lot of muslim countries. the administration's argument is that if you look at libya, syria, these are very troubled countries that may not have a good information system. we can't be confidence that they are doing a good job of screening out people, making sure nobody has a terrorist connection gets into the question. host: line for independence. caller: good morning. my comment is immigration in this country is really messed up

. we have no borders. illegal immigrants flow into our country. it is an invasion. i judgelike to know why in hawaii or california is more powerful than the president of the united states. .hose judges need to be removed they are overstepping their boundaries when they can step on the president. the only person who should be should walk on his edict be congress. i don't understand how these democrat judges can do this. any time say they're not fakerats, they are republicans. i don't know. if we can't stop killers from coming into our country and turning us into sweden and germany and france where people are mowed down by vehicles,

which did just happened in new york, we are done. argument is part of this case. the fourth question the government wants to weigh in on is this notion of a single district judge issuing a global injunction. this is taken off in the last .ecade under president obama the conservative groups would go to south texas and find a district judge who issued an order to stop president obama's daca program. one judge, a couple plaintiffs whole countrythe saying it is on hold. now since president trump came and it seems to happen almost every week. a federal district judge in hawaii said this program is

unconstitutional. a similar judge in maryland did the same and issued an order saying because this is an unconstitutional order, i'm issuing an order to say this entire program is suspended. controversial provision. the administration is trying to figure out how to stop it. they are actually asking the court to say something about that. if you get a case before you, and you have a half dozen plaintiffs who say i have family in iran, and this is unfair, if you are the judge, hand down an order that applies to them. it is one of the secondary issues in this. it is a procedural issue. thelows from the complaint call or raise. how does one judge in hawaii in-depth for the whole country based on three plaintiffs?

host: the los angeles times -- the case we are talking about him a trump versus hawaii. releaseda audio be .fter the arguments are done sometime this afternoon. we will have them available. we should note we will have those audio arguments on c-span at 9:00 tonight if you want to watch. taking your questions. 15 minutes left. we read an article about a action foreferred childhood arrivals program. can you explain what that means for where we are in the legal debate over that? it sounds the same. three judges have issued orders saying president trump's

decision to suspend the daca -- deferred of the action for childhood arrivals, in 2013t obama's order saying of all the illegal immigrants in the united states, we are not going to use our people whoo deport came here as children through no fault of their own. they are 20 years old now. tosident obama was going allow them to get work permits and stay in the country. three district judges have said president trump suspended it without any legal basis. decisionhat is another that is going to be hard to prevail. we will see.

, if president obama had decide thety to question, another president could say no, i am not going to. host: at what point we expect a decision on daca? guest: i don't know. the supreme court has not jumped into this right away. they could have. it is before the appeals court. the supreme court in the fall will take it up. host: we are talking the next term. guest: yes. that is one that i thought congress would work out. a couple of months ago the presumption was they would come to some deal. the president said he wanted to maintain daca. i thought most people thought

that was going to be worked out politically. you know how capitol hill is. sometimes things don't get worked out like they should. last a of arguments in the current term of the supreme court. then we will turn to decisions being handed down. when are we expecting the big this travel ban? guest: last week in june. me ofpreme court reminds final exams week. everyone knows when the last week -- all the term papers. in thetices are involved majority -- you don't like what i did so you respond. most of the big cases, where they are really divided, you write an opinion any move on. the big cases end up going back-and-forth, adding almost

inays that in the last week june, when the biggest cases of the term end up getting decided. host: and the biggest week for reporters like yourself. guest: it is feast or famine. it aside all of the big cases the same week. all of the big cases the same week. caller: thank you for taking my call. -- when question for president trump, when he had a campaign with a muslim ban, he -- he justly say pointed out a specific country which is a travel problem .ountry

i think it is true. there is a lot happening in this country. myself, didhy, even you even hear anything since president trump in the white there is no hearing about isis, anything happen in our country. within two years i never heard and seen anything like the isis killings and bombings. did you hear it? i never heard anything. sure what the question was. there have not been isis incidents in the united states. .here were in the mideast

-- you could have a very good argument over whether this border is necessary or effective to keep out terrorists . the plaintiffs say there are no examples of people coming from libya, getting into this country and committing terrorist acts. there is a good reason to be vigilant about screening people from countries like that. there is no isis incidents. vans, terrorism incidents. host: on the idea of a muslim ban, are you expecting to hear the statement from the trump campaign when he first announced this? for a j. trump calling

shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our countries representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. that was president trump on the campaign trail. is that going to come back? guest: those are in the briefs. of tweets ofries tweets the president has on this subject. the early part of this litigation he kept saying i'm not in favor of this watered-down then. i would like to go back to my stronger band. they cited the tweets saying he actually wants a stronger bannon muslims than this wimpy proposal that his justice department has put forward. host: what are the last time tweets have been cited? guest: i do not know that has ever happened before.

i suspect the justices don't want to go there. they don'twant to -- want to go down the road of saying we are going to use a candidate's campaign statements to reflect on his administration, his white house, and they don't want to get back in the business of saying all campaign statements are fodder .or interpreting laws i read, 11statement months before the election, when he made that statement. that up,ebody brings someone will say do you think that is appropriate to way campaign statements as a way to decide constitutionality? good morning. want to ask him

a question. is he saying that foreign attackers is less than homegrown attackers? like it is more homegrown attackers in the united states. i would like for you to repeat that for everyone to hear. what do you mean by less? in terms of number? caller: everyone was worried about isis over here attacking us. as i have seen, i have seen white guys doing mass shootings. of whiteot supremacists attacking. it seem like it is more homegrown here than it is foreign. i would like for someone to

repeat that again. it seem like people are more worried about isis coming year that are attacking each other now. what is the difference? why are we so set on what is happening in the mideast, worried about them coming over here? we should be worried about us here. guest: i think the color made that point better than i could. .hat is one of the big debates is the threat for in terrorists, or homegrown violent people and mass shootings? that is not the issue in this case. the only issue is the white house position, we have to be careful about not letting people in from countries that are war-torn. aboutoesn't say anything what is the greatest threat to our day-to-day security.

ask you when you come on about retirement watch on the supreme court. what you are expecting at the end of this term. justice kennedy. your thoughts on what will happen? guest: idol think i have ever given a good answer. thing. well hidden justice kennedy has given no sign he is leaving. there have been rumors. who sayalked to people he is in good health and in fine spirits. is the crucial deciding vote on all of the big cases. decidessurprised if he to retire. but he is going to be 82 years old this year. so at some point, he talked about he wants to leave.

you don't want to die on the job. surprised if he announces at the end of the term . i have been surprised before. host: always appreciate your time. guest: thank you. byt: up next, we're joined bob dean of the natural resources defense council. we will talk about scott pruitt's tenure. pozner will join us. we'll be right back. ♪

>> new york times versus the united states. pentagon papers case. president nick's his executive theseity to prevent documents related to the vietnam war from ming release. lower courts stop the presses for the first time in the history of the united states. to stop theses presses and is proud of that. it is all up to the supreme court. thing, a greatt story. it only stands for the proposition that the government can't stop the presses in advance. the court acknowledges there is a possibility once the new york times and washington post published this there could be prosecutions afterward.

ofthe gravitational force the case has created a political atmosphere where within hugely broad terms we do not go back to the press for publishing things even if the statute says that we could. v.watch new york times the united states. live monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. >> washington journal continues. host: back at our desk, these director of strategic an engagement before the epa administrator scott pruitt is set to appear before two congressional committees to discuss the epa budget and his management of the agency.

if you had a chance to be on one of those panels what would you ask? he becomes a daily reminder of an administration that has broken faith with the american public in so many ways, public confidence in our government and in the institutions that sustain our democracy. that is a high price to pay. i would ask why he thinks he should stay on the job one more day. fire put on what grounds? guest: he has been a failure at his job completely and utterly. in recent weeks we have seen abuse of office. we have seen conflict of interest. misuse of taxpayer funds. of arrogance i have not seen in 26 years in washington. to change the

safeguards we all depend on to protect us from chemicals and industrial ruin. he has been a failure at the job. host: on the administrative side of the agency, some concerns, his largest security detail he has, who is to say what the the epa administrator is facing. where we criticizing him? guest: there is a homeland security official in the epa itself. the official took a look at threats against the administrator and found there was no credible threat out there. i'm going to leave it to them to be the arbiter of that. epa hasistrator of the ever demanded a 24-hour security detail, 30 security agents on the job, costing $3 million a year. what it's got to do before

he was nominated and became epa administrator? guest: what he did as th attorney general in oklahoma, to stop the epa from doing its job. he was going to bat for fossil fuel companies. he filed 14 lawsuits against the epa, taking the epa to court to prevent it from doing its job. it was a hope in this background. there was nothing in the record to suggest he would change. what he is doing now is going to bat for these industrial polluters from inside the muck. concerns, wascal there anything in his background ethical concerns at the state level? why would it change when he becomes epa administrator? guest: that is a great question. we learned last sunday these ethical concerns are part of a pattern that goes back for years while he was in oklahoma.

what we have seen here in washington are things that make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. that is conflict of interest. going behind the president's back to give a raise to a political appointee, then punishing career professionals for trying to insist he play by the rules. has there ever been a larger toned deaf public official than to waste $43,000 on a private soundproof phone booths we can make calls that not even his secretary would know about? what is he trying to hide from the public? it is outrageous. host: bob dean, calling for the firing of scott pruitt.

you are with us until the house gavels in briefly around 9:00 this morning. we will be taking your calls and comments. what is your reading of where senators are on this push to fire? >> even some republicans are trying to put distance between themselves and scott pruitt. he has become a poster boy for government abuse. that doesn't go down well for members of congress. they hear about it, and they should. this man is there to serve the public. he is going to bat for industrial polluters and that is just wrong.

host: peter is up first. good morning. caller: good morning to you. this trump administration is astounding for its lack of ethics. i'm astounded. independent --an i cannot believe some of the things that i am seeing going on inside the d.c. beltway. do you knowask, what don nickles is up to? ofwas in the hip pocket lobbyists in oklahoma. maybe you want to comment on that and the fact the trump administration, when i look at this, the two men with the longest seniority now, sonny perdue and jeff sessions. they should have a tollbooth inside this administration for the amount of turnover they have had.

one last thing, the history of the epa. i was living when it was formed under richard nixon. theou could tell them about epa itself. i will hang up. keep up the great work. thank you c-span. guest: you got me on don nickles. i am not sure what he is doing. i can respond to the epa question. it was formed under richard nixon. he recognized that the country needed to put in place an agency that would stand up and protect our water, our air, our people in public health. it is charged to do that on three legs. the epa is required by law to use the best available science,

coming up with safeguards. finally the public interest, every time the epa puts forth a commonsense safeguards to protect us it is open to public comment. epa officials meet with hundreds of stakeholders in washington and across the country. the environment protection agency has been successful. the industry cried wolf -- the 360% since thewn epa was created. been proved a lie. the epa has been saving lives in saving money, making people more productive at home and in the workplace. >> you have offered criticism of the epa administrator. the tweet from earlier this month defending his epa

administrator, while security spending was more than his received death threats because of his bold actions. record clean air and water saving billions of dollars. the rent is about market rate. travel expenses ok. scott is doing a good job. guest: the apa's own homeland security official found there was no credible threat of any sort to scott pruitt. that is not true. he is not doing what the american people want done john. we had a poll last month that found 90% of the public once the epa to do what it is doing, or do even more to protect our environment. nine of 10 americans and two tords actually want the epa do more. whatever donald trump is happy

about, 90% of the american public is outraged about. host: here is what the epa is working on. policy thatl require studies to be fully transparent. why is that controversial? because it is not about transparency. it is about coming up with a new regulation to restrict the science the epa can rely on. science is a search for truth. common sense environmental protection does save lives. 230,000 premature deaths avoided each year just by the clean air act alone. it saves money when people are able to show up at work and we days.millions of lost we're becoming more productive and we are saving money. on this transparency rule, the era of secret science coming

to an end. the ability to test and reproduce scientific findings is vital. americans deserve to assess the science underpinning decisions that may impact their lives. that does not sound like what discussed. >> we know how to replicate science. we know how to test science. it is peer-reviewed. they state the credibility of their careers on signing off on this before it gets to them. hewhat he is trying to do, understands the more we know about science, the more we know about the threats, the more we're going to be opposed to his agenda. he doesn't want science getting in the way. is have to ask yourself what it that scott pruitt is afraid of?

what is it he doesn't want us to know? bob dean of nrdc. good morning. my modestused to make contributions to the nrdc. no more. the gentleman is so obviously political. he reminds me of tim kaine or somebody. information from other sources including judicial watch. aboutffer some evidence miss doings on the part of the epa. mr.in no position to debate dean. i'm not calling for that purpose. but you sound like a hustler to me. host: when did your feelings about nrdc, when did that

change? what issue did it change on? caller: as i began to get information about things that go that was contrary idealizede and picture of the environmental movement. i'm not anti-environment at all. i am open to the idea that things are not entirely the way and man like mr. dean presents them. host: was it this administration or the previous administration? caller: during the obama administration. you for the call. thank you for your past support. i hope one day you will come back. i can only tell you what we do.

we tell the truth about what is happening to the environment. source this for you with gold standards. we advocate for policy solutions. we are not bringing hands. we are talking about how to fix it. we use our laws and courts to hold polluters to account. that is what we do. thank you for the call. host: one of the things you have come on to talk about is the trump administration's decision to pull out of the paris climate accords. is the world more polluted? if we candon't know make that assessment but it sent the wrong message. the paris treaty was a triumph of american leadership. got the entire world on board. we are now the only nation in the world that has stepped away from a commitment to cut carbon

pollution by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. that is important. we are not a political organization. my rhetoric may sound as though we are, but it is not us who has changed. we go back to president george h.w. bush, and he and his family are in our prayers right now. best actsone of the in this country. it has avoided millions of premature tabs. has made a huge difference in this country. trillions of dollars in actual savings that have been verified and the budget of the white house. we credit george h.w. bush. we think those improvements are going to be an enduring part of his legacy. that is leadership. good morning.

i'm an independent but i lean republican. i voted for obama. i feel like i can be independent . the epa and fish and wildlife services have approached a gopher for an endangered species and it severely limited the ability of property owners to develop normal property, which is a taking. those rules have damage the repeat tatian of the epa and fish and wildlife to the average citizen. i will hang up and listen. guest: sure. the endangered species at was passed by congress. are and wildlife services responsible for implementing that. i'm not familiar with what you're talking about. if a species is in danger there are certain protections that are required. but in every instance land

owners, ranchers, other stakeholders have their say. they are allowed to speak, talk about concerns, and those concerns must be taken into consideration. alternatives are sought. is it perfect? not always. an effort is made. the epa doesn't have anything to theith the enforcement of endangered species act. is a barometer species that indicates the health of the environment. range in the great plains states. host: why did that become the focus of some of the concerns the caller was bringing up? sometimes politicians look for a species to hold out as an example and try to say we

are putting this above human life. that is not true. we are losing species across the world at a faster rate than any other time in 60 million years. we cannot sustain human life on earth if we cannot protect species and stop this collapse of species loss. caller: i wanted to point out that even though the science prettyglobal warming is much proven out, the thing i ,ave against the paris accords they allow some countries to do nothing and other countries that do anything are paid -- are paying money. the paris accords tells china you have to move your carbon down in 2030. china will just say we are going to raise as much as we can until 2030 and we have this time to reduce.

even though global warming is true, the president was right to reject the paris accords and renegotiate and get other countries to do their fair share without us having to be the only ones who pay for it. those are important points that you raise. i think there are a lot of misconceptions out there. heavily investing more in clean energy technology than any country in the world. it is investing in wind power, solar power at an astounding rate. more than $120 billion every year. recognizesis, china the opportunity three china understands globally we are going to invest $7 trillion over the next two decades in these clean energy technologies. china wants to be on top of it. we want our workers to be on top of it.

we want to win and compete in .hat marketplace the paris agreement was quite a help us to do that. with strong will take us in the wrong direction. thank you for taking my call. your time for being fair. what i would like to say, this is an administration that said to drain theng swamp and they have become the some creatures. the people that do not understand that we have a planet , mr. pruitt, i don't understand why if you want to drain the swamp, why are they so corrupted? question anda good points to something that should not divide us.

i'm independent myself. tory american has the right expect a few things from the administrator. they will protect people and not polluters. they will serve with integrity. they would do what mr. pruitt raised his right hand and promise to do when he took that oath of office and fulfill his duties. he has failed in all three. it is time for him to go. host: you have come out and opposition to the secretary of state nominee of mike pompeo. why is that? guest: i'm not actually familiar with our position on mr. pompeo. host: would any other cabinet members need to go right now? guest: the interior secretary should go as well. host: why? guest: he is trying to hand over

oil and gas for exploitation anyway that is inconsistent with the mission of these lands. right now, the fossil fuel industry has access to 700 million acres of public land. a third of the continental united states. they have leases on enough land to cover the state of ohio, and enough water in the gulf of state to cover the of west virginia. in addition they are sitting on 8000 leases that it is not even using. he is trying to open up the atlantic ocean, the arctic ocean more and more. that hasn industry more than enough access to our public lands and waters. we need to be reducing that over time so we can move on to cleaner ways to power our future

. host: a few minutes left. as we said, the house is going to gavel in briefly at 9:00 and then gavel out. that ceremony expected to start at 10:19. we are expecting remarks at 10:30 this morning. time for a few more calls. thank you for waiting. i'm 100% for saving the environment. like the previous caller california, i'm against the paris treaty. one of the reasons was china. they are moving in that direction. they are not there now. what a kind -- what about a country like india?

they made a minimal contribution. benefits.he economic we are unilaterally suffering industrializing. you would be better off trying to convince countries like india and then i would gladly support the cleanest country in the world. but they have to start making some efforts. guest: i appreciate those points. of thes -- does have one most aggressive programs in the .orld to convert to solar power they are skipping over the fossil fuel era altogether and going directly to solar. in many cases for the first time. pushare also putting a big on electric cars. india is doing quite a lot. india and china, these countries are doing something that we have

not seen before. taking hundreds of millions of people and moving them from abject poverty to the global middle class in the span of a single generation. that has to be taken into consideration. what you pointed out is important. clean energy jobs, investing in efficiency so we do more with building the best cars anywhere in the world, getting more homegrown clean 3 millionsupporting american jobs one of the fastest growing sectors in the merck & company -- in america. to get better gas mileage, more efficiency from our cars and help save our people money at the pump. these are exciting new technologies.

in june, transmission technologies. they can make our cars the best in the world and help our workers compete in the global auto market. we are not going to be involved at all in the elections. we have a separate affiliate, our political action fund that will be involved. it is doing its best to find those candidates that are going to stand up for public health, and see if we can help them out. that is strictly our political arm, the nrdc action fund which is separate. host: can you speak to how much has spent in previous elections? and how much it is going to spend in this election? we know the koch brothers have already promised to spend $400

million in this election. in the past, ours has been less than 1% of that. host: let's get clark. for independents. caller: i was wondering if you have read a book called energy victory. guest: i have not but i'll make a know of it. caller: you should. in this book is a solution to these problems you are speaking of. a flex fuel mandate. it is substituting alcohol-based fuels that youl are against. host: we will let you have the last word. bob dean. i appreciate the time. guest: t