enterprise institute. demandonsumers, we can that is uses of facebook and twitter and google to if we are going to be on that platform, we expect that they will respect our ability to communicate. if we don't like it, we can quit. >> to me, it seems hard to levy an accusation that big tech is a when dennis prager is getting a billion views on the products and videos he is putting out. "" the communicators tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> this morning, david mitchell, founder and president of patients for a portable drugs talks about efforts to lower prescription drug rises -- prices. then stephen kotowski examines errors proposals responding to the recent mass shootings.

later, the president of college and young democrats of iowa on the candidates and issues in campaign 2020. as always, we take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for august 12. we want to hear from you. some type ofaccept compromise when it comes to potential new gun legislation passing the house and senate and being signed by the president. some type ofsals have compromise when it comes to flagged -- we want to hear on what been compromises could you support, if any when it comes to gun legislation and why? you can let us know on the following phone lines. 202-748-8001 for republicans. for democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-8002.

if you are a gun owner, give us a call at 202-748-8003. you can post on twitter at @cspanwj and almost 400 people posting on our facebook page on this posting and question. you can add your thoughts to the mix at facebook.com/cspan. when it comes to potential for gun legislation passing the senate and house and being signed by the president, joining us on the phone to talk about what has to go into play to make that happen is scott long with the hill. he is there senior staff writer. guest: good morning, pedro. this a story you posted morning on the 5 factors that will determine the gun control debate, of that list, what is the strongest factor? strongest factor is president trump himself, as well as mitch mcconnell. men -- withoutwo

support from those men, no gun control measure will move through the congress and get to the president's desk and be signed into law. a lot of this has to depend on how serious president trump is when he says he supports and endorses background checks. we have heard in the past after the parkland shooting in florida, the president say that he supports background checks. of course, as we know, that was anybacked up that -- by sort of action on capitol hill. it was uttered, but never followed up on. instead, after strong lobbying on behalf of the nra, president trump and his administration shifting -- shifted toward what they called was a hardening of schools really boosting and ramping up security of the public school system. that became the focus rather

than any background checks. it remains to be seen whether the president will put some teeth behind his words. host: what is the most appropriate -- comfortable approach senator mcconnell is taking? visit background checks or are there other avenues the senator could be comfortable with pushing in the senate? guest: few reporters and i were surprised that mitch mcconnell, who has been a staunch nra ally is up for reelection in 2020 and needs the support of his conservative base to turn out to push him over the top for another 6 years in office. we were surprised friday when which mcconnell said he was open to the idea of background checks, among other measures including red flags legislation. that was encouraging to some although as i mentioned before, until we really start to see this process kick into motion

and see activity on capitol hill, there is a lot of skepticism, especially on the part of democrats who feel like they have seen this movie before and seen a lot of inaction in the past. host: we heard the president talking about these issues with senator pat toomey, senator joe mansion. what are they endorsing when it comes to legislation? guest: toomey mansion are known forthe past -- in the past background checks legislation. legislation to close gun show loopholes, loopholes regarding internet firearm sales. right now, you can purchase guns at those two venues and without going through background checks whereas if you go to a regular gun store, you need to go through a federal background check process. these two bipartisan senators in

the wake of the sandy hook wasting in -- i believe it 2012, these senators came awful close to pushing something through the united states senate. they fell 6 votes shy when it was all said and done and we have not seen real movement on any sort of major gun reform legislation in the remaining years, even as we have seen a number of high-profile shootings ranging from parkland to orlando to las vegas where the most lives were lost. this is seen, i think, as a critical moment because it seems a number of americans are simply frustrated at the volume of lives that have been lost and are really looking to our leaders for help to sort of stop the bloodshed. guest: at that -- host: at the

top of that list in your story on the hill, you put public sentiment as a major driver on whether something gets done or not. guest: exactly. the washington post over the weekend had quite a jarring image of the faces of the victims. massthan 1100 victims of shootings in the course of our nation's history over 50 years. when you have that many people lost to mass shootings, it is seems after a while that everybody has some kind of connection. every american has some kind of connection. those are all communities, families broken apart. even thinking about my own family, thinking back to an uncle who survived a mass shooting in the 1980's and seeing some of the victims of that mass shooting, everyone has a connection now to something

that has happened regarding these mass shootings and i think that is really driving a lot of this frustration and anger. whereas, in the past, a lot of americans turned to grief and sadness in the wake of these events, people have grown so frustrated and really are looking to the united states congress and this president to do something and that was a chant we heard at the mic to wine, the ohio governor event last week. heard that message and quickly, the very next day, he heard that message from his constituents and endorsed more gun reform he had never endorsed in the past. it seems like that frustration is boiling over and having an effect on some politicians. the story our

guest referenced from the washington post, pictures from those lives lost. politicians started their summer break. by the time it concludes, what is the likelihood this issue will be front and center then? guest: that is exactly right. with this president and this trump era, where it seems like we go through 10 different news cycles in the course of one week, we have four weeks remaining of this congressional recess and that is a long time before congress reconvenes in washington and starts to begin to have a real, genuine debate about gun reforms. everyone is sort of scattered in their respective districts. 40 lawmakers were on a weeklong trip to israel led by steny hoyer and kevin mccarthy. members are on vacation.

everyone is dispersed around the world during this recess. the real test will be what happens, whether there is any sort of momentum that is able to be preserved after this long four week recess and my earlier it seems like the media and the american public has often been distracted in afterrump by controversy controversy. it will be a real test to see if the american public and the people can stay focused on the issue of gun reform by the time congress reconvenes on september 7. host: scott wong's story appears this morning at thehill.copm. thanks for your time this morning. guest: thanks so much. host: you heard him talk about the potential areas where

compromises are being discussed. is another area you would be comfortable finding compromise on when it comes to gun laws legislation. you can let us know. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 free democrats. and independents, 202-748-8002. if you are a gun owner, give us a call at 202-748-8003. at our twitter feed, it is @cspanwj if you want to post and several people posting on our facebook page as well. this is david stoical saying i would be happy to talk about nationwide concealed carry and gun free zones, and force the laws we currently have. james says the house's universal background checks bill would close a loophole.

the buyer is not legally prohibited to purchase that weapon. he goes on. melanie johnson saying we have over 20,000 state and federal gun laws. gun owners have compromised enough and not one single criminal follows the law. it's not about the guns, it is about people people doing evil evils -- evil people doing things. let's stop selling guns to everyone. let's compromise on background checks, just like drug testing before you get a job. just some postings from our facebook page. from tennessee, our line for democrats. george, good morning. if there are areas of compromise you can see, what would those be? caller: one thing would be the gun shows. i support anything.

understand, australia, japan, these other places. how in the world -- no more guns you have, the more availability. i heard somebody say on tv if we -- they costy thousands of dollars. . host: you started with gun shows, why is that? caller: because you can go to a gun show and by anything you .ant to that is why, no checks. host: let's hear from janice.

brooklyn, new york. caller: good morning. i think there should be some type of compromise. we need to start, instead of taking a couple of days to get a wait 6 to weight 6 -- 10 months. ammunition. if you really want to shoot a deer, you will make sure it is worth your money. third, i don't think mitch mcconnell will let this come to a vote. he has not done anything in 12 years. i don't think he will let it come to a vote, he has to get reelected. host: as far as taxing ammunition, won't that affect all gun owners? caller: they will know it will be done safely. if you tax them high, they will

treat it like an asset, not just throw it around and let anybody get it. host: stuart in seattle, washington. you are next, good morning. it is we wonder why don't allow people to drive a car without getting a license and making sure somebody knows they can use that weapon. i think if somebody wants a handgun, they should get license. if they want an ar-15 or high-powered rifle, they should be in the national guard. host: most states already require license it for gun ownership. ownership. for gun why should they go farther than that? caller: i want to make sure someone makes eye contact with someone to make sure they are not depressed or homicidal. host: would you trust someone on the front end to make that judgment? caller: when you get your that drivers test

is going to look at you and say you are confident you can handle it safely and know what you are doing? if you cannot pass the test safely, you should not be allowed to have a license. right now, you just have to fill out a form. a linee have set aside for gun owners. it is 202-748-8003. we will hear from a gun owner. this is george from connecticut, hello. you are on, go ahead. has probablycticut some of the most restrictive .aws on firearms ownership i don't understand how these people get their arms on firearms -- their hands on firearms around this country. sandy hook drew a lot of

attention. there were flaws that allow that to happen. this can't continue. they have to do something to prevent people from getting thesems and committing crimes. host: what is reasonable in your mind? caller: you need to have a background check. obviously, now, with all of this that happened, you cannot just let someone have a firearm. it has changed. since ieen a gun owner was 21 years old. i am a hunter. something changed with the country and the population and the reference to firearms. i don't know what happened, but this kind of stuff cannot continue. host: as far as connecticut

laws, walk us through what it takes to get a gun. caller: you cannot own any firearm unless you have a handgun permit for if you don't have a handgun permit, you need to have a long gun certificate as well as an ammunition certificate. host: that is george in connecticut talking about his experience. it was on the sunday shows yesterday, one of the democratic presidential candidates, bernie sanders, talking about legislative efforts on gun laws. he talked about what gun legislation could come to the floor. [video clip] >> this is what the american people want. the american people are sick and tired of powerful corporate interest determining what goes on in washington.

overwhelmingly, the american people want to expand background checks, they want to do away with the gun show loophole and more and more people agree with something i have been saying for 30 years. assault weapons are weapons of war. they are designed to kill people as rapidly as possible. they should not be sold and distributed in this country. host: politico conducted a poll with morning consult about the topic of guns and weapons bans. foundn shepard saying it nearly 70% of all voters would back a ban on assault weapons. democrats. votersl found 55% of gop were comfortable banning assault weapons and 54% said they would support stricter gun laws more generally.

only 23% of all voters opposed on assault weapons ban. you can find that at politico. when it comes to potential new legislation, what would you become turbo with, if anything, when it comes to areas of compromise? red flag laws, or another approach. no laws areou say necessary. republican line from scottsdale, arizona, this is true. -- drew. good morning. caller: i think this is just an emotional issue. we have a second amendment right and i want to point out we had a caller basically calling for attacks saying -- a tax saying we should make ammunition so expensive that only rich people can shoot guns? we have to think this through. politicians took an oath to

protect and defend the constitution, including the second amendment. the united states ranks 66th among other world nations when it comes to mass shootings. you can get that at wjla news. host: what goes through your mind when you hear the president speak in these terms? caller: i am going to have to wait and see what he comes out with. i don't like to see people that are criminals or mentally ill being able to have guns and do these things, but one thing i noticed is these shootings almost always take place in a gun free zone and another thing is we need to stop people that are mentally ill. i think background checks are okay. i am not an unreasonable person, i just don't like the emotion, i

like for people to research the down and cool off. host: you think at the end of the day congress will do anything? caller: probably not. aboutre too concerned russian hoaxes and we are too close to an election time. i don't have a lot of faith in congress. host: that is drew calling on the line for republicans. another republican, this is larry in florida, a gun owner himself. hello. caller: hi. there is a lot of misinformation from your callers. it is remarkable to me. i wanted to call because i have been a gun owner since i was 18 years old and i am 64. the last 20 years, i conceal carry in two states.

i have never hurt anybody, never had to draw my weapon. we have a second amendment right in this country. driving is a privilege in 50 states, yet there are thousands of people killed by drunk drivers and drug addicts that kill families and yet we do not cry to take their cars away. rifles that are not assault rifles. there are 1700 people that have been killed by knives and tens of thousands of people killed by cars. it is remarkable to me how we always go after the gun and not the reason of a decline society and go after the shooter that is actually responsible for this. you: to that end, what do think about these floated ideas of expanding background checks

or red flag laws? caller: every time i buy a gun, i have to fill out a form. they have an fbi check on me and i am a conceal carry. throughlready gone training and already had the background checks already. they update it to make sure i have not committed a crime since, but i have already gone through those background checks. people think you can buy a gun at a gun show. most of those people are dealers and they are licensed dealers. where you can buy a gun is -- usually it is a long gun only and that is where you don't have to fill out paperwork and then if it is somebody selling like a shotgun or something like that. there is a lot of misinformation because it is all emotional and

the things i worry about as far as congress doing, it is going to be based on the masses crying out on an emotional basis, not based on fact. said, on the forms, it talks about being adjudicated or having any kind of mental defect or whatever on that form when you buy a gun. michigan, a gun owner, independent line, hi. caller: i am not sure this is any more than just a political hot topic to discuss and agree to disagree on. if congress is ever serious about this, they need to find common ground and that can be caused -- completed through process and decision-making, decide on a desired condition and set parameters and evaluate such as the efficacy of the

proposal, would it actually have prevented recent shootings? another one would be is it constitutional? to deprive somebody of a civil right and knowing it will not get passed or a court would overturn it. that can be true whether it is a red flag thing or something that .ill violate rights to privacy unless they want a political argument type of point, congress needs to come together and set criteria and come up with a viable compromise, if one exists. host: we will hear from richard on the line for republicans talking about if there are areas of compromise when it comes to gun legislation. caller: hello? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: there is something i

wanted to tell you that i think a lot of people do not realize. i am a gun owner and i am in favor of sensible things that need to be done. you can go on the internet and for an ar-15arts and lots of other types of guns and put the gun together yourself and it is not particularly hard. there are some holes you have to drill in the receiver, but none of this is difficult. when you do this, you will get a gun without any serial number on it. it is anonymous and untraceable. you might ask who in the world -- i don't know that they are less expensive than one you could buy at a regular gun shop, but the person who might do this is someone who cannot pass the background check like someone with a criminal record and so

forth. if you don't believe me, go on "ar 80%nd type complete" and those sites will come up. host: you are saying no legislation new or otherwise would take care of that. what do you think about legislation overall? caller: i think there are things that could be done. you have to realize some things are almost politically impossible that i think you could maybe close up the gun show entirely. favor of that and in favor of outlawing the assault rifle. i don't know if any hunter needs and assaulti don't know if any s and assault rifle. i used to hunt deer.

i am at the age i am not able to do that anymore. i used to hunt a lot. i don't see any reason why we need an assault rifle and we could do something about the size of the magazines. a lot of that is available on the internet like when under the clinton administration, they onited the magazine size pencils. you could get them on the internet -- pistols. you could get them on the internet all day, which was a great thing for people making these illegal magazines. joyce in's go to california, independent line. caller: thank you for taking the call. -- i agreen't think with the previous person who said there is no reason for

rifles. the only time you do that is in war. you don't need it for daily life . i think the only thing that could come out of that is harm to multiple people like we have seen recently, the past several years and it is getting worse. there is no reason to have assault rifles. i think they should be outlawed on the internet and at gun shows like walmart or wherever people buy -- there is no reason for them. host: we will hear from john in new jersey, line for democrats, hello. caller: good morning, pedro. thanks to c-span for taking my phone call. my comment is it is not the person going through legal

things to get guns like they are filling out their paperwork, going through cci and all the rest of the people that have the guns, itsell you the is the person who is devious in a way that the public doesn't m16 orand an ar-15 or any other gun like that is meant for mass killing. to free up the soldier in the field to have his life and do the country's bidding. i used to have a lot of guns. i was collecting guns for a reason. i was going to have it donated

to a museum for just to show gunnd glass cases what the look like and where it was used and how it was used in the field. i don't see any reason for a guy to go out for a magazine clip for 100 or buy a thompson machine gun for hunting. i don't see that. thank you for taking my phone call. host: that is john in new jersey. for the first half-hour of the program, we asked of those of you calling in about potential gun legislation and what areas accept.omise would you some people brought up magazine sizes, you can add your thoughts to the mix. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats.

independents, 202-748-8002. if you are a gun owner, we have heard from several, 202-748-8003 . you can post on our social media sites. steve scalise, a victim of a mass shooting. he spoke about this idea of background checks. here is what he had to say. [video clip] wantssident trump says he meaningful background checks, why aren't you supporting him on that? >> i have supported him on that and we got a bill to his desk last year, which truly goes after some of the problems where people were falling through the crack's and not getting into background checks. the president said he wants to make sure, especially people with mental illnesses do not get guns. they were a lot of people that were not getting put into the system. we passed a very bipartisan bill

to do just that and donald trump signed it into law last year. let's make sure a lot of these people who slip through the crack's do not slip through the crack's in the future. >> does that mean you do not expect republicans to support or vote for new legislation on background checks? >> let's see what bills are being brought forward. that would not have done anything to stop shootings because the shooters in el paso and dayton passed background checks, so her bill would not apply to them. her bill is dangerous in how it stops law-abiding people from guns.able to transfer you loaning your gun would put you in prison for up to a year, that is what pelosi's bill does.

makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to do things that are legal and helping improve safety. host: this is martin on our independent line, good morning. caller: just have a comment about gun control, i guess and what has been going on. had on a book tv series of authors that had written about mass shootings in our country, which is unfortunate. they started with columbine and my 14 and 50-year-old daughters were listening and they had not heard of columbine. they said was this the first mass shooting like this and i immediately said no and then i thought, let me look into that further and i remembered, even though it was before my time, there was a shooting in the

1960's before i was born, but there was a guy in a tower at the university of texas, austin, shooting people from the tower. i wanted to show the difference, the statistic of this, what has changed in 50 years. in 96 minutes, he killed 14 people in austin, texas. in dayton, last weekend, this guy probably in less than 30 seconds killed 9 people and if he would have gotten into the bar he was trying to get into, he probably would have killed hundreds. what has changed in those 50 years? both of them were deranged mentally, but what has changed is the shear amount of firearm -- firepower and tactical equipment a person can obtain legally or illegally. there is no way the dayton police could have responded faster than they did.

the chief had people positioned and whether that is luck or expertise, i am grateful. the fact is there is no way you can stop somebody if they have and amount of tactical gear barrel magazines that can hold 250 rounds. that is exciting -- that is insane. -- what is thet condition like in dayton on the day to day and how did you explain what happened last week to your daughters? caller: it is tough. it is a gritty, resilient place like our mayor has said. people come together, we have had a string of terrible things, tornadoes, other things, but this is a senseless act. people are coming together, but it is hard to imagine. i think the police chief of

dayton should be lauded to the nth degree. there is no way some buddy with that kind of firepower -- his police do not carry near that amount of firepower, but they were able to put him down because of training. host: that is martin giving his perspective, he mentioned the tower shooting at the university of texas. there are several stories taking a look at the shooter. if you go to texas monthly, there is one. let's hear from hudson, florida, this is john. caller: good morning. . am from chicago and hudson like chicago, l.a., have the strictest gun laws in the country and the highest murder rate. it is a complex issue and we

have an inapt government. it is an issue that we have to work with. chipping away at the second amendment is not going to do it. new legislative proposals in your mind then? caller: i did not say that. we need people with a brain and there is not too many in congress. making more and more laws and it has not accomplished anything. host: democrats line from albert. you are next up. [video clip] >> mcconnell is going to take advantage of this vacation and kick the can down the road. not all guns are the same.

handguns cause most of the carnage. proper regulation and tighter regulation, nationwide consistent regulations so one state cannot go to the other state to get easier access needs to take place. to regulate does not affect the second amendment. host: tom is in fort lauderdale, florida, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would be in favor of red flag laws and i would be in favor of limiting the magazine size. behink these things may necessary for society today. unfortunately, the reason i would be in favor of these laws,

the cause of that is our entertainment and news industry. roy i was growing up, rogers shot the guy and you never saw blood. there is something about our society today that is numbed to the idea of killing people. it could be games and a could be shows. one was withdrawn from the market where people were actually going to be hunting down other people. that is something societal needs to change in america and we need more societal condemnation of the idea of killing. you don't see it. where is the societal condemnation, the cultural change we need that the idea of killing someone is evil? host: that is tom in fort

lauderdale, florida. about universal pictures pulling that movie set to be released called "the hunt." they pulled the release of that movie. in a statement, the studio said this is not "the right time for the film to be released, especially considering the recent mass shootings. marketing for the film had already been suspended due to the gun violence affected. the story where a rich guy hunts according toort -- this hollywood reporter piece, it is set in a world where liberal elites -- having selected their prey based on the horrible opinions the targets shared on social media. the working title was red state, blue state. john is next in massachusetts, independent line. caller: i am going to give you

some answers. this is what happens when you bring whitewashed history and whitewashed religion. use it with the son of hope the vi claiming hehe is jesus. instead of going back -- as far as gone legislation is concerned, do you see anything you could live with as far as the compromise? caller: we are talking about people of color getting killed for 2000 years. host: i am talking about a question we are taking up currently. we murder people with color with impunity and we know no rights and you don't call that international colonialism? host: we will go to pamela in maryland. caller: good morning. i think we really need to

address the elephant in the room. on allhould be a ban high-capacity magazines and military -- military style weapons that give high kill rates in a short amount of time. bazookas, own grenades in defense of the second amendment. we should not be allowed to own these type of guns. there should be a serial number every gunnumber on manufactured, just like on cars. every car has an individualized should haveguns that. there should be a tax on ammunition sold. there is no reason anyone needs to own a gun in a civilized society to shoot people. perverting the

second amendment, it does not give you the right to own military style weapons and weapons of mass destruction. becausehers would say the second amendment does not specify what type of gun involved, why should you go after the ones you listed? caller: there is no place in a civilized society for military style weapons. their intent is for a high rate of kill and for use in war, not for use hunting deer. that was not the purpose of those guns and designed. be last thing should liability insurance. registration or serial number on every gun that is made so it can be traced. host: we will hear from mark in oregon on our republican line, a gun owner. go ahead. caller: i am willing to give up the sale of new ar-15's for

locking down the border like president trump talked about. we will see if these fascist nazis and the news media are willing to negotiate. caller: hello. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: ok. i was going to make a couple comments really click on this. a lot of callers that call in and say the gun laws in chicago and l.a. are strict and therefore they are ineffective, what they don't realize is i was born in chicago and i live in the suburb. you can go to the suburbs and buy a gun. you can go to indiana and by the gun. you can go to a gun show and by the gun and you cannot just buy guns. you can buy several those laws are not effective because they are not national

laws. the law has to be a national law that restricts. to say somebody cannot take a drive and go purchase a gun, purchase several guns and come back and sell them to people within the neighborhoods, et cetera -- host: they should -- what should be restricted in your mind? caller: they should restrict semi automatic weapons, absolutely. also what should be restricted is the transfer of guns -- everyone should have a .ackground check it should have a background check. it is basic, simple things. the other lady was talking about registering ammunition -- host: in your mind it does not violate the second amendment? caller: the thing about the second amendment is in the

federalist papers, alexander hamilton. that, ao back and read well trained militia -- if you read into the federalist papers, what that means is they have to be trained in weaponry. they cannot just get a weapon -- it is specific, you cannot do that the day or week of training, you have to go through a training process and the reason the amendment was instituted was native americans and the british and also about whether or not we are going to have a to radical government -- tyrannical government. people are preparing -- they have been buying weapons ever since obama came into office.

a certain groups of people have been stockpiling weapons. host: new york is under consideration when it comes to the supreme court taking a look at gun legislation or passage of gun legislation. this is robert barnes. the city and state of new york appear to agree they have surrendered changing restrictions even though the city successfully defended them before a district judge. new york says it has given those who hold licenses to have guns on the premises exactly what they asked for, greater ability to transport their weapons outside the city and there is no longer controversy for the supreme court to settle. the court told both sides to settle brief. court decision on guns will be bagged to fight -- will be magnified by the

presidential year. whether the recent attacks in el paso or dayton, ohio, will affect the decision is anybody's guest. -- guess. let's go to bruce in washington state. caller: they are talking about compromise. i think every weapon sold in this country, gun, pistol, or otherwise should be run through ballistics and then it should be on file. if there is a murder or anything, it will help our police ascertain who owned that weapon to start with. i think there is a lot of room for compromise and i am a carrier and i spent 27 years in the military and i know how to handle weapons.

that is my opinion. there is lots of room to compromise. one of the problems we have is the nra does not want any legislation and then you have the other end, there is no medium point. that is pretty much what i have to say. biden giving his thoughts on the op-ed pages of the new york times this morning. what he would do about assault weapons if he were elected president. if he is elected, we are going to pass them again. this time, we will make them even stronger. we will stop any factors by circumventing the fall. this time, we are going to pair it with a buyback program and get as many assault weapons off the streets as quickly as possible. i will get a universal background checks pass on the brady bill, which i helped --

i will accelerate the deployment so that gun technology guns are key to the biometrics of authorized owners. if you go to the new york times website, the op-ed piece is available there. republicannnessee, line. james, hello. caller: hello. i would like to say we have more violent influences. we have hyper violent video games, television, music depicting game violence. we have an increasing violent culture. haveould also recognize we gun rights for government tyranny because we are supposed to be able to protect ourselves against government tyranny. the gun free zones is a target

for shooters. we have extended background enforced.t not being i don't want to mention the fact guns have been removed from schools and having a mental capacity on doing what is right and what is wrong. all these things have to do with your mind and have to do with not knowing right from wrong, for a lot of people is devoid from knowing what is right and what is wrong. hear republicans talking about considering legislation and hear the president going along and endorsing these ideas, what goes through your mind? caller: what goes through my mind is criminals will still be -- citizensguns

won't be able to protect themselves. stop peoplegoing to that want to go out and harm somebody. nobody ever says anything about probably inhootings the hundreds of thousands at this point. chicago already has the highest background check laws probably in the country and look at those shootings, look at the murder rate. we need to calm down and do something that is going to affect change and stop going after law-abiding citizen's second amendment rights. host: darlene in nevada, a gun

owner. hi, there. caller: good morning. have you heard the saying fact defeats truth? let's discuss some facts. people are calling in sniveling and whining about what they think you cannot own. for someone who doesn't own a fully automatic gun, you get a book from the atf. i can own a bazooka, i am allowed to have all kinds of incendiary devices, per the atf handbook they give you. not only do you have to go through state, federal background checks, you have to off onur sheriff sign it. som so dismayed below are uneducated about what you can own.

they call in espousing garbage and call it truth. host: as far as those things are concerned, when you hear discussions about adding legislation to the mix, what would you say to that? caller: i am completely in favor of background checks. -- safe.ot keep we bend over backwards to accommodate law enforcement. in order to own firearms, you have to own three layers of security, that includes a biometric safe. people seem to forget the -- the court ruled, police are not responsible for my protection, i am. host: i suppose you get asked why own the first place?

specifically the type of guns you own? how would you answer that? caller: repeat that, sir. host: i suppose you get asked why you owned these weapons in the first place, how do you respond? caller: i smile and say, "because i can." host: bill in new york, hello. psychiatric an ex inmate. i am opposed to any law that restricts me because of that. black, i have a problem. on the other hand, i cannot kill more than three or four people with anything other than an assault rifle or some other instrument of that type. i would be very much in favor of a ban -- banning automatic weapons. i am very much opposed to the

idea that because of my background, which is not violent in any way, that i could not own a gun. host: you are specifically talking about red flag laws then? caller: yes, background checks. host: let's hear from augusta, georgia, republican gun owner. this is kenneth. caller: hi. thise been listening to stuff for two weeks and i have not heard anybody say anything about the legal system. we are a country of laws, but we apparently do not want to do anything that would really hurt somebody's feelings for killing ofunch of people instead spending millions of dollars to get into court years later and prove it was not really their fault. how about some legislation that

says you shoot somebody with a gun, you are going to jail for the rest of your life and there buts about ands, or it? and how about making a prison where people cannot see their loved ones for the rest of their lives just for picking up a gun and killing someone? host: what if someone claims self-defense on that? caller: that is fine, then you don't charge them. anybody charged with killing have a mandatory life imprisonment, no parole, that way you don't hurt ken's rights, that is me, sitting here -- for$100 for a rifle registration, that is ridiculous. absolutely ridiculous. host: is that how much it costs per weapon?

202-748-8002 -- caller: yes read in the state of georgia it is minimum $75. i have an automatic rifle i bought for my kids. they are 52 now before they were actually teenagers to go target shooting with. the thing you are looking at now, that is considered a weapon of mass destruction because it is a .22 automatic with a built in magazine of 20 rounds. host: that is kenneth and agusta, georgia, finishing off the calls for this hour. we next up, we're going to hear from david mitchell, the founder of an organization known as patients for affordable drugs. he'll joan us to discuss the efforts to lower prescription drug prices. and later, steven gutkowski

faces gun legislation proposals. all that and more as "washington journal" continues. >> tonight on the communicators. >> people come up to me and they say, sir, i can't get -- i can't follow you. they make it impossible. these are people that are really good at what they do. they say, they make it absolutely impossible. >> we'll talk about recent presidential social media summit. where president trump discussed social media censorship by big

tech firms. and what should be done about it. with robert blewy from the heritage foundation and patrick hedger from the competitive enterprise institute. >> i think as consumers we can certainly demand that as users of facebook and twitter and google, that if we're going to be on that platform, we expect that they will respect our ability to communicate. if we don't like it, we can quit. >> to me it seems hard to levy an accusation that big tech is a net negative in any way, shape or form to conservative speech when somebody like dennis prayinger is now getting a billion views on the products and the videos that he's putting out. >> watch the communicators onight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from

washington, d.c., and around the country. so you can make up your own mind, created by cable in 1979. c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of overnment. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is david mitchell, the president and founder of an organization known as patients for affordable drugs, here to talk about the cost of prescription drugs. good morning. guest: good morning. host: talk about your organization. what's behind it, who funds it and why did you start it? guest: patients for affordable drugs is the only national patient organization focused exclusively on policies to lower drug prices. we don't take money for from anybody who profits from the development or distribution of prescription drugs. we collect patients' stories and amplify them to policymakers and elected officials and we're building a community of patients and allies that can be mobilized in support of policies to lower drug prices.

i started patients for affordable drugs because i'm a cancer patient. i have an incurable blood cancer, it's called multipy my leona -- my loama. it's incurable but treatable for some period of time, unknown. with very expensive drugs. in fact, i'm taking drugs right now. i took my first drugs today by mouth and when i leave here, i'll go for about three hours of infusion, they plug me in and pump drugs in. my drugs carry a price tag of $650,000 a year. and my journey as a cancer patient taught me a very important fact and that is, drugs don't work if people can't afford them. i will die of my disease sooner than i want to if they don't invent some new drugs for me. i'll run out of options. that's why it kills people. drugs stop working. and so i care deeply about innovation and new drug development. but we have to make sure that we're balancing the innovation

we're getting with prices that make drugs affordable and accessible. that's why we're doing what we're doing. host: i suppose you've heard the argue frment drug companies that will say it's the cost of that r&d, that development that ultimately factors in the cost of a prescription drug. what do you make of that argument considering you what just said? caller: there is no core -- guest: there is no correlation. many studies show this, between the cost of research and development and the price that is assigned to a drug. drug companies have monopoly pricing power in our country. and so they set the prices as high as they can. the fact is that all 210 drugs approved by the f.d.a. from 2010 to 2016 are based on science paid for by taxpayers. through the n.i.h. the national institutes of health are the single largest funder of biomedical research in the entire world. we're paying for that. and what n.i.h. does with those wonderful drugs is it gives them

to a drug company that can then set any price it wants. we believe that we need to restore balance, let's get that innovation, but let's make sure, especially with taxpayer funded drugs, that we are getting the prices. i might add one more thing. and that is that drug companies don't spend as much as they want you to believe on r&d. they spend many of them more on advertising and marketing than they do on research and development. host: when it comes to the n.i.h., they've worked a couple of vehicles in congress designed to look at this topic of prescription drugs, is there something you endorse? one does deal directly with the idea of n.i.h. funding. guest: yeah. two weeks ago, a bill was introduced by democrat senator chris value-of maryland and republican senator -- value holen -- van holland -- van hollen and a republican senator,

when we as taxpayers contribute to a science that leads to a new drug, that we get prices that are affordable for that drug. this is critically important, you know. we have these wonderful, incredible drugs coming to market. therapies that are being priced at anywhere from $400,000 to more than $2 million. there are 400 clinical trials under way right now for new cell and gene therapies. if they come to market each at $1 million, we're going to break the bank. we're going to break families' banks and we're going to break our country's bank. host: our guest with us here to talk about the cost of prescription drugs and if you have questions for him, you can call on the line, if you live in the eastern and central time zones, it's 202-748-8000. if you look in the mountain and pacific, it's 202-748-8001. you can always post on our twitter feed @cspan wj and make your thoughts there as well for david mitchell. as far as the actual prices of drugs, aside from the legislative aspect, how do

insurance companies factor in or other ways that people get discounted drugs, how do those factor into the cause you're behind? guest: we have an absolutely impossibly complicated system. and it's one that is very hard to reform because everybody in the system makes more when the list prices of drugs goes up. drug companies make more. but so do the pharmacy benefit managers. they're the people who manage our prescription drug insurance programs. they make more. hospitals and doctors mark up drugs based on list price. so everybody downstream from the drug companies makes more money. we need to reform the system to set prices that are appropriate at list and then ensure that downstream we are setting up benefit structures that make drugs affordable to people. you know, people -- the drug companies like to say people only care about out-of-pocket

costs. that's not true. patients talk to us all the time and there are surveys that show that people care deeply about what they have to pay out of their pocket, but they understand that if things are more expensive, their insurance premiums are higher and their taxes are higher to pay for the public programs that provide health care. so we really have to get at the price. just changing insurance design to lower out-of-pocket won't do it. host: you're calling for elimination of all the middlelemen then? guest: no. we need greater transparency. in the way drugs are provided down stream. for example, pharmacy benefit managers are paid by drug companies based on getting a rebate. based on the price of the drug. it's actually a kickback. in fact, there's a safe harbor under law for this kickback. so as a patient, i can't know if the preferred drug on a formulary, that's the drugs that

this health plan offers, whatever your health plan is, i can't know if the preferred drug on a formulary there because it's the best drug, it's the most effective drug among -- i'm sorry, if it's the least expensive drug among equally effective options, or if it's there because the p.v.m. was paid a big rebate by the drug company. we think that's a bad way to run a railroad. and it's all secret. all these rebates are secret. we need to change the way that operates and there are bills in congress right now that are moving in congress to provide greater transparaphernalia -- transparency in the the way the whole system works. host: could you tell us what the difference is between the price you pay for your drugs and the list price of those drugs? guest: enormous. i am able, because the main drugs i take right now, the two main cancer drugs that have a list price of $650,000 a year, i can buy a medicare part b supplement that costs me $2,500 a year and it pays all my ow of

-- out of pockets. if i was on an oral drug under part d, i could have out of pockets that would run to $15,000 a year. right now i'm lucky because i'm taking the infused drugs and i can buy the supplement. but for many, many people on medicare part d, who are taking very expensive drugs, they can have out of pockets running to $15,000 a year. there's a bill in congress to fix that. that people should know about. it was passed out of the senate finance committee about three weeks ago on a bipartisan vote. it would do two big things. it would cap increases in drug prices in medicare at the rate of flanges -- of inflation. they would not be able to increase prices more than the rate of inflation. and number two, it would lower the maximum out-of-pocket cost that anyone could bear to $3,,100. a year. i said that out of pockets can run today 15,000 a year. so it's a very important bill

and people should call the enate at 202-224-3121 and tell them to enact the grassley-wyden bipartisan bill to lower drug prices. host: before we take cause, there's been, as you probably -- calls, there's been, as you probably have been following, large extensions -- discussions about extending the role of medicare. how would this handle prescription drugs and could the current system accept that kind of expansion when comes to the cost of those drugs? guest: we don't get involved in coverage issues. we stick to our lane and deal with drug prices. but i will say that under medicare, we should allow medicare to negotiate directly with the drug s can. in our country, there is a law that forbids the government from negotiating directly with the drug companies to get lower prices. every other country in the world negotiates. we don't. and the result is that we pay two to three times what all

those other countries pay. we need to allow the government to use its purchasing power to negotiate with these drug companies that have monopolies and drive down the prices. host: this is the first call for you. this is rachel from vermont, with david mitchell of patients for affordable drugs. richle, go ahead, you're on. caller: hello. while i appreciate and understand that the consumer needs to be taken into consideration and that prices in this country are overly astronomical, i don't deny that, necessarily agree that medicaid furel is the answer either. i am currently on medicaid myself because i am disabled and i am still not able to get what i need on it. i would still, if i were to have -- if i were to become, you know, infected with cancer or if i were to become infected with

some other disease, i have done research and i have found that i still would not be covered in the ways i would need to be to be able to afford out-of-pocket because i only work part time. there's no way in heck i could afford the costs that come with that based on what i'm currently getting from medicaid. guest: i'm sorry about the challenge, your challenge, like those faced by millions of people in this country. the fact is that people are cutting pills in half, they're skipping doses, they're literally mortgaging their houses. we have patients who have gone bankrupt. and the tragic -- there's so many tragic elements to all of this. but people taking insulin, for example, have died because they try and stretch their insulin because they can't afford to take the required dose. and this is something that should not be happening in this country, should not be happening

to you or anyone, which is why we at patients for affordable drugs are working hard to try and help enact reforms that will lower prices and make them be within your reach. host: this is amy in orange park, florida. hi. caller: good morning. i was just really touched when i heard that you said that you had multiple myloma. my husband passed away from multiple myal mombings a in -- myaloma in 2016 but he didn't actually die from the cancer. if you have it you know how it affects some -- your bones and how your bones disintegrate. but my husband actually died because of ailure the calcium in his blood. t destroyed his kidneys.

we were told he would have to start dialysis but he could probably live at least 10 years on dialysis. he was 52. so we were in the hospital and they were going to contact the insurance company and we were going to do the surgery for his port to get on dialysis and the doctor came back and basically said, you know, sir, you are at the end of your life. we're not -- the surgery is too risky and we're not going to do it. so -- but that's after first telling us that the surgery was going to be doable and i really believe that it was the cost of the drugs that the insurance company didn't want to keep paying me for because he was

doing well, his numbers were low as far as the drugs he was taking, they were suppressing the multiple myeloma. o he died from kidney failure. so, you know, if that ever happens to you, if you ever start having kidney problems, you fight. don't let the insurance company tell you they're not going to help you. host: ok, amy, thanks for sharing your story us. we'll let our guest respond to that. guest: amy, i'm so sorry about your husband. that's way too young. you just hit me right where i live. my kidneys are working ok. i'm relapsing right now, amy. my blood -- we haven't figured out how to arrest it, but we will. it's my second relapse. but, may i -- amy, i know what you're talking about. the way they diagnosed me is that i one day fell down and

couldn't move. and it's because cancer ate through my t-11 vertebra, it was crushed. and then they did x-rays of my whole body, i have holes in my skull and forearms and pelvis. the fact that i'm talking to you today is a medical miracle. myeloma can be a really nasty disease but we are fortunate that there are drugs that can extend our lives now. i wish they were -- this had been there for your husband. they're just too damn expensive. host: this is a viewer off of twigger. doug saying, are you taking into consideration of cost of drug manufacturers for the liabilities they pay for outrageous settlements? guest: i believe that the drug companies, including all the settlements that they make, are profiting handsomely with the prices they set. many of the settlements that have been reached lately have to , you things like fraud

. ow, blocking competition the drug companies factor in their settlements for behavior they should not have engaged in and they're making a lot of money. they're doing fine. i don't worry about the drug companies. in fact, we need to lower the profitability of drug companies in this country. the drug companies have profits that run roughly two to three times the average of the s&p 500. host: the administration has made a pitch to import drugs from canada. the secretary for h.h.s. was recently on one of the other networks talking about this idea, want to share what he had to say about it. get your thoughts on the matter. >> you bet. so president trump heard exactly that, people are struggling with the high cost of drugs here in the united states. so for the first time ever the f.d.a., the food and drug administration, is saying to states, to pharmacies and to wholesale distributors, we're

open for business. if you can present a plan of how you can bring drugs in from canadian pharmacies and the canadian distribution system, we're open. we will approve that and we'll let you bring them in a way that's safe for the american consumer and also reduce their costs. we're also opening another pathway where pharmaceutical companies themselves could bring their own drugs in from outside the country in a way that would let them lower their list price on those drugs here in the united states. host: mr. mitchell, what do you think of those proposals? caller: i think it's significant -- guest: i think it's significant that the administration cracked open the door to importation. but let's be clear. a, it's the notice of proposed rulemaking. rules take a long time to make, if they are ever finalized. second, anyone who would want to import under that new rule would have to apply, that will take time. third, many drugs are excluded from this plan that the secretary outlined. fourth, it's a demonstration project.

so it would only affect little pockets of the country. fifth, canada has 10% of the population of the u.s. cannot possibly supply our drugs , enough of our drugs, at those lower prices. so, anyone expecting that this proposal means help is on the way, is wrong. unfortunately. it starts the process. it may lead somewhere. but it's years away and it's only for a small proportion of drugs and people. host: here is kay from new york. hello. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call this morning. i hope i'm on topic and i'm a little nervous because i've had so much experience with drugs. my husband was diagnosed with cell, ur large diffuse b-cell, non-hodgkin's. and i saw him through his cancer treatment. and i had an excellent insurance

program at the time. and a drug plan. and i was able to get all brand name drugs that he took orly for a very low cost. he ultimately did not die from non-hodgkin's. my concern is that the f.d.a., i may be wrong, but i believe that the drug companies provide a great deal of support to the .d.a. and i'm very worried about generics. i personally am taking one prescription now that costs $25 under my employer plan a month. and under part d, it's now $1,000 a month. as high as $1,000, maybe as low as $600 a month. because i can only take brand. i cannot take generic. and my understanding is the f.d.a. ran a pilot program where

they did unannounced inspections of the factories in india and china and then all sorts of horrors were discovered about the dangers of generics. and that pilot program was canceled. i feel generics are totally unsafe and not being properly regulated. and -- i'm losing my train of thought. i'm so sorry. my husband ultimately died because he took a new high blood pressure medication and within eight hours he couldn't breathe. i obtained a form, turned it into the f.d.a., letting them know that the result of this drug was his death. because he couldn't breathe within eight hours of taking it. i spoke with a young doctor who had ferbed his residency -- finished his residency in a hospital and he said that he saw over and over and over again that this drug resulted in heart attack, stroke, heart attack,

stroke, this loop. and death. and that the f.d.a. actually knew this. i turned it in but they already knew that this drug should have been taken off the market. host: thank you very much. thank you for sharing your story. guest: kay, i'm very sorry about your bus -- husband. the f.d.a., in my view, has a critical job to make sure that drugs are safe and effective. that doesn't mean sometimes mistakes don't happen and i'm sorry if one of those led to a bad outcome for your husband. i do believe that generics are very important in order to help drive down the price. one of the bad things that's going on right now in this country is brand drug companies use a variety of legal ploys to block generics from entering the market and driving down price. one example is a drug made

called h -- humera. they entered into deals to delay the entry of competition until 2023. in the european union they have competition for this drug and the people in the european union are paying 20% of what we are paying in this country right now. and there are a host of strategies, legal abuses that these brand drug companies engage in. there's actually legislation, bipartisan in both houses of congress right now, to address those and we need to enact those reforms this year. host: to clarify then, aside from price, what's the difference between a generic and a brand drug? guest: generic is the same as a brand drug. in the case of biosims which are the generic for biologicals, they can not exactly the same but they have to have the same effect. using point is that by

we ics and using biosims, introduce competition into the -- biosims, we introduce competition into the market, and that's how we drive down prices. host: this is from new hampshire. ray on there with our guest, david mitchell, patients for affordable drugs. ray, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. david, i suffer from the same cancer you do. multiple myeloma. guest: sorry, ray. caller: back in early 2017 i had a stem cell transplant. that put it under control. and right now i'm on a maintenance dose of something. that runs just over $17,000 a month. luckily insurance picks up almost all of that. $40 co-pay a month. but i checked and to see, what is the price of this drug in

canada? i found that it was just over $15,000 a month. , d i looked at europe and britain, and france and germany, and it's still in the $15 ,000-plus to $16,000-plus a month. i don't know if that's what the countries and their government-funded programs pay actually, or that's what the list price is, do you know anything about, like, again, you know, here's a list price in canada, of $15,000-plus, is that what the actual government's paying and if we brought that here in the united states, would it be a lower price or still the $15,000 and only save me $2,000 a month? i'd like to hear your comments on that. thank you. guest: i'm not familiar specifically with that drug but if you send me an email, which you can do, my email is online

at patients for affordable -- patientsforaffordabledrugs.org, we can flook that four. the countries abroad, canada, the u.k., every other country -- we can look into that for you. the countries abroad, canada, the u.k., every other country in the world, negotiate prices off of the list. i predict it's cheaper abroad. i might add that those drugs cost just a teeny, weany bit of money to make. if i told you, for example, there's another drug you may have taken, it costs less than $1 a capsual to make but the company that makes it sells it for $720. this is outrageous. host: to detroit -- do states have any power in this individually? guest: state does have power and states are passing legislation to try and take steps to lower drug prices. massachusetts just enacted on a bipartisan basis an important new law that allows medicaid to bargain more aggressively with drug companies.

but we have a new law in maryland, my home state, there is a law moving through the california legislature, nevada's passed a law on insulin prices. so around the country, because the priteses are so high and the federal -- prices are so high and federal government has not yet taken action to address this, they're taking matters into their own hands and doing what they can at the state level. host: you mentioned insulin. a viewer says, if you can explain the cost of drugs specifically designed for diabetes, including ins listen, why -- insulin, why they're so high. guest: they're so high because three companies have seized control of the market for insulin, for the whole world. eli lily, and two others control 80% of the insulin market in the world. they are three companies that can control prices. and they do. and they have, as a result of that market control that they exercise, they have increased the price of insulin 300% over the last 10 years. host: from california, this is

jerry. hi. caller: yeah, hi. thanks for taking my call. i'm 70 years old. have diabetes and i have cancer. and they've writ me off -- written me off. i just want to say that i think you're doing a wonderful job and you're very brave. and it's just not possible to deal with this issue without getting into politics, insurance coverage and other issues. it's just -- it's all over the place. it's a structural problem. and i'd also like you to comment on -- i'm a retired attorney. it's appalling that insulin is still protected by patent law. the history of insulin and the corruption surrounding the fact

that they have this monopoly over it. eli lily is criminal organization. i don't regret saying that at all. i really appreciate what you're doing and you're extremely brave under the circumstances. and i'd really like to hear you what have to say about it. thank you very much. guest: thank you, jerry. jerry, the fact is there is no free market for prescription drugs in america. the entire system is -- has been built by drug companies over about a 40-year period. they've spent billions of dollars lobbying and giving campaign contributions to build this system that gives them monopoly pricing power. it's government regulation and laws that enable the drug companies to take advantage of us and it's only government reform that is going to fix that problem.

which is why it's so important for this new senate bill that's making its way through the senate to be enacted. the house will introduce legislation, we expect, right after the recess, to allow medicare to negotiate directly with the drug companies. there are a host of other reforms making their way through the congress and working hard to see that those get enacted. because we can't fix the system that is based on laws and regulations without reforming those laws and regulations. host: for the senate bill, what has leader mcconnell said specifically about his interest in passing it? guest: he hasn't said anything yet. the president supports this bill. it did pass out of committee on a bipartisan vote. and we are going to be in the coming weeks pressing, by reaching out to people around the country and encouraging them to speak to their senators, and to leader mcconnell, to see if we can't get a vote on a bill

that will cap price increases at the rate of inflation in medicare, and lower out-of-pocket costs dramatically in medicare much host: you believe if it's as ifed, the president would sign such legislation? guest: it has to get through the house too. the house is likely to pass a strong bill. the question is, if the senate passes a good bill and the house passes an even better bill, how do those two things get reconciled? that is not clear yet. by the way, that would be a good problem to have. host: virginia is next. from bloomington, illinois. hi. caller: hello. host: hi, you're on. caller: thank you. i just wanted to say that i had gotten drugs from canada about six, eight years ago. and all you have to do is get their phone number from walgreen's or c.v.s., they're all up there too, and you can get your prescription, your doctor see to inyour prescription and mail it to them and you can get the drugs from there and they're a lot cheaper

than they are here. guest: lots of people are going to canada, mexico, importing from elsewhere. the reason they're doing it is because drugs in this country are too expensive. you can buy a drug in canada for a fraction of what we pay in this country. we don't believe that that's the long-term best solution. wode like to fix our drug price -- we'd like to fix our drug pricing problems here with a made in america set of reforms and see to it that people get the drugs they need at affordable prices. host: patients for a-- patientsforaffordabledrugs.org. if you want to find out more about the organization and its effort, david mitchell is the president and founder. thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: coming mr. upton:, we'll hear from stephen -- coming up, we'll hear from stephen gutkowski. he'll talk about legislative proposals being discussed when it comes to gun reform. we'll have that discussion next. later on, more of underphone

calls and we'll also hear from the head of the young democrats in iowa as we continue a series of interviews from iowa, with many politicians there over the weekend and the start of the iowa state festival. olivia hab knick will be our -- habinck will be our guest later in the program. that will be next. we'll be back. -- that will be later. we'll be back. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] >> watch book tv for live coverage of the national book festival. saturday, august 31. starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. our coverage includes author

interviews with justice ruth bader ginsburg on her book, "my wn words," >> the national book festival live saturday, august 31, at 10:00 a.m. eastern on book tv. n c-span2. >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c., and around the country. so you can maim up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider.

c-span, your unfilthered view of government. -- unfiltered view of government. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is stephen gutkowski of the washington free beacon joining us. he's a staff writer talking about the various efforts on gun legislation being discussed. good morning to you. guest: good morning to you. thanks for having me on. host: of the various pieces we've heard since the shootings in both dayton and el paso, what has the most success as of today? guest: as far as legislation at the federal level goes, i think the most likely to pass or come up for a vote even is red flag legislation. being worked on by lindsey graham and richard blumenthal. they announced they'd had a deal although er on texts, they have not released the text yet. so we're not sure on the details of that beyond what's been --. so basics reported. but essentially that bill would

be federal grants for states that adopt red flag laws that meet certain guidelines that will, i guess we'll see once of the text of the bill is out. host: walk us through the fundamental idea of red flag laws. how do they work? guest: red flag law or a gun violence restraining order, they're also called, essentially it allows, depending on the state, it allows somebody who is either a family member or in some cases police or, you know, even your -- people you work with, to petition a court for a restraining order which temporarily -- which allows law enforcement to temporarily seize someone's firearms from them if they present evidence that they're a danger to themselves or others. now, there's a lot of controversy around these laws. because some people, you know, one side says there's not enough due process protections, which is obviously a fundamental

important thing when you're talking about removing someone's firearms. given that affects their second amendment rights. and the other side believes that these are important measures to prevent mass shootings. but also, in more cases, suicides. host: who it comes to the laws themselves, the proposals, even though republicans are talking about pushing that forward, what's the idea of many of the republicans on capitol hill on its face, do you have a sense of that? guest: i think this one has more support than things like a universal background check law or assault weapons ban or magazine bans. because you've seen republicans come out already publicly support this. rubio has supported the general idea and he has his own proposal. graham obviously is the chairman of the judiciary committee and he's been working on this for month news to and his big push in the aftermath of the latest two shootings is red flag law.

so i think -- you've also seen the president express support, as well as the majority leader, mitch mcconnell. so i think that there's a lot more support in the republican party for something like a red flag law. there's also plenty of skepticism and the idea that the details -- the devil's in the details in these things. host: what's the main point of concern in skepticism? guest: the main point of concern for red flag laws that there won't be strenuous enough due process protections. someone's accused of being a threat to themselves and others and you can petition a judge but if the person is not able to defend themselves against the accusations or have a hearing in a reasonable amount of period of time after the guns are taken, you know, obviously that presents constitutional issues and that's where the concerns come in. host: our guest with us to talk about these various proposals that are making their way or at least being discussed on capitol hill. if you're a gun owner and you want to ask questions,

202-748-8000. all others, 202-748-8001. you can also tweet us your thoughts @cspanwj. where does the president stand on these various things being discussed? guest: the president is the president, right? so he's made a number of different states about being open to universal background check proposals, and as well as red flag law proposals. and i believe he's made statements saying he doesn't support an assault weapons ban, which i think most republicans don't. many democrats certainly do. but as far as concrete proposals, we don't necessarily have something like that yet. from the president or from congress beyond what we've heard out of lindsey graham and rich blumenthal on their red flag deal. host: when it comes to the topic checks, what's

been the main concern? because there are background checks already that exist. what's the difference in the term universal? guest: the way federal law works currently, if you're, quote in the business of selling firearms, if you have a gun che been the main store or you make a substantial profit off of selling guns, a living, g it for a living, you have to become licensed by the federal government and so those people who are licensed, they're what he is -- what's regulated. those individuals. that's how the current system works. any time they do a sale, there's a background check. so if you go to gaun store, there's a background check. if you buy a gun from them at a gun show, if you buy from a licensed dealer, someone at a gun store, you have to do a background check. if you buy onlined from a licensed dealer, there's a check. nd federal law does not regulate private sales. private individuals, i should say. so the used market, if someone sells a private -- a private individual sells gun to another private individual in the secondary market, within their own state, then there's no

federal regulation on that, a background check is not required. universal background checks require background require bac on those sales as well. basically on almost any transfer of the gun between two people would have to have a broupped check. except usually there's exceptions for family members. several states have adopted this -- these kinds of laws. i think there's eight or so right now, eight to 12, mainly your bluer states have universal background check laws. so essentially the proposal is to make that federal law. so all gun transfers in the united states would have to go through the background check system. host: you listed all those venues someone can buy a gun. we have people who call into this program and say there are ways around that from every venue listed. what's the reality to that? can someone buy a gun without a background check? guest: certainly you can buy a gun legally without a background check if you're in a state where they don't have a universal

background check law. and you're doing a private sale. and you're not a prohibited person. somebody who is a convicted felon, who has been adjudicated mentally ill. it's never legal for those people to buy guns. they may be able to do it illegally, certainly they can break the law. but as far as the law concerned, it's illegal to ever sell a gun or let someone hold a gun if they're a prohibited person and it's illegal for them to do it. so as far as the effectiveness of background checks, especially in regards to universal or especially in regards to the recent shootings, the last three attacks, all three of those shootings went through the legal process and had a background check and passed it. so, as far as this as a response to these recent shootings, this kind of proposal, it wouldn't necessarily have stopped these particular shootings. advocates say it would generally reduce crime.

that's the claim at least. host: we've had discussions about gun legislation after sandy hook. we've had it after a member of congress was shot. we had it after several members were shot. is there something different this time about the discussion going none capitol hill? guest: you know, the hard to say as far as what's -- what politicians think. i don't know. i think the proof will be in what's to come legislatively. you know, there is obviously sort of cycle these things. you see support of gun control in the media after a horrible attack like we've seen recently. then as we get further away from those events, support for them in public polling drops. it's likely to see something like that happen again. host: let's take your first caller. this is from jim in illinois. a gun owner. you're on with steve gutkowski

of the washington free beacon. hello. caller: good morning, gentlemen. how are you guys? host: fine, thanks. go ahead. caller: i'm a gun owner and i live in the country and i have a gun range and i just would like to say, it's fun to shoot water jugs and steel targets. but also on another note, you know, as much as we'd like these mass shootings to go away, i doubt very much if they ever will. so in saying that, that means every time we have one, year after year, and the congress ends up making more laws and restricting it year after year, you chip and you chip and you chip away, eventually you have nothing left but dust. so -- when do we quit chipping? we have 22,000 gun laws on the books right now that needs to be enforced. host: thanks, caller.

guest: yeah, i mean, i think there's a legitimate point in there about enforcing current laws. certainly you've seen many of these mass shooters, including the one in dayton, from details we've heard already, where it's likely that they could have been made into a prohibited person. they could have been prosecute forward crime that would have made them prohibited from owning guns or they could have been involuntarily committed as we saw with swub like the parkland -- someone like the parkland shooters. there are a lot of things under current law, regardless of what you think about the future proposals, that could prevent a lot of these shootings. and it takes somebody doing something, saying something, and in some cases it takes law enforcement following through on those tips and that evidence that's available to them. so i do you this that -- think there is more that can be done with current law to prevent

these sort of horrible attacks. host: from virginia, carol. good morning. caller: good morning. y response to this potential red flag law is that we are laypeople to diagnose, to pick up the science of suicide. some people will pick up the sign -- signs of suicide. some people will pick up the signs but many people do not dnt, they -- cannot, they do not have the knowledge. now, do we not think that if the kennedy family missed that diagnosis of someone they loved, that we can expect everyone else to prevent suicides in their family? and families who go through this, it is a very painful, guilty moment. .o i see this as not doing much my own opinion is we need to get

the powerful guns, the one with the big -- 100-magazine shots, this is what needs to be done. and i think what we're trying to do with the red flag is to make us feel good, to make us feel when in e done nothing reality we will have done very little. i am not a gun owner. i do have military people in my family. i do have hunters in the family or have had in the past, it's something i personally don't check with people's preferences. host: thanks, caller. guest: obviously the signs of suicide can be difficult to defect for some people. red flag laws are not a guarantee you'll be able to prevent all suicides, of course. i think there's a lot of legitimate concerns as well of

people sort of making false accusations in order to take someone's guns away from them without the proper protections for that. that's something that has been very controversial with these proposals so far. host: from ohio, this is will, a gun owner. hi. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i'm an elderly gentlemen and a long-time hunter and i would like to say, one thing that bothers me, it seems like many of these gun laws are based on untruths. one of the biggest ones is when i hear guns are so readily available today compared to what they used to be. that is not simply true. when i was a younger person, 16, 17 years old, you could walk into your local five and dime and buy an m 147b grand rifle, which was -- m 17b had grand rifle, which was used in world war ii, much more powerful than the we haves they have now. you put -- weapons they have

now. you put dound 100, you buy the gun, no background check, no anything. so when people say guns are so readily available, that's not true. they were much more. our local high school actually had a shooting range in the basement. and kids would bring their guns to school and shoot after class. i mean, it has something to do with society, not with the guns. and that's what i'd like to say. thank you very much. guest: yeah, i think there's a lot of truth to that. certainly our first federal firearms law wasn't enacted in 1934. we've seen a number, at least three or four more since then, absolutely guns are more regulated now than they were in the history. host: this idea of the ar-15 or assault weapons this comes back into the conversation. is it the same type of conversation we've heard about this weapon in previous gun shootings? has something changed about this type of weapon?

what you have experienced? guest: no. this is not a new debate that we're having. certainly as the caller just -- one of the points that gets brought up a lot is the ar 15 is a .223 round which is an sbeer immediateat cart raj which is between your immediate yam cartridge and full-sized cartridge. but you have a lot of people that have misconceptions about how these firearms work and believes -- beliefs that they're somehow more powerful than your hunting rifles or something like that. which is not necessarily true. or really not true at all. but as far as the debate goes, you have people who want them banned and on the other side it's the most popular rifle in america and there's millions of people who own them and don't want them banned. host: stephen gutkowski, we've heard the president talk about the influence of the n.r. namplet this discussion -- n.r.a. in this discussion. president trump: i have a great relationship with the n.r.a.

i have a lot of respect for the people at the n.r.a. and i have already spoken to them on numerous occasions. numerous occasions. and frankly, we need intelligent background checks. ok? this isn't a question of n.r.a., republican or democrat. i will tell you, i spoke to mitch mcconnell yesterday, he's totally onboard. he said, i've been waiting for your call. he's totally onboard. i spoke to senators that in some cases -- friends of mine, but pretty hard-line senators, hard-line and when i say that, i say that in a positive way. hard-line on the second amendment. and they understand, we don't want insane people, mentally ill people, bad people, dangerous people, we don't want guns in the hands of the wrong people. i think that the republicans are going to be great and lead the charge, along with the democrats. i spoke yesterday to nancy

pelosi, we had a great talk. i spoke to chuck schumer, we had a great talk. and chuck schumer in particular loves my china policy, as you probably know. i said, i can't believe, it you actually like something that i'm doing. he said, not like, love. so chuck schumer is great on the china situation. which we are winning and winning big and china wants to goed is -- wants to do something but i'm not ready to do something yet. 25 years of abuse, i'm not letting that go fast. we'll see how that works out. but on the background check, on background checks, we have tremendous support for really commonsense, sensible, important background checks. host: stephen gutkowski, going back to the first part of the statement, the n.r.a., he seemed open as far as conversations he's had with them about their concerns. what are the n.r.a.'s concerns about the president actually doing something? guest: he's had several

conversations with the c.e.o. of the national rifle association and then also i had a story last week about the white house reaching out to the head of the second amendment foundation and the citizens committee for the right to keep and bear arms. certainly the white house is concerned about what gun rights supporters think about moving forward here. what they are willing to support and what they're not. the n.r.a. itself has come out and said they would not support a universal background check law at the federal level. they have offered support for some red flag proposals nat -- in the past. they have obviously the concerns i laid out earlier about those bills. but i think as far as the universal background check law goes, which the president was talking about there, the politics of that would be i think a stretch to get that passed. you need 14 republican votes,

you have two left from the last time in 2012 when they had a bill. and so you need to get 12 more. i think it would take a very strong effort, continuous effort from the president himself, to push that bill in order to give enough to convince enough republicans to go -- it's not even clear would you get all of the democrats in the senate to vote for it. people like doug jones in alabama may oppose something like that. i think it would -- he'd have to spend a lot of political capital to get something like that passed and it's unclear what the benefits for him would be politically speaking at least. so it's hard to look at the math for things like universal background checks and assault weapons bans and see them getting to 60 votes just practically. host: let's hear from mike in south carolina. caller: hi, good morning. having to do with universal

background checks, everyone is in agreement, all the voters, republicans and democrats, that it should be done. and it should be something that people will have to wait until that background check has been completed to own a weapon. what is the urgency? does someone need a gun right away so they can go do something with it? even guns sold in gun shows, there should be a reasonable time for the proper government agency to be able to do a thorough background check for everyone's protection. if people -- if politicians have a problem with that, then it goes back to the lobbyists and the n.r.a. and the gun manufacturers, supporting them for their campaigns. and the question would be, who are politicses really loyal to? do they represent the voters of the united states of america who put them in office? and will do what we want them to do? or are they going to do what the lobbyists and the manufacturing companies, corporations are

telling them to do because they're giving them money to get re-elected? thank you. guest: yeah, well, mine, certainly i think many people do oftentimes need guns immediately. that's why the background check system is meant to be instantaneous. for self-protection. there's more than 100 million people in the country report having a gun in the home and many of them say -- a large majority say they use it for self-defense. there certainly are situations where people do need guns immediately. stalkers or threats to their lives, things like that. as far as support for universal background checks, it certainly does poll well. i think that's clear through polling over the years. but at the same time what a lot of people don't realize is that it doesn't actually do that well, these laws, as ballot initiatives which are, you know, presented directly to voters.

nevada passed one but only by about 1%. and maine defeated one. so the polling, there's clearly a disconnect between the polling and actual voting on that issue. host: from new york, this is noel. hi. caller: hi. i appreciate you taking my call. as far as background checks, i want to know who is going to give the background checks on that ose folks in chicago shoot -- these drug dealers, they've got all the guns they want. and i don't see anybody talking about it. illinois has the strictest gun laws in the country, you can't even drive through the state unless -- i mean, you can't have a legal handgun and drive through the state. i mean, i've got a permit in new york state and several other

states and -- to own handgun, and you can't even drive through illinois. yet all these guys, these drug dealers, they've all got guns of they shoot them up. there were over 1,600 shootings in chicago alone since the beginning of the year. i don't hear anybody talking about taking their guns away. boy, they want to make sure that somebody isn't going to go crazy, though. they want to do background checks on people. i just don't get it. it's lunacy. they terrorize people of chicago and their neighborhoods and what happens? the police, their hands are tied, the police try to do them anything, they call them racist. this is ridiculous. nobody's safe there. nobody would go there. i don't see nancy pelosi making any speeches there or any of these democrat presidential candidates going to south chicago and making any big speeches about taking the guns away from people.

it's just ridiculous. host: ok, caller. thank you. what do you think about those comparisons that you've heard? guest: yeah, guest: one of the main criticisms of universal background checks as well, essentially criminals don't get their guns this way. they don't go to gun shows. they don't -- they are not going to comply with a universal background check law. i think studies show, especially out of the university of chicago, that people who have been convicted of gun crimes, generally they report getting their guns from friends, people that they know in a legal transfer, essentially. or they are stolen. would a universal background check law affect those sorts of trans, actions -- transactions? probably not. that's one of the big criticisms. olivia habinck tony in florida, gun owner, hi. caller: how you doing. i'm just appalled of the general ignorance. i have some questions to ask

people. do people know what an assault rifle is? can anyone define it? secondly, under what authority is the federal government going to do background check on private sales or red flag laws? i support those things but i want them at the state level. c-span just going this fueling the outrage machine doesn't help. why doesn't c-span do a series on federalism on the types of guns and on gun laws so people can make intelligent decisions? olivia habinck we have had segment on gun laws over the year. i invite you to go to the website to check those yourself. if you go to the website yourself and type in gun laws at the top of screen, you'll see he put out there as far as things we have taken in and discussed on this program to your topic. to your other aspects, go ahead. >> certainly there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding out there when it comes to terminology with firearms.

that's a legitimate problem. especially in media, frankly. but also when it comes to politicians, which can be, obviously, severe issue if you are trying to legislate something you don't understand. this is another common critique you see among gun rights proponents that a lot of politicians and media members don't even understand the things they are talking about wanting to ban. they don't understand the firearms, culture, a lot of these things. i think that's for the most part very true. not necessarily c-span, but a lot of my colleagues in the media, i think, are less than educated on this issue and on capitol hill as well. that's an important issue. olivia habinck by the time congress comes back into session, what is the likely -- it : what is the likelihood will have waned? guest: likely, based on the istory of how this has gone.

as we get further away, the pressure to just do something, anything, sort of wanes. i don't think that means you won't see hearings and you won't see even legislation. you could certainly see legislation. specially the red flag laws. the issue not going away. all together. generally what happens is that as emotions cool, support for these sorts of proposals wanes. i will say that there has been a different, at least in the he democratic party, in the last several years develop embraced gun control to greater degree than you have seen in recent history, since the 1990's, because there had been general consensus in the democratic party gun control is not a winning issue for them.

they seem to have changed that point of view for most of the candidates running, even the frontrunner, joe biden, has been aggressive on his gun control standses. -- stances. certainly we'll see if that play pays off. hillary clinton was more aggressive than barack obama was nd she lost. host: what do you think you'll be covering when it comes to the gun debate? guest: all sorts of things. i tried to focus on a wide breath of issues john federal legislation and mass shootings which is what gets the bulk of attention in our media as a firearms beat reporter i try to broaden the coverage beyond that. i will certainly continue to follow the red flaling laws. i'll continue to follow the -- flag laws. i'll continue to follow the developments of the n.r.a. they have obviously had some

internal arguments over there. i have been covering that exfencively. i'll keep -- extensively. i'll keep up on federal legislation is the most important thing. then how the gun community lives day-to-day, i show a range time on youtube we are profiling a 15-year-old competitive shooter from virginia. she's at the top of her sport. we just finished shooting some interviews with her. that will be coming out soon as well. try to cover the breadth of the issues. st: steven gutowski, covers firearms for free beacon, freebeacon.com to check out his work. thank you. gun issues were one thing talked about over the weekend in iowa with many of the democratic presidential candidates there. for the next 25, 30 minutes we'll take your topics on campaign 2020. whether you want to talk about what the candidates are saying

about that issue or other issues or the candidates themselves. . the republicans 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. an independents, 20 -748-8002. we'll talk about campaign 2020 when "washington journal" continues. >> tonight on the communicators -- >> keep people come up to me and they say, sir, i can't follow you. they make it impossible. these are people that are really good at what they do. they say thee make it absolutely impossible. >> we'll talk about the recent

presidential social media summit. where president trump discussed social media crenorship by big tech firms and what should be done about it. with robert bluie from the heritage foundation and patrick hedger from the competitive enterprise interinns tute. >> i think as consumers we can certainly demand as user much facebook and twitter an google, if we are going to be on that platform we expect they'll exree spect our ability to communicate. if we don't like it, quit. > it seems to have big tech is a net neckive to conservative speech when dennis craiger is getting a billion views on the products and videos he's putting out. >> watch the communicators, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfultered coverage of congress, the white

house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country. so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979. c-span is brought to you by your local cable our satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of overnment. host: many of the democratic presidential candidates were in iowa, some have moved on to other states. wisn reporting on corey booker in milwaukee talking about his presence there after iowa. saying that a stump speech foe focused on gun violence especially after the recent mass shootings, he spent a considerable time not talking about the other democratic candidates but president trump himself. look, it's going to be a long election, he said in an interview after the event. we are still six months out from voting in iowa. booker said there are active

conversations in seeking endorsements from wisconsin democrats but he wouldn't reveal who the campaign is courting or the characterizations or status of those conversations. reuters reporting on kamala harris, saying armed with fresh endorsements from two of the state's most sought after political influencers on saturday, the senator from california got an enthusiastic welcome from 500 people at a des moines high school. for the first time during her tour that started on thursday, the crowd began chanting harris' new slogan about republican president trump's presidentdy, dude's got to g the country needs a leader who can prosecute the case against president trump and take a prosecutor to do it. hairsry, california's former top contractor and former district attorney of san francisco, told the audience. going on, we got quite the rap sheet. from reuters. witf out of iowa reporting on elizabeth warren. she was one of the attendees at that wingding dinner you saw

over the weekend on c-span. also saying that in that time the historically large field will winnow and frontrunner joe biden will be tested more forceably and a grs - forcefully and a more fierce competition will be exposed. as the caucuses near, elizabeth warren's ground level organization demonstrated by her large staff and proven ability supporters to supporters to ap at large events like the awith a state fair is fueling her momentum. quote, elizabeth has a super organization and her campaign is hot. that's david axlerod. we have seen hot candidates before. august is no guarantee of what happens in february. that's just some of the news that came out of iowa. taking a look at campaign 2020. we invite your calls on the candidates and issues of the campaign. 02-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats and independents.

202-748-8002. warren saturday at a gun safety forum as she talked about her approach to gun issues and how to deal with gun violence. >> i will take executive action in every corner with the department of justice, with a.t.f. to move as much as i can. but there's much that must go through congress. so here's what i propose with congress. and that is, start with a question, if 90% of americans want to see some basic sensible changes, why do they not happen? now i am -- i'm out there talking about t i'll tell you why. corruption. plain and simple. [applause] the gun industry controls washington. and we have to fight back against that corruption. until we hit that corruption

head-on, until we disrupt the way they give money to folks from congress, the way they put the lobbyists in the field, we are going to fight this fight and we are going to keep losing this fight. for me, real change, meaningful change starts with breaking up the corruption in washington, breaking the strangled hold of the gun industry and the n.r.a. host: gun issues being one thing. a viewer off twitter saying when it comes to other issues and-n campaign 2020 this person would like to talk about health care, wages, and pollution. all issues most americans face daily that politicians cannot seem to focus on. in washington state, we'll start off with peter on the discussion for campaign 2020, calling on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. politics and public policy and culture all combined here. i wonder why when i turn on one

channel i have a description of my president as hitler. as a hater. but at the same time those same people don't want me to have a gun. i turn on another channel and i'm told that the other party are communists or socialists. want to take away my rights. everybody should have a gun. when i think about that i'm 61 years old, i wonder about a 21-year-old that's coming out of educated by 10 years of first person shooter games, going to school and having god removed from his life , and then i go into a restaurant and i see a family and 70% of the people aren't even looking at each other, they are looking at their phones. seeing whole families sitting at

a table in a restaurant -- host: in all those things you listed, how that relates to campaign 2020 do you think the dwn issue will be a major feature of that campaign? caller: i don't. nobody has a solution. it's culture. this isn't just about guns. it's about medicine. it's about everything. host: who is best addressing the culture issue, do you think? caller: i think we are. the people. host: no presidential candidates, then? caller: no. not even the one we got now. i voted for frump -- trump, but sometimes i look at him and think he's a perfect hater. he hates everybody but himself sometimes, i think. it was better than the other option. host: ok. we'll hear from karen in texas independent line, hi. caller: hi. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: please don't cut me off because i think i do have a valid point. mine is more on the topic of

your prior person. as far as the gun control laws, i really believe that the waiting period should be longer. during the background check they should talk to the families of the person applying for a gun because my youngest brother bought a gun when he was 19 years old and shot himself. because he was very depressed based on something that happened. we as a family did not have time to get him the help he needed because he acted before we could act. we had already started discussing things with him about getting help. on the second gun issue we do have plenty of laws, but if you take away the guns, people who really want to hurt other people, people who really want to do this mass shootings, they

are going to replace that with homemade bombs. host: the topic that we are engaging in. do you think this becomes a factor of campaign 2020, the gun issue? caller: well, yeah. a lot of people are making it a act of 2020. it can go either way. i think everybody has a right to have a gun if they want it if they pass all the other tests and qualify. host: ok. let's hear from tina in alabama, republican line. hi. caller: good morning, how are you. host: fine, thank you. caller: good. good. i would love to see the power- -leave the electricity on, turn off the heat, air, and take off the telephones out of congress. let them sober up a little bit not think they have so much power. host: what do you mean by that?

caller: way back when when health care was voted on and president obama signed it, go back and look at that scene when nancy pelosi and schumer and harry reid were laughing, bumping into each other. there is no sow bright -- so right to me -- sow bright -- sobrie it y. they are much drunk with power. host: do you think then the upcoming campaign changes that? aller: not much. thee things there is corruption in congress. i'm glad to hear that. but i would love to see them spend less time there and little bit more in comfortable conditions and take -- they are not talking to the n.r.a. host: that's tina in alabama. we'll hear from jack. jack is in maryland. live for democrats.

good morning. caller: good morning. thank you. sorry to get on earlier about the gun laws, but as rffrens to my concern in this next election will be very strongly on the second amendment. i am a registered democrat who will vote absolutely to who i think is the better candidate. and at this point i would have to go with trump from what i have seen of the rest of them. there's really nobody for me to look at to say, yes, i can go for the democrat that they are going to be protective of our gun laws. host: tell me what you think of the other democratic candidates are saying about gun laws and what's causing you most concern about what they are saying? caller: i think for the most part i do believe in background checks. and do i believe that the n.r.a. believes in background checks. i don't especially agree with the 100 rounds.

i would agree with them there shouldn't be 100 rounds. here in maryland, for example, a handgun can be up to 10 rounds with a semiautomatic handgun. that you can purchase here. it's very difficult to buy a gun in maryland today because you have to get a permit before you can even go to buy a gun. that's kind of ridiculous. what do you think? host: we'll let other people comment if they wish on what you had to say. jack from maryland. stanley is in california. line for republicans. stanley, good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on, go ahead. aller: i like to say i think andrew yang would give a good trump a good run. i did vote for trump. andrew yang has the most modern policies on everything including guns. he has the self-identified gun law which i like.

which is lying a fingerprint for your gun. like nobody can activate the gun but you. which keeps people safer. allows people to have guns in a modern world without a lot of concern. to harm other people. also andrew yang also sees automation and a.i. for what it is. it's going to take over. 70% of the work force over the next 10 years. there is going to be a lot of people on the streets. and we are going to have to deal with humanity also. he has a lot of ways to help people function and get through society in a modern world. i just feel like he's the only one who really brings current atues and having trump to go it and maybe do good between them for the whole country with new policies and ideas. host: you can hear everything that andrew yang and other candidates had to say over the weekend. if you want to go our website at

c span.org, type the name into the box. whether that be that candidate or others, you'll find everything we have taken in. see for yourself the positions that the candidates have taken on various things. from new york, republican line, alex is next. caller: first of all, andrew yang is the smartest guy on stage. that's not saying much with the cast of characters we see up there. what i would like to see off the democrats, i'll be voting trump. what i'd like to see is all these shootings will come up for the democrats and guns for the democrats. why is it that we have never explored the sinister forces that finds these kids online to produce these mass shooters. blame it on the gun. i want to investigate if blame it on the forces, finding these kids, to manchurian candidate them into doing this. i think it's a legitimate topic, thank you. host: by what means? alex is gone. go to roger. roger in illinois.

good morning. caller: good morning. there's a lot being said about the rhetoric that's going on in america today about trump. there's never been anything that they could actually prove to call him a racist. by any means. it seems like, it seems like that there's so much talk about how the hate is just progressed bigtime against our great president. i don't think there's any candidates that's left on the socialist side of the left wing that can even come close to beating trump. i have been watching fox news from the very beginning and i n't stand to watch c in c in in or any other -- cnn or any other places. it teams seems like there is -- they need to get the infrastructure bill taken care of. stop with all the nonsense and all the stuff that's going on in america and put god first and

everything. that's the reason why we are having so many issues. they don't put god first in the work that they do. host: why do you think the infrastructure bill would change things? caller: i think that there's a lot that hasn't been discussed. every time they try to meet with pelosi and her sidekick there, they don't seem to ever get a chance to meet because they don't -- first of all they come to the table they don't want to deal with trump. they are against anything he's ever stood for. and it goes back to 2016 when he was elected president. come on, we all know that it all started then. it went from one extreme to the other. and it needs to stop. if they are going to be able to come to the table and work, both sides have to give in a little bit to make it happen. host: mitch is next from paterson, new jersey, hi. caller: hello. what i wanted to talk about was the e word.

the electibility. the reason why is because people , what i hear a lot on the news, is people bringing up candidates like joe biden and kamala harris and and gillibrand and people like that on the democrat side. in terms of electibility. however this time in 2016 donald trump was polling at near 1% so people would have thought he was unelect able. joe biden won't be the name who is on the nominee come 2020. i think the lesser known candidates at this time are going to be the candidates to watch out for like your tulsi gabbard and your sanders. even in topics like what was just discussed on this program a couple of hours ago, like health care. bernie sanders is far and away the best candidates and most

consistent. he brought people in the last debates who didn't have health care over to canada to buy drugs cheaper. that's what's being discussed now. bernie sanders has been very adamant on that topic for as long as he's been in the -- in politics. i think those candidates will be the ones to look out for. host: ok. hear from mike in huntsville, alabama. mike, in huntsville, republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a question about this medicare for all. are these people in congress willing to give up their insurance for medicare for all? they don't talk about that. and my other question is, if ar-15 tlaw ak-47 and these people are still going to find a way to kill in mass shootings. host: elizabeth is in sandusky,

ohio. democrats line. hi. caller: yes. this is elizabeth. i think they need to get rid of trump and get him out of there. the way he makes fun of people and talks about this little kid and cusses all the time on the phone. he has no business being in there for these little kids to hear that. host: who would you like to see in there? caller: i think joe biden would be much better. host: why is that? caller: because he does what he says he's going to do. host: jim is next in erie, pennsylvania, democrats line. go ahead. caller: hey, pedro. starting to get worried about the possibilities getting red of trump unless they impeach him. don't know why they haven't started impeachment process

already. i'm just seeing what's coming down the road here. this epstein, so-called suicide, anybody with half a brain knows the guy didn't commit suicide. now that they got all the connections to -- between epstein and new mexico, former governor bill richardson, a bunch of democrats out there, they didn't have to find out, they didn't have to fly to some island they would do to epstein's ranch and do their dirty deeds. host: the current 2020 field you don't think there's a candidate strong enough to take on the president? caller: i'm starting to be worried about -- you guys, i think on c-span, should do the public a favor and start covering some of this stuff. especially this investigation they are doing into the dirty cops at the f.b.i. host: but back to the question as far as the current field you don't think there's a candidate

strong enough? caller: i don't think c-span's covering it. i think there is a big investigation going on. been going on for eight months, duran, they say he's getting to the -- durham, they say he's getting to the bottom of the things. what's going to duran, they say everything will come to a head about six months before the next election will make trump look like a saint compared to the rest of these people that tried to overthrow his presidency. host: ok. that's jim in pennsylvania. by the way, those democratic candidates we gave them plenty of coverage over the weekend from events in iowa. all of those still available to ou if you go to our website at c-span.org. joe in west virginia. republican line. go ahead. caller: i was listening to c-span this morning and heard a man mention the fact that online you can buy guns. and i'd like to see both sides of the campaign, republicans and democrats, to include oversight

of what goes on online, including you used to be able to print a gun, not to mention how to make bombs. and also this is just something that i think other people should think about, dr. phil said years ago that until you are 25 years old your brains, decisionmaking ability is not fully developed. to be fully rational in your decisions. so we should have -- i don't think we should be able to purchase guns until you are 25, fully trained in how to use guns . and safety and all that stuff. i think that would solve a lot of the problems. it's just this bantering back and forth, things we have been discussing and getting nowhere. just seems to be fodder for campaign commeers. i just -- campaign smears. i just wish we would have rational discussions on both side. host: jofment is the last call.

we have been featuring guests the last couple days from iowa. in conjunction with the iowa state fair that. will continue with olivia habinck. she's with the college young democrats of iowa. she's the president and join us next to talk about campaign 2020 in iowa. eel we'll be right back -- we'll be right back. >> in 1979, small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers make up their own minds. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. a lot has changed in 40 years. today it's morelle vant than ever. on television and online, c-span's your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. brought to you as a public service from your cable or satellite provider. >> tonight on the communicators -- >> people come up to me and they say, sir, i can't get you, i

can't follow you they make it impossible. these are people really good at what they do. they say they make it absolutely impossible. >> we'll talk about the recent presidential social media summit. where petroleump discussed social media censorship by big tech firms and what should be done with robert bluey from the heritage foundation and patrick hedger from the competitive enterprise institute. >> i think as consumers we can certainly demand that as users of facebook and twitter and google that if we are going to be on that platform, we expect that they will respect our ability to communicate. if we don't like it, we can quit. >> to me it seems hard to levy an accusation that big tech is a net negative to conservative speech when somebody like dennis prager is going a billion views on the products and videos he's putting out. >> watcht communicators, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: joining us from des moines, iowa, is olivia habinck, the president of the college and young democrats of iowa as we continue our coverage from the iowa state fair. thanks for joining us today. guest: thanks for having me, pedro. host: i'm going to ask you -- you are welcome. talk about your organization and as far as the position you take. what's your role in the organization, what are you doing as far as campaign 2020 pecifically? guest: college of young democrats in iowa is the diggest democratic organization that is i'm fically -- sorry hearing myself. specifically engaging young people 36 and under.

we have about 20 local chapters across the state. mostly in college campuses and in high schools. my role in the organization, i oversee our executive order board and what we are doing for 2020 is gearing up for the caucuses is training people how to caucus. caucuses can be confusing, especially if it's your first time. holding mock caucuses, and corresponding with campaigns and having events on campus was our chapters. host: when it comes to those you talk with about various issues of campaign 2020, what are some of the top ones? guest: i would say when i talk to young voters i hear a lot of people talk about wages, especially coming out of college we are seeing stagnant wages. we are not finding good-paying jobs. college tuition and the rise of

it. and also student debt. health care for sure. climate immigration, and the effects of our current administration here in the state and this country's effects are an implications for our future. host: we saw many of those democratic candidates come through iowa at this state fair. what did you see from those who have made pitches from potential voters? who do you think has the best showing? guest: so, actually i haven't been able to attend a soapbox this year. but from what i have seen from all the candidates, it seems like they are drawing pretty big crowds, which makes me really happy to see that a lot of these folks are resonating with people. a lot of these communities are drawing in different people that usually aren't involved in the process. that's a really good thing. host: from your activity back

in 2016 compared to now, do you note any differences as far as level of interest, interest from mobilizing those who think like you, believe like you as far as getting them out to caucuses and voting? have you seen any major differences on those fronts? >> i think now with trump in office a lot of -- lot more people are ready to hit the ground and work as far as we can to elect a democrat into the white house. and also flip the senate and remain a majority in the u.s. house. this is this is our guest unti 10:00 if you want to ask her questions about what's going on in iowa, particularly from her viewpoint as the president of the college of young democrats in iowa. 202-748-8001, democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also tweet your thoughts

@cspanwj if you have a question for elivea who serves as the president. also served as someone who arm wrestled one of the presidential candidates themselves. can you talk about that? guest: yeah. i got to arm wrestle senator gillibrand. she puts a lot of videos of her lifting weights, working out. i noticed that she was pretty buff as one would say. i wanted to -- i tweeted at her to see if she wanted to arm wrestle at an event with the democrats. she said sure. we did it. unfortunately i lost. she's very strong. but i had a lot of fun. host: what did you learn about her as a candidate aside from the arm wrestling? guest: she's very -- she's probably one of the candidates that's having the most fun here in iowa. she's really embracing our culture and trying to learn more

about us as people. host: there is a story in the "washington times" today, miss habinck, about iowa and what iowa voters are looking for when it comes to a presidential candidate. i'll read you the headline. that overall at least to the people they talked to saying that voters want a more moderate candidate. how does that resonate with you? guest: i think it is too early to tell what -- which can date's moderate or more left leaning. or is resonating with folks right now. we are actually about i think 175 days out. caucus. there is a lot of ground left for all these candidates to push through and break away and surge. i think it is too early to tell right now what candidates and

what policies will do best. host: as far as an approach, do you think a more progressive approach is better than a moderate approach? . est: i don't we ink the narrative in way are arguing if the democrats are going to -- too far left or democrats need to go moderate is kind of inaccurate. i think that democrats are the party of ideas and we are the party of everyone. we have a lot of people with different backgrounds that are ontributing to these ideas and policies. i think we are going in the i think we are just

going forward. that might be different to some people. that might mean different things to some people. host: by the way we have a line for those of you who live in iowa and want to ask our guest questions that's 202-748-8003. someone from plymouth, massachusetts, independent line. on with our guest olivia habinck of the college of young democrats of iowa. serves as president. go ahead. caller: i want to warn the democrats not to be as arrogant as they were in the last election. they assumed that the constituents of michigan, pennsylvania, they always voted for us. so they neglected to go there and campaign. and they never -- obama, i voted twice for him, but i was very disappointed that he did not now every law that he signed

with a pen can be undone with a pen from the next president. the arrogance of the democrats -- ssume that they will get is just enormous. not only that but i hope you are not employing the same people to ask question and say, oh, we will win. i can tell you when you started two mpaign ignoring your people democrats and said we want, we want. i am an immigrant and i never wanted anything from america. i knew when i came here that i have to contribute to it. host: got you. we'll leave it there. go ahead. guest: i can tell you that here

in iowa democrats are going to work hard. we know it's going to be a hard fight. we are determined. and we are going to do everything we can to win in 2020. guest: are there lessons learned from the 2016 that democrats experienced that you think have to be addressed in this campaign? guest: i think we at least for me i just -- i think it proves that we need to work harder and we need to not take anything for granted. my future, our future as a party and as a country is at stake. we really need to work as hard as we can. guest: -- host: from south carolina, independent line, this is joe. caller: how are you doing? my question is, i heard a comment earlier that they want to take the senate and have all

of the control. i wanted to know if they do take the senate, what are the policies that they really want? i also heard said earlier they need to get the president voted off, especially trump. so they want all republican out of office or just trump? thank you. host: go ahead. guest: we certainly want democrats not only in the white house but in the senate and in the house. and also at the state level to, you know, advocate for the policies we believe in as democrats. host: georgia, republican line. we'll hear from don. caller: yes. i'd like to talk to miss olivia and see what she thinks about

the republicans since donald -- has already announced what she finds about democrats atifa. ng i think it's a fair question. nobody's answered it so far. they walk away with a grin on their face. aid he like to know the answer o that question. host: you can go ahead and answer if you wish. caller: any hate or hate crime act of violence we are not for. host: do you think the current conversation about gun legislation is particularly with the democratic candidates are going to overshadow other issues that are important to campaign

2020, as least from your perspective? guest: i would say that i think a lot of the candidates are giving equal time to all the issues that iowans care about. actuallyay, i believe, had a forum in des moines and it was really successful. i also think there is going to be other organizations that push for different issues and we'll have forums for those candidates to attend and give equal time to all the issues that people care about here in iowa. host: what do you think is the issue that candidates are not talking about but should? they are covering the big issues here. i really haven't -- i think a ot of them have a lot of

detailed proposals and policies and plans. it's -- if not they have an opinion about it. a lot of these candidates are going to hundreds of events in the course of the caucuses or their campaigns and they are going to be asked very specific questions. i couldn't i -- don't think there's anything i can think of right now that isn't really being talked about. host: olivia habinck is the president of the college and young democrats of iowa. joining us on our bus to talk about campaign 2020, particularly from the iowan perspective. we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: if you want to comment on campaign 2020 for the remainder of our time up until 10:00. republicans 202-748-8001. 202-748-8000 for

democrats. if you want to express your thoughts on social media, post @cspanwj. you can also post on our cebook page at facebook.com/c-span. "the washington post" takes a look at the me too movement when it comes to the campaign 2020. me too movement overshadowed in campaigned. saying that lucy owe wanna, a democratic retiree in las vegas is a big supporter of the me too movement. says her party's overriding focus needs to be on defeating president trump. let's get on with it. adding she's tired of seeing democrats damage each other with me too allegations while republicans act with impunity. it's called party cannibalism. you don't put down your own party's candidate to make yourself look better. such sentiments underline a mystery for the democratic race. why me too is an enormously

consequential social movement in recent years is playing such a small role in the primary compared with race, education, and health care. see that at the "washington post" this morning. back to the story the "washington times" about a moderate candidate. seth writing out of iowa over the weekend, saying that some democrats sound poised to blow a hole in the plot line. first in the nation caucuses next year, they say the best antidote to president trump is a nominee that can restore a sense of normalcy and bring the parties together. not another liberal who can pour more fuel on the partisan dumpster fire. bile grove, a former math physics teacher in council bluffs saying there is a disconnect between the defiant and unapologetic liberal voices of "the squad" and the democrats he republicans elbows with on a daily basis. i believe everybody having equal

access and rights and stuff like that. i certainly don't want to discriminate against anybody. i think the average voter is right in the middle somewhere. if you go back to history, the people that stake out the middle usually win. you can see more of that in the "washington times." from ohio, this is nancy. we'll hear from. republican line on campaign 2020 issues. nancy, from ohio, good morning. you're first up. caller: thank you. good morning. i have noticed that democrats like diversity in the way people look, but they -- especially young democrats do not believe that people have a right to have diversity of thought. i never quite understood. they want people to look different but everybody has to think the way they think. or they are not accepted. that was my only comment. thank you for taking my call. host: carol in miami, florida. also on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for this for -- forum.

in this campaign i would like to hear real issues. i want this mudslinging and all this dustup to just stop. our country is in enough trouble with division. we don't need our candidates of the 2020 campaign making it worse. host: what's a real issue in your mind? caller: immigration reform. if congress would just sit down, make a bill, and do a legal bill that we can follow and work with . that would be great. that would be a true accomplishment showing they care about the country. we want impression. we can't take in all these people and then give them free health care and -- do you realize they are collecting our social security that our government wants social security reform on united states citizens? we paid that money. that money is ours.

host: katherine next from arlington, virginia, democrats line. good morning. caller: yes. thank you for c-span. thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to compliment c-span. i watched much of the interviews with the candidates that you-all did and the soapbox thing. i want to compliment you on the fact that you allowed the candidates, you interviewed them after the soapbox thing. it was very telling and very important. and that forum i think is so the cnn r than the debate. if we could integrate something like that into -- host: tell us something that you learned from watching those interviews about a candidate that maybe you didn't know before or something else you learned about them. caller: i learned more about governor de blasio. frankly i learned a little more about all the candidates. i didn't get chance to hear steve bulllock i'm very interested in because i think he

has very good ideas. i have heard mayor pete before. i heard delaney. i just think the forum, it's so excellent. i think you are doing a wonderful job. i thank you for it. i appreciate you. host: we thank you for the support. if you want to see those interviews by wait and the forum that took place over the weekend, all available to you when you go to our website at c-span.org. robert next in flint, michigan, live for democrats. caller: i'll try to be prompt. i'm afraid that our democratic vote just may be symbolic. as i understand the electors all republicans or mostly republicans. i have heard twice that even the big states of new york and california will be overshadowed by 11 small states, electoral votes will override those states so that the winning democratic candidate could get up to five

million votes and still lose. but because the electoral college, which i consider corrupt and outdated, will put election in the last 20 years. i'm going to ring off. host: houston, texas, beverley up next on our discussion about campaign 2020. beverley, go ahead. caller: democrats really aren't thinking smart. so many of them, i think most need to drop out and give warren a chance to win the election. host: why do you say that? caller: because money needs to go towards to get wear ren. they need to drop out. i think maybe three of them. host: which are the three that shouldn't drop out in your opinion? caller: i think biden, o'rourke,

and maybe bernie sanders. i think biden and o'rourke will be a good team. the rest of them i think they just need to drop out. host: from wayne, wayne in georgia. republican line. from rodriguezville, georgia. hi. caller: good morning. -- from rodriguez -- reidsville, georgia. caller: good morning. the question is as president would you support the deportation of illegal aliens? host: which of the candidates -- what do you want to hear from that question, then? caller: well, like i said there's the rule of law. we cannot cherry pick the laws in our country that we wish to enforce because if we do we have anarchy in the streets. we have already seen that occur with the i.c.e. raids, with protests of the

white supremacist movement in charlottesville. we have to be a nation of laws and uphold our laws for all of our individuals and our citizens. host: that's wayne in georgia. the daily beast has a story on their website, this is the headline, democrats are starting to freak out that their 2020 field isn't shrinking. some of the points made by the author saying, instead of entering the serious getting phase of the race of nomination, the democratic national committee television networks and the candidates themselves are bracing for a long haul starting with the strong likelihood enough candidates will call a fight to require the debates to be split up again. already nine candidates have secured spots for the september 12-13 forum in houston and several other appear poised to qualify. at most 10 candidates are expected to appear on stage together. a spokesman did not clarify how the group will be divided over two nights. a recent memo also granted the

campaigns more time to qualify for the subsequent october contest, meaning that even more could potentially participate in the debates deeper into the fall. you can find that at the daily beast website. james in youngtown, ohio, hi. caller: hi. good morning. i would just -- i didn't know if anybody realized out there that they have three branches not just one. congress is doing their job by writing bills. and from there they go to the senate. it's just the speaker of the senate is not bringing them up to vote on to see where they can go. if i can touch on one of the things. when it comes to media, i think a lot of people don't realize look at 2008 and 2012 when obama ran both times. your media back then, chances are they are warning you obama will come get your guns. i think a lot of people need to pay more attention where they get their news. thanks. host: republican line, fort collins, colorado.

you're next up, good morning. caller: good morning. i just -- i have been watching the democratic race and i'm sick of everything. i do want to bring up a point i'm hoping everybody understands. we have enough problem with race in this country and everybody seems to go with racism, this, that, and the other. the first thing kamala harris did was pull the race card. i think that we as a country need to slow down and start taking care of each other. my biggest policy i'm worried about right now being 62 is the fact that the immigration, we are letting them in. i believe in immigrants come in work. get your green card. do what you are supposed to do. but there is a point. you got to do it legally. we are not here to just take care of everybody. we can't take care of half our homeless people we have. being a veteran, there's vets out there that sleep on the streets. they need help.

that's all i need to say. host: at 10:00 right after this program we'll take you to a forum here in washington, d.c., about that rule from the trump administration strengthening the ability of federal officials to deny green cards to immigrants deemed likely to rely on the government. part of that will be featured a briefing by the white house, ken uccinelli, the acting director of immigration services. we'll take you to that when it begins. lewis in arkansas, democrats line. doip yes -- doip yes. i'll going to get on the ball about legalize medical marijuana or get it legal because there's a lot of people that's suffering that ain't getting it. and they said you can go to your doctor or whatever. that's a lie. we are all created equal in the united states of america. if they can grow and smoke marijuana, so can we. host: several states already dealing with this on a state by

state issue. why do you need a federal law? caller: over 100 people here in arkansas is growing marijuana, they are the ones that made it like this. they can't get us in trouble for them to make money off of it. growing it and putting people in jail for it. that's wrong. we are not doing wrong, we like to smoke the joint, watch tv, they need to get on the ball because it is -- host: ok. that's lewis in arkansas. san diego, california, independent line. ann, hello. caller: good morning. yes, i believe people hate trump so much is because--i don't believe he's a racist in any way. he speaks a little rough sometimes. in the 1980's and 1990's he was on the news every day. he was lining the king of new york. he was never a racist. nothing ever racial. he was -- one of his buddies was don king.

he's not -- people who know him, please keep saying he's not a racist. i think that's why people hate him so much. i don't think he is at all. host: from carl in kansas city, missouri, democrats line. good morning. caller: hello. hello, everybody. thanks for listening. i am 74 years old and i paid attention modestly towards politics ever since eisenhower. when i was a little kid. the question i have, the comment i have, then i'll make it short, it seems to me like the whole political system has gone totally berzerk. we are ruining these campaigns from the time somebody gets elected until the time they vote again. it fills the air and it's stuffing, filling for people's minds and stupid. they ought to stop this running elections until about six months before the vote like they do in

most sane countries. with that i'll hang up. bye. host: from neverauskas in las vegas, democrats line, mary, hello. caller: good morning. look, folks, trump is deceiving a lot of people. he's the king of b.s. he's draining our treasury. that's the only thing he's draining. he's not draining the swamp. he's filling it. he's got all of these flool -- fossil fuel people. he's gutting our clean water act. immigration, if he wanted to solve immigration, he had full control of the government for two years. he did nothing because he needs an issue, he needs something to get people riled up. host: those issues you listed, host: who is your democratic candidate of choice? caller: i don't have one mailed down. somebodyte buttigieg,

who's just rational. host: let me ask you this about pete buttigieg, what you like about him as to the issues you listed? and he givessmart thought-provoking answers. he's young and maybe we need somebody young and maybe we need to get some of these old, wealthy -- we are ruled by the billionaire class. they are right there now. they are out on the hamptons eating hors d'oeuvres and wondering when they will get trump's next tax cuts. host: independent line. caller: i watch c-span a lot. don't see white supremacists calling in claiming to be white supremacists. i don't see republican congress people saying they are white supremacists. host: ok.

and what is your point? networks-span and the have all these opinion journalists and they are talking racism over and over and claiming everybody to be white supremacists and racist. yvonee inill go to pennsylvania, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i watch c-span and i appreciate it. we should respect the office of the president no matter who's in there. it's disgraceful how they disrespect the office of president right now. thank you for taking my call. now, if you minutes from the acting director of the u.s. citizenship and immigration services, came to janel he is expected to talk to reporters about policy, taking a look at green cards and here he is. cucinelli,