professor margaret o'mara discusses her book "the code." sunday night at eight eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> live friday, discussion about updating the 1996 communications decency act which gives websites immunity from liability for what their users post. we will be live in the american enterprise institute at 10 a.m. on c-span and at noon eastern, the hurt his foundation host a ofm on the rebuilding america's military focused on the u.s. army. on c-span two at 7:30 p.m., retired general jim mattis, former defense secretary, talks about his new book. it looks of his life and career in the military. coming up in one hour, former republican congressman and current nra board member bob barr discusses efforts to reduce

gun violence. the democracy alliance senior advisor discusses her recent piece in the nation magazine, the republican party's white women problem. "roblem o. ♪ host: good morning. it is friday, september 6, 2019. welcome to "washington journal." there has been a notable update in a mission and outlook of a major business group, one representing some 200 blue-chip companies that perhaps reflects the changing views in america over who corporations should be responsible to. this first hour, we will talk about that. who should corporations be responsible to? 202-748-8000 is the number to call for democrats. 202-748-8001.e

and for all others, 202-748-8002 . you can send us a tweet at @cspanwj or post comments to facebook.com/cspan. in addition to the change of the business roundtable outlook, perhaps the increasing crossroads between public policy in corporations like johnson & johnson and purdue pharma over the opioid crisis or walmart and the gun violence privacy concerns over corporations like facebook and google, but most notably, the business roundtable changing their statement -- just some highlights on the change made in mid august. sharing fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders, we tomit to delivering value customers, investing in employees, dealing fairly and ethically with suppliers,

supporting the communities in which we work and generating long-term value for shareholders . each of our shareholders is essential. we commit to value for them and the future of our country. we are joined on the phone by kristen silverberg, business roundtable executive vice president. thanks for being with us this morning. guest: thanks for having me. caller: wanted to ask you about the statement on a purpose of the corporation. what is that? brt isas you mentioned, an association of 200 ceos and the largest employers in the company -- country. businesses you do business with all the time. in 1997, the companies who are members at the time adopted a statement that said companies exist primarily to serve their shareholders. obviously all of our companies

care about making profit, they care about being a good investment for their shareholders, but ceos have a that really doesn't -- i want toway i do a lot of other things, too. be a good employer and member of the community and partner with my suppliers. this statement superseded the earlier statement about shareholder privacy and said really a well-run company in 2019 exists to do a lot of different things. host: what was behind the change? we started consulting our firms about this 1997 statement and a lot of them said it doesn't reflect what i am trying to do. of course i want to make profit, but to build a company that is successful, i have to have

motivated employees, a supportive community, a lot of other things and i need to deliver a service that is a value to my customers. what we want to do. was it really driven then by the ceo's of the company you represent? caller: it really was and i have to say they got down into the weeds and drafted the statement. into the draft and reworked it, they spent a lot of time thinking about it. there were lengthy discussions between the members of our corporate governance committee members-- we had 182 sign on. you probably saw that and many of them earned very strong support from membership for this statement. host: we showed our viewers some

bullet points from that statement of purpose. how different is it from the previous one? caller: it is very different. the 1997 statement had been reaffirmed many times. it was very short and said we wish to emphasize the principle purpose is to serve investors things.e are doing two one, superseding that language -- endorsing support for that a company exists to do other things. we really wanted to spell out what we meant by that. in the past, we had this short statement and they said we really want to explain what we mean about commitment to employees and customers, so we tried to do that. host: let me ask you about pushback. a national review by david johnson, business roundtable

pretends to redefine what a corporation does. those forrgive participation in a active defense. elizabeth warren, bernie sanders, aoc, and nearly all the mainstream press worked hard to demonize the concept of business, the existence of corporations, and the motives of profits. if they want a free and virtuous society -- eliminate the capitalist abuses. it is competition that creates accountability and accountability drives results for all stakeholders. no one thinks this statement is going to make anyone happy, it is not going to eliminate criticism. take anthink it does is important step in expressing what we think the standard ceos

try to meet. the statement is about something we think ceos and companies can do to ensure the benefits of capitalism are more broadly felt. we agree there is a lot congress can do on that side. be already has been advocating -- brt has been advocating for a lot of steps. too much of our financial aid goes to workers on a three year pathway, people trying to get a traditional degree and we have been advocating for congress to take steps to open federal financial aid to people who need training and credentialing. is an important role in ensuring for congress and that capitalism really serves every american. host: how will the business

roundtable follow up with ceos to see how they are abiding by this statement of purpose? guest: for every firm i would expect a different approach. they have different challenges, but one consistent theme for all of them is the effort to focus on worker training. we have a rapidly changing economy and that will be a challenge in every industry. 52 firms have showed up for the workplace partnership initiative to partner with community colleges and other trainers to make sure we are training workers for jobs that exist in the future and as i said, we are continuing advocate -- to advocate to use the ceo's influence to advocate for policy changes on the hill. host: kristen silverberg, thanks for being here and explaining the change to our viewers. we appreciate it. our phone lines for you, the

democratic line, 202-748-8000. for republicans, 202-748-8001. and for all others, 202-748-8002 . who are corporations responsible to? comments on facebook and at @cspanwj on twitter. shareholders and customers, corporations are pandering to the left because they think it will help them if democrats take control. also on facebook, customers. gary says to their shareholders and the corporation i work for no attracting the best requires diversity. to those employees, money isn't everything. here is the take in fortune to fortune. america's ceos seek a new purpose. the influential business roundtable has explicitly put

shareholders first in an atmosphere widening economic inequality, the group has redefined its mission. alan murray writes it was simple, there is one and only one social responsibility of "to engage in activities engaged -- designed to increase profits. their job is to make money for shareholders." this view prevailed over the following decades. shareholder primacy became conventional business wisdom. the influential business roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of nearly 200 of america's most prominent companies and trying to the philosophy in a statement of corporate purpose. the paramount duty of management and the board of director is to the stockholders. in the interest of other stakeholders, a relevant as a

derivative of the duty to stockholders. on august 19, the prt announced -- scroll to the bottom of this page to read the statement in its entirety. the group refers to creating value for customers, fostering diversity and inclusion, dealing fairly and ethically with suppliers supporting the communities in which we work and protecting the environment. friedman must be turning in his grave. we hear from charles in arkansas, thanks for calling this morning. go ahead with your comment. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do believe in what was just read. i wanted to make sure -- i think corporations need to be equally

responsible to all parties, but that can be difficult when it comes to a bottom line and then who do you end up being responsible when the bottom line is reached. host: are you yourself a shareholder either directly or through your retirement investments? caller: a little bit of both. i have a 401(k) through my employer in arkansas and some outside investments i do online stock trading and things like .hat do you think it will be a significant change for the companies you are invested in? caller: i don't know why everybody is saying it is pandering to the liberal left when you are trying to do stuff that really should be sustainable to a company if they could figure out a successful balance.

there are companies out there and they need to be encouraged. companies that aren't doing this are having difficulty needing this need to either through shareholder adjustments or changing boards of directors, their shareholder votes or not investing in that corporation until they get these changes and everything. host: jeff in indianapolis. good morning. there are some people cutting in and out here, i won't name names. for the benefit of the community, shareholders, and those who work for the employees, corporations have to make profit. profit is what drives everything and allows corporations to do the things they do in the communities they serve. people can say we want to be better corporate citizens, but when it comes down to it, wall street is the main driver of

everything. as long as you are making money, you can do all this other stuff. to me, the ultimate goal is profit and that is going to always be the ultimate role for every corporation out there. they can say what they want to say, we want to be better corporate citizens, i understand that, but corporations are under a lot of pressure because of politicians and stuff like that. the ultimate goal will always be the ultimate goal, money, making profit. woodbridge,s kevin, virginia. who are corporations responsible for? caller: thank you for allowing me to speak. i agree with the previous caller profit is the ultimate goal businesshe goal of a is to make a profit.

if not, why are you in business? a corporation is responsible to its employees, responsible to the shareholders who basically invest, but also responsible to the stakeholders, the vendors, the strategic partners. if i do something as a business ceo thata corporate negatively impacts those particular spots in my supply chain or my business network or business relationships, it is going to negatively impact my business. the other thing i am responsible to his my customers, to make sure they get the best product possible. i have multiple responsibilities i have to balance on the head of a pin. host: we appreciate you calling in, one of those corporations,

johnson & johnson in the news. it prides itself on its reputation as one of the most trusted brands, but it risks becoming the focus of public anger over the opioid epidemic. they write when the chief executive of johnson & johnson spoke to a room full of business leaders last year, he described the 75 year credo as its "special sauce," this was the statement of responsibility crafted two decades before the term became overused pr, which guided the company to become a solid, long-term investment. he told the group the document was so important they linked employees with a credo score. the prized reputation as a trusted consumer and pharmaceutical brand is under threat after a judge in oklahoma found the company played an important role in the biggest public health crisis in the u.s., the opioid epidemic that

killed close to 50,000 people in 2017 alone. financial times writes the verdict in the 572 million it has been ordered to pay is just the beginning of what could be years of lawsuits examining how the company sold opioid products and manufactured raw ingredients which it sold to larger opioid makers, including big pharma. kingpin.s a "drug who are corporations responsible to? our in new york city on democrats line. go ahead, dave. caller: that conversation is so narrow. thank you for c-span. i want to say corporations have been considered for over a hundred years as people in the courts of the united states. they have a fiduciary duty to

make profit, profit is what it is all about, profit for the shareholders and this is nice roundtable, there is no shifting off of that. meanwhile, employees, the conversation from our callers, employees, jobs have been shipped overseas. they have destroyed the american industry over 30 years. corporations making profit, profit overseas, profit in their supply chain, ceo pay, who is that for? round up and the monsanto bear deal, they got rid of it, they sold it all to their -- bayer. sanders. bernie i am a socialist. i think the prophets in a market economy such as this should be capped for the people and i want

to tax the corporations. amazon did not pay any taxes. host: your comments similar to what we heard from elizabeth warren at a labor day picnic. caller: we need structural change in this economy. let me talk to you about what this is about. we have giant corporations that have gotten more powerful and more powerful and more powerful. they have sucked up the little businesses, medium-sized businesses. the problem with these giant corporations is they run over everybody. they run over their own employees, customers, employees, and they call to many of the shots in washington. what can we do about it? we can have a president who has the courage to enforce our antitrust laws. i am there. [applause] important, but not enough.

structural change means we need in this else negotiation, in this ongoing negotiation, in this economy to wield power. that means we need more power in the hands of workers. we need to make it easier to join a union and give unions more power when they negotiate. unions built america's auto class, unions will rebuild america's middle-class. we get more powerful unions that change the structure. let me talk about the second way you change the structure, it is time for a wealth tax in america. it is time. host: who are corporations responsible to? in bloomberg opinion from alan rappaport, how ceos can forge a new shareholder

value, making new statement on corporate purpose left out a lot of things. first, we get to your calls. in south dakota, independent line. this,: my comment to corporations have stripped the rights of every person of color. our treaties are being violated by corporations. we have no rights as indigenous people. i am confident that we as a people, as an independent nation status, if we can stick to the way we used to do things back in ancient times before the papers were written, remember it was the indigenous people who taught the rest of humanity independent byuctures and if we can live all rights by the

value of a corporation that failed to live by them, we can continue to succeed and be free and independent and that is where everyone should be looking at why their rights are being attacked. children are under attack and the indigenous people are under attack. corporations keep stripping our land and minerals away from us and who receives those taxes? host: let me ask you in south dakota, what tribe are you with and which corporation -- if you feel comfortable doing this, which corporation causes your tribe and community the biggest problems? by treatyam a lakota and we have ascertained many questions of why corporations like newmont and del monte and many others that want to strip

our basic minerals. ben you produce a people to codependent on the system, we have no rights. in ancient times when we were structured under a matriarchal system, women told men what to do, that is why we had the power of serving our nation by helping our women get to everything that is needed and today when you reduce a man to that level, we have no right protecting our women, let alone having them place food on their table so they can be successful in any way of living in this modern convenience, that is what is important. just like what most people set in these conversations, the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. host: we are going to move to

the republican line, appreciate your call. daniel in virginia beach, good morning. sir.r: good morning, i was listening to the clique with elizabeth warren about how we have to change the mindset and stuff. how do you do that? persuade a lot of people to give over control to people in washington and they are going to think about that and say what are these people going to do with my money? how do i know they will spend it in a way that is judicious? that is why you never get any sort of cooperation at that level. i am for the union thing, i think these ultrarich multinationals should -- how about amazon? they can better pay their people . everything i hear says they treat their people pretty shabbly. if anybody can afford to, they can.

host: appreciate that, daniel. the story about amazon we will get to in a minute. let's hear from newman next in san antonio, texas. go ahead. caller: i am listening to one caller and i understand what everyone is saying. what people don't understand, corporations would not be as strong as they are if our politicians would not give them that power. people keep looking at corporations. i am not mad at corporations because they are there to make money. they are making money paying out us.ticians to do things to we keep talking about the corporations, when are we going to look at our politicians? open a business, i will do everything i can. you see people cut corners, they

don't want to pay employees. look to our politicians. .hey created the economy .hese are our politicians view let me bring you a from the business roundtable to show you the headline, how ceos can share in new business values. among those, alan rappaport's rights the message that corporations should become more stakeholder inclusive and socially responsible is significant and timely. it offers no specifics on how companies should allocate resources. or on how to align incentive compensation with long-term value. until the roundtable addresses this issue, government

regulators can only speculate about the statement's true significance. we hear from bonnie, new jersey, next up. caller: good morning. i am so glad you are presenting this. i have been thinking about this for a while. i am a professor at a community college in an opportunity zone. you featured someone, her name was morgan simon talking about opportunity zones. it was a segment you had on c-span. from what i understand. i am sorry, go ahead. host: no, go ahead. i am just confirming that. caller: from what i understood, there was a law passed recently, really recently, rewarding corporations with tax relief, tax incentive, if they help people in availability -- opportunity zones.

i teach at -- in newark, new jersey. i see a student, i go to shoprite, i see my students working. i go to panera, various corporations every day and see my students. when i go to school, i asked my students to please share with me, if they care to, weather they work and go to schools. many of them have 2, 3 jobs and they are trying to graduate, they are in college. help ourons can students who work for their corporations to get tuition help and/or when they graduate and have these heavy, heavy student student00,000 dollars loans, half the corporation help their employees carrying these

burdens. i don't know how this happens. to, includingpeak my students, everybody thinks this is a good idea. i am floating this, i am excited to have something to advocate for. host: tell us where you teach again? caller: essex county college, the campus in newark, new jersey . ,y students are hard-working they are volunteering to go to school, they should be helped any way they can and if the corporations get tax breaks, i think this will help with their pr and standing and it would be great. i just heard this recently on your show, but if more corporations and more companies that can and want to help employees, it would help me help our students.

i am just floating this idea. host: glad you called. you can go to our website, search opportunity zones, you can find that program online. jimmy in baldwin, maryland, good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. i think the statement the business roundtable put out is simply a pr message. i don't believe she said ceos got together and came to this conclusion. i think what happened is they know the prevailing winds. they put their finger in the air and could tell -- even a lot of young people would turn towards -- have a favorable view of and just -- they send their jobs overseas. they lobby congress and spend billions of dollars to make sure

they can deregulate because they want to pollute and not be accountable for it. they want to lessen safety for anders in manufacturing their products become obsolete after a certain amount of time. they do that all on purpose. they are not at all trying to be good citizens. all they are trying to do is put out a good face because they see the prevailing winds. host: we are talking about corporate responsibility after the business roundtable changing their statement on the purpose of corporations. we are asking you who are corporations responsible to? we talked about this earlier, the statement says we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders, we commit to delivering value to our customers, investing in our

employees, dealing fairly and ethically with suppliers, supporting the communities in which we work, generating long-term value for shareholders , each of our stakeholders is essential, we commit to deliver value to them for the future of our companies, communities, and our country. was at thetein national book festival last weekend. we covered it all saturday on book tv on c-span 2. he was asked about the roundtable's new statement. [video clip] took the 1980's, reagan over and the concept of shareholder being the most important part of a corporation took over. the business roundtable set shareholders are not the other thing ceos in companies should worry about. what do you think about the business roundtable's statement? >> i had a minor role in that. i would say the pendulum swung

from too little regard for shareholders and profits to too much regard and now, happily, the pendulum is swinging back and this statement was more a signal that the leaders of the biggest companies in the country understood it had gone too far and they would like a more balanced approach, which, not like the 1970's, but more like the 1950's. host: all of our coverage of the ational book festival c-span.org. dear business roundtable ceos, we are part of a community of corporations -- we are successful businesses that meet the standards of positive impact for our workers, customers, suppliers, and the environment. we operate with a better model of corporate governance, which

gives us and could give you a trade to combat short-termism and balance profit and purpose. as you know, with continued resistance from investors on this new definition of business, we have work to do to help them see stakeholder governorates -- governance builds trust and ensures that purpose of capitalism is to work for everyone and the long-term. among the corporations, ben & jerry's behind the campaign of bernie sanders and companies like new belgium brewing. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 is the republican --e and 202-748-8002 for and independents and others. chelsea in manhattan, republican line. go ahead.

make sure you mute your television. go ahead with your comment. chelsea in manhattan going wants? are you there? we lost her. we go to matthew in new york, democrats line. caller: good morning. i think maryland stole my thunder when he said the prevailing winds. corporations can see the writing on the wall. you have a place like amazon, this huge company that makes vy, dance, sing, just demonstrates what corporations are willing to do to communities just to be lucky to have their business. what happened in new york? told them hit the road. now you have johnson & johnson

in a heavily red state being told they have to pay half $1 .illion in fees or penalties they are like, what is going on here? elizabeth warren is sending out the message people are getting fed up and they are not willing to take this abuse anymore. i think that is the right message to send. thanks. host: to california. dean, where are you calling from in california on our democrats line? caller: tuscan. host: go ahead with your comment. caller: it is a great debate, but if corporations go awry, big tech is a great example, the people have an option to say i am not going to do business with them and in some cases, they can vote with their dollars. internationally, we are going through that.

if governments do that, it is really difficult to have any recourse as a citizen body. for me, if things get stupid, i would much rather have the ability to say i have a choice, i won't do that. i have other options. if it is the government that is doing that, the government comes to corporation, it is really difficult to do anything about it. host: rich on our republican line in marion, ohio. caller: hi. comments. it seems to be things have changed in corporations before world war ii, what was good for the united states was good for corporations. but they not perfect,

ran parallel a lot to read after that, businesses become international and what is good for u.s. is not necessarily good what is goodonal for them is not necessarily good for the united states. the other thing is it can be a china military company that is a corporation operating in the united states and those lines get real funny to pick up information or you have the case .f china i will hang up and listen to your answer. host: story from the journalism organization pro public about amazon, it may not be about what you think. it is about delivery of amazon products. their extensive piece called the deadly race, how america was hooked on responsibility.

our investigation found amazon escapes response ability for its role in deaths and serious injury even though the company keeps a tight grip on how third-party delivery drivers do their jobs. they write when she added gabriel's name to the chart in her kitchen, judy kennedy could ritual. -- picture the there are no lines for gabriel. in january, the nine-month-old was killed when a driver delivering amazon.com packages crashed a box truck into the back of her mother's jeep. the delivery driver, a subcontractor ferrying pallets of amazon boxes from suburban boston took five locations in maine said he was running late and failed to spot the jeep in time to avoid the crash. hiredriel's parents had

lawyers and tried to hold amazon accountable, they would confront a company that shields itself for liabilities involving accidents from drivers that deliver millions of packages a year. an extensive piece at pro public publica.org. host: i wish you had kept miss silverberg on because i would have asked her directly. who are corporations responsible to? -- created the slavery system. i think african-americans have suffered and in america, under slavery, corporations today should be responsible to that. weatherpanies exist -- they exist or not, it was under capitalism that we had slavery in the united states.

i for reparations. thank you. host: this is joe, woodbridge, virginia. caller: thanks for taking my call. iars ago during the cold war, had a job that took me to over 50 countries a year. i got to see all types of religions, all types of economic structures. i did that for 5 years. i ended up quitting that job and took a blue-collar job for the federal government. i have been doing that for 25 years now. i did that for family reasons to be a father. i want to say from a blue-collar standpoint, i think the whole idea is one of the stupidest anti-capitalist ideas i have ever heard and the reason is in capitalism, the number one priority of private enterprise and big corporations and companies is to make money.

when companies are successful, jobs are created. it is trickle-down economics and it works. we have the best economic system in the world. i have physically been to over 70 countries in the world and bar none, it is not a perfect system, but it is the best in the world. the government has no business telling corporations what to do and if i was a shareholder in a company who has shifted from its number one priority of making money and making money for shareholders and producing jobs, i would pull all of my money out of that stock and put it elsewhere. i think it is a stupid idea. host: could be changes ahead in the mortgage business. president trump seeks to end u.s. control of mortgage diets -- giants. end federal control of two

mortgage giants that had been bailed out by taxpayers during the 2008 financial crisis and return them to the private sector. the 49 recommendations to overhaul america's u.s. finance system are unlikely to find eager audience in congress, which has been divided on the issue and now consumed with other fights. the proposal could accelerate the administration's attempts to privatize the mortgage giants fannie mae and freddie mac, which continue continue to play a role in the housing market. they backstop a little less than half of the nation's $11 .rillion mortgage market who are corporations responsible to? beenr: i have actually saving up my 30 day call for

profound andor and this happens to be a subject very close to my heart. my first job out of college was working for wall street firms. this started in the 1970's and 1980's and i watched this change happen. back then, when it was still sort of gentlemanly before cetera, eteovers, et cetera, corporations worked to be good citizens and make sure their employees got a fair share and that they took care of the community. that changed. if you want to use a historical timeline, i kind of remember some things in the 1970's. milton freeman was the one that put forward the theory that shareholder value was uppermost and had to be uppermost for

corporations. for quite a few years, they fought against that saying they .ant to take care of everybody to me, i will get you more money and it just snowballed from there. eventually the idea that profit and shareholder value became uppermost. it is nice the business roundtable took a look at this this past summer, weather or not something comes of that, we will see. ceos stockd giving options, bonuses based upon stock price.

they pretty much opened the door for these guys to say that it's the most important thing in the world. doesn't matter what happened to the country, what happened to the workers or the trade deficit. corporations, should be watching out for everybody, especially considering the size they are, and they should have no problem wanting to take care of workers when other people in the corporation, the board, the hard toes, ceo -- it is make them want to change. you, some goode points there. we will go to heidi in maryland. caller: i would like to come at this from a consumer standpoint.

we should make educated choices about the product we purchase. the other day i was in aldi looking at crackers. i could not find -- i can find who distributes them, but i could not find where the wheat was, is it an american product? product?made that i think we can, with our purchasing power, be a very strong -- it these corporations to change their behavior by the choices we make. there is another example, we recently got a roof on our house and we had a couple different estimates and i asked where the workers -- who are the workers? were they going to be american workers that would work on our house? those companies said to be

competitive in the markets, they send the contract out and then they are not reliable for workmen's compensation, they are not required to vet the people coming to my home. that was the status of the market. point -- ito your think it was -- you said it was the aldi store. did you go to the manager and say can you tell me where this is sourced? why don't you guys do this? caller: i didn't. anytime -- in the store, i try to find out where the products come from. seafood.uired in it is kind of crazy we can't know where the food is coming from. we have had dogs being poisoned

by their dog food. we, as a nation, need to be willing to do a little research, read the back of boxes, and make noise about wanting regulations and i know some people -- --know we can make choices, we don't necessarily know where the fabric came from, but you get my general point. we, as consumers, don't need to be so consumer driven for the cheapest product. we can buy ben & jerry's ice cream because they have a good reputation and not get the big gallon because the smaller thing to support these companies doing the right thing. host: this is the front page of the washington post. like a lot of other news

organizations, paying close attention to the smashing of hurricane dorian on the south carolina and north carolina coast. i want to focus on the story about the e-cigarette industry. state and federal health officials are investigating mysterious illnesses linked to vaping. they found samples of marijuana products used by people sickened in different parts of the country. the chemical is arrived -- derived from vitamin e. share that information with state health officials during a --ephone same chemical was found in cannabis samples from patients who fell ill in new york in recent weeks.

while this is the first common element found in samples from across the country, health officials say it is too early to know weather this is causing these injuries. vitamin e is found naturally in certain foods. the oil derived from the vitamin is commonly available as a nutritional supplement and used in topical skin treatment. it is not known to cause harm when ingested or applied to the skin, but the molecular -- structure could make it hazardous when inhaled. talking about the change in purpose of the business roundtable and asking you who are corporations responsible to? congresswoman from california held in august town hall meeting and the news had just come out about the roundtable's decision. here was her response. [video clip] >> you may have seen my exchange with my now penpal, jamie dimon, the ceo of j.p. morgan chase.

[applause] chase is a big employer here in the 45th congressional district and they provide loans to help people buy houses and start businesses. we need chase to make sure the work they are doing and the profits they are making are being shared with those who are creating that value. it's something i never thought i would see happened on monday, the business roundtable, which is the ceos of the nation's largest corporations came together and announced that corporations have a duty to stakeholders, not just shareholders. they said treating customers fairly, are you listening, wells fargo? that means paying employees a wage where they can make ends

meet and save for retirement. to be fair to supplier so small businesses are able to make ends meet and able to be competition in our market and that means taking care of our communities, which will mean a fair tax system in which everybody chips in for the collective good. i hope my conversation with jamie dimon helped prompt this. i will keep pushing because i am going to hold them to my promise -- that promise. we need a capitalistic economy that works for the stakeholders, including shareholders. shareholders win when stakeholders win. host: california company is under utility -- pressure, the utility pg&e. wildfire mistakes followed years of violations. misleadingy of regulators. asking you who are corporations

responsible to? let's check twitter. 19 80's in the 1970's, there was a three legged stool. corporations responsible to shareholders and customers. executive pay -- until executive pay is changed, nothing will change. democrats running for president have never had a private job, yet they want to tell companies how to do business. rebecca says companies have one allegiance, stockholders. democrats line from trenton, florida. caller: good morning. there has been a lot of real good comments here lately. mark, i forget where she was from and then katie. the trouble is the corporations have abused the power they were given in the 1980's. people relied on them, they were -- they havee

abused it, they have gone so sent mostreaks, they of the money they make to useselves, the head guys that money and all the tax breaks they get to influence elections. they have taken power away from the people to get anything done and they have taken any legislation that is supposed to regulate them and got there elected officials to throw that stuff in the trashcan. we are at the point where everything is failing because they have abused the system. the idea of having this roundtable is great like a little business magna carta. it is about time. i don't know if they can do it themselves because there will be too many people that won't follow any stuff like that. since it is not being done by the government, maybe it has a

chance. host: we will hear from charlie in florida, on our independent line this time. go ahead. porter i heard mrs. mention something about jamie .imon -- in amon's group company -- country where that caused millions of people to go bankrupt, et cetera, in 2008, 2009. i have a big problem with the some degreetions in of legislation, i don't know specifically, are classified as people so they could be covered under that guise.

on few people that have come who basically said corporations are a great system, the best system in the world and that andtes economic growth jobs, most of the time, what a corporation looks to save money is the elimination of jobs. the buybacks that are going on throughout most corporations morer than creating possibilities for people in their organizations says a lot to them. unbridled capitalism is going to era.e ruin of our the issue is this, i have gone on to see as there were a number of sites that -- socially responsible companies. if you went on a lot of different sites, you will find different categories for socially responsible companies.

maybe good in terms of hiring more minorities, but there is no clear-cut -- host: can you codify social responsibility into law? -- caller: i am not sure if you can. a lady that was on a little while ago said people need to be more educated in terms of who is making the product, who is doing this, who is doing that. the bottom line is we have less power and corporations have more power and, with the exception of politicians, a few people who are so-called representatives, they are all bought and until citizens united is eliminated, it is going to be a difficult situation to change things. the last thing i would like to say is the fact that the business--

roundtable, let me tell you the business roundtable that has been in place when obama was he got his obama -- support from corporate entities, too. the fact of the matter is the koch brothers put together a group and i think it was written in a book that basically indicated that how a group of billionaires got together and talked about how to pursue the status quo and how to increase their ability to basically earn more and more and more. host: thanks, charlie. more "washington journal."

bob barr will weigh in on the current debate on preventing gun violence and what may be ahead in congress in terms of legislation. julie kohler talks about her recent piece ♪ saturday on book tv at 9:10 p.m. eastern, our interview with an attorney and author. in her book, she details becoming the first death-blind -blind graduate of the school. >> i could not do that. what arethink about it has been a--

process of trying to identify unknowns and figure them out and come up with solutions. >> at 10:00 p.m., and american university professor talks about his book, how to be an antiracist. he is interviewed by a princeton university professor. >> i don't think even well-meaning people, even people who are trying to be part of the movement against racism recognize really that the theyry of these terms -- said i am not racist. when jim crow segregationists were charged with being racist, they said i am not racist. now, even white nationalists say i am not racist, whether they are in the white house or planning the next mass shooting. p.m., jim mattis

recalls his military career in his book. watch book tv every weekend on c-span2. washington journal continues. host: joining us from atlanta is former congressman bob barr, served in congress in the house until 2003. he serves on the board of the of and is president and ceo law enforcement education foundation. congressman barr, thank you for being with us this morning. guest: it is good to be with you. host: we saw in the wake of the el paso shooting in the odessa shooting in august, your piece in the daily color. we are focusing in legislation. house democrats won't fix guns, it is up to senate republicans. that is where you think the biggest inroads can be made on

legislation? guest: it reflects the political reality since the democratic party controls the house and the chairman of the house judiciary committee, jerry nadler, basically controls the agenda for any firearms related legislation, they made it clear their agenda is to move forward with gun control in various aspects. these are unacceptable to a majority of republicans in the house and senate. therefore, the only realistic chance for legislation coming through has to come from the senate and there are some things the senate can do, such as bringing in the attorney general. for one, the attorney general of the united states, my namesake, bill barr, we are not related, has a responsibility for a whole range of regulations that relate

directly or indirectly to firearms. also, i think it would be worthwhile for the senate to bring before the senate judiciary committee for an objective hearing from the official at the fbi, which is responsible directly for the background check system. primarily to inquire as to whether or not the amendments that were made to the background check system one year ago are actually working, or if there need to be additional changes made to strengthen the information getting into the background check system so that we minimize mistakes coming out of the system. host: how do you feel about so-called red flag laws, identifying potential shooters and potential problems ahead of times? guest: the problem with red flag laws are that they start from the wrong premise. the premise ought to be the second amendment or the

constitution that underlies any debate with regard to red flag laws, yet many people in states and at the national level look at these so-called red flag laws, that are basically gun confiscation laws, as a law enforcement tool to be used based on very flimsy evidence. our constitution requires not just that the right to possess a firearm be protected against all unreasonable efforts by government to limit it, it also very importantly, our constitution requires that before a person's rights can be taken away, they have to have due process and the law has to be applied equally -- equal protection. we also of course in our constitution and bill of rights have protections against a person's property being taken improperly. we have protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the problem is the

so-called red flag laws, whether we are talking about the 17 or so that have been implemented at the state level, or a national red flag law, which some of the democrats in the house want to push forward with, don't pay near sufficient attention to those very, very important due process, equal protection and other rights in our constitution. host: let's go back to the u.s. senate for a moment. the wall street journal's headline senators walk a fine line on guns, but in particular trump met president at the white house to discuss a response to the mass shootings that have killed dozens of people over the last few weeks. the meeting occurred with several white house staffers and covered policies including background checks.

senator pat toomey and mr. manchin have long urged legislation for background checks. there bill failed to pass the senate in 2013. bob barr, do you remember that legislation? that something you would support? guest: if what they are talking about his universal background checks, i would not support that? is is item here, also, appropriate for the person to have to go to the government to get the government's permission to transfer a firearm? who wishes to receive or acquire a firearm have to get the government's permission in order to do so? that is the fundamental question here? if you look at these so-called universal background check laws, which go far beyond legislation that was passed back in 1993,

that set up the background check system, which i fully support, you see transfers between private parties, whether they are related or unrelated, would have to go through a background check, unless certain conditions are present that would prohibit them from doing so. here again the standards, for example, if a person in a family transfers a firearm and does not go through the background check, they have to make sure there is no reasonable or reason to suspect the person to whom they are transferring it would abuse it or misuse it. surface these the universal background check proposals seem to carve out exceptions for family members and so forth, even those are problematic.

back when the congress first instituted as part of the so-called brady law these background checks, congress approached it from the standpoint of what is the proper role of the federal government? they predicated the scope of the background checks that were instituted back in 1993 on the commerce clause, in other words, if somebody is involved in the commerce of transferring firearms, then they have to go through a background check for any prospective purchaser. congress at the time was very mindful of the fact that the role of the federal government, the responsibility and the jurisdiction of the federal government, does not extend to private sales that are not involved in commercial transactions. of firearmsority transfers in this country, upwards of 80% or so, are

conducted through what are and are subject to background checks. vastotion that there is a ocean of unregulated firearm sales out there is wrong from a factual standpoint, but it also reflects the fact that individuals in our country, with the second amendment guarantee, the ability to possess a firearm, do not have to go to the government for permission every time they want to transfer a firearm to someone who is not in a commercial or retailer situation. former congressman bob barr is our guest, we are talking about efforts to reduce -- ifolence, particularly you are in the eastern time zone, call (202) 748-8000.

for gun owners, call (202) 748-8002. we will get to your calls momentarily. you mentioned the brady law. we had the president of what is now -- we talked on the program about walmart's decision to stop selling certain firearms and ammunition. i wanted to play the comments and hear from you. [video clip] they are nohe fact longer allowing open carry in their stores and they say they are not selling certain types of ammunition is a response to the fact they have had two mass shootings on their properties in the last few weeks. it is also a repudiation of the nra talking point that what we need is more guns -- more guns make us safer. and that good guys with guns will save us. the walmart ceo is basically saying that is just not the case. he is looking out for his

employees and his consumers by saying he wants reasonable restrictions and appropriate measures to ensure his shoppers and employees are safe. host: bob barr, that is brady's view, what are your thoughts? guest: my view is responsible citizens, and never in 23 years as a member of the nra board of directors, have never seen a murder or a mass shooting committed by someone who belongs , because one of the things at the heart of the national rifle association is responsible gun ownership and gun use. it is not people going into walmart who might open carry or be nra members that is the problem. the problem is criminally minded individuals going into walmart or any other commercial establishment or institution and committing a crime.

saying since we had a crime or a person came into walmart and murdered a bunch of people we are going to say we don't want people who are law-abiding to carry a firearm into walmart, it is utterly meaningless, it is actually silly because it will have no effect on someone who is criminally minded, intent on shooting people, coming into walmart, other than the fact someone who decides if i want to go into walmart, i know nobody will have a firearm, so that is my venue of choice. it does not bear any relationship to reality or common sense. i think it is simply a pr ploy by the establishment and this notion of not selling certain types of ammunition also is utterly meaningless. firearmsmajority of

related homicides, whether they are individual, which we see over and over again in chicago every weekend, for example, or a mass shooting, the vast majority of these homicides are committed with handguns, not with rifles. saying we are not going to carry this particular type of ammunition, here again, it is very cynical, it is a pr ploy. host: we have plenty of colors waiting period let's go to tom in florida. welcome. caller: welcome. i am a gun owner. people are good citizens until you take an assault weapon like the fellow in dayton, ohio. shot,ple in 32 seconds he including his sister. band machine guns, why should

we not ban assault weapons that are made for war? host: bob barr. guest: assault weapons made for war are not available to the average citizen in the united states. weapons, whichg are issued to the military and law enforcement, are not available to citizens, lawfully. this notion that you can kill so ar-15eople with an platform civilian rifle that you could not do with a shotgun or handgun, is nonsense. it does not bear out in terms of the real world. one of the terms that the left is using, apparently very effectively, because many in the news media are repeating it, is they have gone beyond using the term assault weapon, which is improperly used, anyway, because

the civilian firearms available are not automatic assault weapons, they are now switching to using the term weapons of war, as if a rifle that is simply a semi automatic rifle, like so many in this country and anywhere in the world, is somehow the same type used by the u.s. military in war zones is absolutely untrue and an effort to simply disguise what they are doing. weapons of war are fully automatic firearms that are issued to the military and law enforcement and are not lawfully available or used by civilians in this country. host: next caller is from north carolina. that morning. caller: good morning. is -- nobody has brought up the real subject of what and why everything is going

on, these shootings are going on. my opinion is it started in the 1960's with the feminist movement and has gotten worse over the years. we have young white men being demonized through the school system. we wonder why these young white men break and do what they do. not too long ago, the democrats tried to demonize a young boy because he was wearing a maga hat. a cnn anchor try to destroy the young boy's life. left, disagree with the you are to be demonized. they want our weapons so they can control us. we have a second amendment to control them. that is why we have a second amendment, to keep our guns and check and keep people like these 10 crazy democrats up there that

are running for president. barr, your thoughts on any of his comments? guest: the core of what your caller is saying is absolutely correct, if what he is saying, which i think is the case, is the problem with mass shootings in america, which are horrible and we ought to do everything we can within the bounds of our constitutional system to eradicate them. issuea far more complex than simply the type of firearm that might be used or how many rounds can be put into the magazine for a firearm. solutionssimplistic that are simply windowdressing. the real problem is, as your caller indicated, why are we seeing this horrible phenomenon in the first place? is it related to drugs? many of the mass shooters in

recent years has had a history of using, if not abusing, in many cases, very strong drugs. of the things, for example, the seneca do is to have the secretary of health and human services come before the senate judiciary committee and talk about that. our educational system, our home system. it is a cultural problem we have in this country, not a gun problem. if we keep that in mind and look at solutions that address these underlying causes of mental illness and mental problems, we would be far more productive than simply doing what many on the left want to do and was tried back in the early 1990's, to ban firearms that simply look mean. host: to your suggestion that the health and siemens -- that

the health and human services secretary testify, with us this morning from atlanta, the home of the centers for disease control and prevention, is there a role for the cdc? have they been blocked from researching the effects of gun violence or in this case the causes of gun violence? guest: the cdc stanza for the centers for disease control -- the cdc stands for the centers for disease control. role foran important people who are trained in discussing mental illness and drug abuse here, as well. cdc in this issue is not appropriate. that is not part of why the cdc was set up. it is not part of why the cdc is out there handling issues of

disease. over the years, congress passed restrictions to keep cdc in its lane. there are important issues involving mental illness and mental diseases, as well as drug abuse, that involve these medical issues and why i think the secretary of hhs could come before the senate and provide meaningful background to see if changes can be made in that regard. host: as we have done throughout the week in our conversations about gun issues, there is a line for gun owners, (202) 748-8002. the next caller is from laurel, maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. here in maryland, in order to purchase a gun since 2013, we

have to pay a tax of about $230 and that is going to the state police to get a license, which is pretty much no different than a driver's license but we have to do a four hour class and now guns are being banned by the state police due to their definitions of them. they have changed the definition of a rifle from 26 to 29 inches. if you do it, and you are paying for a state background check for $55, i don't understand the reason for and it does not make anyone safer? host: when did this change happen in maryland? caller: when governor o'malley gave the commission for background checks to the state police for handgun purchases and over the laws from d.c.

to maryland. host: let's hear from congressman barr. guest: there are a number of ways that gun-control advocates are attacking the issue of how to severely limit the individual's rights to keep and bear arms under the second amendment. they do it directly through legislation attacking certain ammunition,earms or or the so-called red flag laws. another tool, another trick that the democrats -- not all of them , but most of them -- will use is to tax something. one of the reasons schoolkids learn why we have the united states of america rather than being part of the united kingdom, is taxes that the british crown imposed on publications and paper and so forth back in the late 18th century. asing something is the same taking it away because you remove the ability of

individuals to exercise whatever it is you are taxing. in this case, firearms and ammunition. interestingly, also, is the fact that many of these gun-control advocates, if not all of them, that are favoring taxing guns and ammunition as a way to limit their availability, it winds up hurting the very people that these same liberals claim to be championing, that is the poor and many minority groups that don't have the financial wherewithal to pay huge increases in taxes simply for the privilege of having a firearm. the ability of less fortunate people from being able to purchase a firearm or ammunition to protect themselves and this is a notion that is being pushed by liberals, particularly many of the so-called presidential wannabes

on the democratic side, as a way to solve the firearms issue. they are really hurting the very people they claim to be championing. host: let's hear from liam in vienna, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to quickly talk about the second amendment, specifically the part that talks about a well regulated militia thoughtsr. bob barr's on what that entails and who is supposed to be regulating those malicious and the right to bear arms. i don't know if you heard all of his questions. caller raises a very good point. if you look at the specific language in the second amendment, there are a couple of different parts to it. as anyone who understands semantics and writing, not just lawyers but other folks, as

well, the operative clause in the second amendment language is the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in the supreme court in 2008 correctly ruled that the right to keep and bear arms attaches to the individual, not a collective right. the first part of what your caller is talking about in the language of the second amendment, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people is more difficult to understand for us in the modern world because we frequently forget that in the late 18th century, when the language of the second amendment was crafted and built into the constitution as part of the bill of rights, the militia was a well understood term to mean at in thee all white males colonies and in the states. the purpose behind that was to

ensure that the citizenry itself had the capability that could not be taken away by the government to defend itself. the militia meant, and still means in this sense, the people, generally, because that is necessary to protect the free state but the right itself to keep and bear arms attaches to the individual, not to the militia has any sort of organization. host: mr. barr, how long have you served as a board member on the nra? guest: since 1997. host: typically for the meetings, when the board meets is that about business in the nra or do you discuss policy issues, such as the nra's response to calls for gun legislation? guest: we discussed a whole range of issues. the way the nra is set up, we

have a board of directors, which i am a member, but underneath the board of directors you have several committees and subcommittees that look at issues regarding firearms. everything from training programs to shooting competitions and so forth. certainly discuss those types of issues. we also at our meetings he reports from the institute of , it istive action, ila the arm of the national rifle association that deals with legislative issues at the congress and state level. the ila reports to the board of directors. the board of directors can ask any questions about policy and ultimately it is the board of directors that will provide the policy directives to all of those components of the nra.

these are certainly topics we talk about as the board of directors. host: one more quick question, the size of the nra, the membership, how big is it? guest: the membership currently is in excess of 5 million ues.ers, those who pay d it is interesting because if you ask a population group generally, a lot of individuals who support that nra and the second amendment considered themselves nra members even though they might not be dues paying. the formal membership of the nra is in excess of 5 million people. antonio in sans jose, california. go ahead, you are on the air. caller: i would like to congratulate mr. barr on the job he was able to win.

is, --hear him saying [indiscernible] videos and stuff like that are the cause of this type of stuff. if we take care of those problems, we still have a problem with the guns and we can look at that. it sounds like doing nothing, which is pretty much what the nra wants done. host: you are breaking up a little bit. bob barr, did you catch some of what he was saying? guest: if you could hear it a little better, maybe rephrase it. host: he said why not focus on the guns first as opposed to violent videos or mental health?

focus on dealing with the gun issue first. guest: dealing with the gun whye first, as opposed to is crime was committed, that a shortsighted way of looking at the issue. certainly police will look at the specifics of a particular crime, whether it is an individual murder, that happens all the time in our major cities, or a tragic incident we have seen with a mass shooting. law enforcement will certainly look at the specifics of that and it is appropriate for legislative bodies, also, to look at that. if we approach the problem with blinders and we look simply at the specific circumstances of the crime, we are missing the bigger picture that will get to

the root cause of the problem, problems such as drug abuse, problems such as family destructions. , not justuch as mental illness, but serious mental problems, as well as some of the cultural issues that the gentleman mentioned. my view is to look at why are we seeing these problems occur in the first place and tackle that as opposed to simply looking at each instance and saying this gun was used in that instance so let's ban that, or this capacity magazine was used in this instance so let's ban that. that will not cause a problem to go wait all. -- not because the problem to be fixed at all. host: it results in mistakes being made as in charleston,

south carolina in 2015. how can they fix the background check system? guest: it is very important, none of these systems are perfect. yesterdayyou had on recognizes that, as well. how you approach that is somewhat different. past as one year ago -- passed a system and it was a bipartisan system. ok, weis did was it said have a system that has been in effect for a quarter-century, it is not working perfectly, we see problems where people who are disabled from acquiring a firearm that is prohibited under the law who have been issued permits or been able to purchase

firearms. why is that happening? it is happening for two reasons --, one because of bad information is getting into the system erroneously. federal officials and state officials are not doing their job of making sure the right information gets in, that is properly databased, kept up-to-date and shared. the fbi is directly responsible for handling the system and there have been demonstrable cases over and over and over again of that information getting in or information that should get in not getting in. passedtem bill that was last year and signed by president trump and was supposed to go into effect this last summer, was designed to correct some of those deficiencies and make the officials responsible

for putting the information into the system more accountable. argued why in my peace i the attorney general -- that is argued theiece i need to come to the hill and explain to the congress and the american people, are these programs working as now they have been amended, are they not, why not, what needs to be done to make these officials accountable for not doing their job of getting the information and and making sure it is capped up to date? host: richard in little rock, arkansas. caller: i guess my question is violencee news on gun is so tilted and one-sided and basically dishonest. my question is if you take the killings, those are not one third the amount of

killings that happen in chicago and baltimore on a yearly basis. we know they have strong gun laws up there that are a lot stronger than in arkansas, but still we have hundreds of killings up there we hear nothing about, and not to sound one-sided, but is that because those are mainly democratic run states? why can't we hear about all of the gun violence instead of picking it out? guest: it is a problem that a lot of us who care about firearms, who care about the second amendment rights and the tragedy of gun violence our country, whether it is one-on-one crime, gang-related in chicago, or a deranged individual going into a walmart. it concerns all of us and should concern everybody. but it is somewhat problematic, as your color points out, with

all the shootings, homicides by firearms the go on in our country all the time, largely, not exclusively, but largely in major cities that have very, very strict gun control, why did we not pay any attention nationally to the debate on that? why do we focus on the small member, each one a tragedy, but the small number of mass shootings? why are we seeing for example that weekend after weekend after weekend in detroit and new orleans and chicago and other major cities, baltimore for example, why are we seeing so many murders committed by firearms in these cities? that should be addressed. it is just as much a tragedy for a parent in chicago or new orleans or baltimore to have to bury their child who was killed

by a gun as part of a drive-by shooting or gang-related violence, or part of a drug transaction, as it is for a parent of a schoolchild killed town.mass murderer in new these are equal tragedies and we ought to look at the problem generally and not just focus on a particular aspect that might gain more publicity. host: we will go next to rockford, illinois. caller: good morning, everybody. host: good morning. caller: i am a retired air force officer and a concealed carry .ndividual, 24/7 i just renewed my nra membership for three years and i just realized wayne lapierre spent over $200,000 on clothes, even tried to get the nra membership

to purchase him a $6 million mansion. it is very concerning to me. you have been a board member since 1997, i think that is what ousttated, why did you not wayne lapierre and promote oliver north to chief executive? north has a lot of character. wayne lapierre, i am not so sure about that and this pisses me off. the second amendment allows us deplorable people to raise up and fight it to radical government. it will not be possible with a single shot rifle and a handgun. host: thank you. guest: let me take the second part of the question first. i heard former vice president biden, now a presidential candidate for the democratic

make statements the other day that indicated very clearly that any rifle that is capable of holding more than one round, more than one bullet, is a rational or should be outlawed -- is irrational or should be outlawed. that is nonsense to say you should only have a rifle that can hold one round. the sides -- the size of the magazine has nothing to do with whether or not someone is going to commit a murder or not. that is easy to dispose of. the is just ludicrous what former vice president was saying. with regard to your color's concerns about the -- with regard to your caller's concerns about the nra board, i am not here to get into the workings of the board.

i will say i have known all of her north for many years -- i have known oliver north for many years. i have known wayne lapierre since before i went on the nra board. they are both fine gentlemen. specifics, i am not here on behalf of the nra to address them specifically. host: salisbury, north carolina. good morning. caller: i was listening to this barr,man you have on, mr. mr. barr is good for deceiving the public. he is not answering any questions. he was just discussing the shootings in chicago and baltimore. neither one of those shooters had been labeled as a mentally

ill person. people that support the nra get on tv every time there is a mass shooting and say mental illness, mental illness. if it is a black man that is shooting, it is never mental illness. it is gang-related or he is mad. but when a young white american shoots up 25 people, it is mental illness. another thing he said, the last shooter, if i am not mistaken, he went to purchase a gun and he was turned down because of background checks. he purchased a privately owned gun. with that kind of rationale, you need to stop this mental illness, because it was not. a rational person would not say i can't get one this way, let me try it this way. you guys are still saying mental illness.

it is ridiculous. host: we will let congressman barr respond. guest: i am not saying mental illness is responsible for every person who commits a crime with a firearm. i don't know any responsible person who is making that claim. it is an inescapable fact that many of the individuals who commit, certainly mass shootings, however one defines it reasonably, and many of those who commit other types of firearms related crimes to have problems, mental problems. ill might not be mentally within a clinical definition, but they do have problems. we have seen that in the years ago,se 1.5 with regard to that individual, who went into the school and shot a number of students. he had very serious problems that were well documented that

unfortunately were not followed up on by law enforcement at any level. if we simply ignore the fact that there are mental issues involved with many of the individuals who commit these horrendous crimes, we are moving off of the table some very important solutions that we could be looking at. with regard to the caller's discussion of the murders that occur in chicago and other cities, many of these are related to simple crimes, drug crimes, for example, gang-related crimes. they may not have anything to do specifically with mental illness, but that does not mean we should not pay close attention to what are the factors that precipitate or go into these individuals committing these murders. host: one more call, i want to put you on the spot politically with news this morning for the new york times about the senate

seat in georgia, a congressional ally of trump seeking a seat. doug collins, the face of ismp's impeachment defense looking to persuade georgia's governor to promote him to a soon-to-be vacant seat, being vacated by johnny isakson. bob barr, any favorites of yours? this point.one i know the governor and i have every confidence he will make a sound decision on filling the seat that will only be for about one year because that person will have to stand for reelection in the november 2020 election. here ine already georgia quite a number of people , including doug collins, whose as a have been mentioned

possible replacement. well-qualified individuals, including doug collins who is the ranking member on the judiciary committee on which i used to serve. hewould not surprise me if was among those being considered by the governor. i don't have any inside information at this point. line,arizona, gun owners go ahead. caller: i voted for you a few years back for president. the secondet to amendment. well-regulated at the time they were used did not mean a pile of paperwork that told the militia what they couldn't could not do. meant in good working order. well supplied. we talked about a well-regulated

navy, the ropes were not frayed. shot, powder, food, water. a well-regulated militia to be well-regulated, they kept a beans,g bag, a blanket, coffee. host: we are going to let you go. reactionan barr, your to his point on the second amendment language? point it is a very good and it bears are not only how we look at the second amendment but every other provision in our bill of rights and amendments to the constitution and provisions directly in the constitution. that is to consider the historical and factual context in which the language was crafted and placed in there. our framers were very smart

individuals. they understood history. they were precise in the language they put in the constitution and in order for us well over 2.25 centuries later to proper lee interpret them -- properly interpret them, we must understand the language. host: bob barr, former republican congressman from georgia, joining us from atlanta. thank you's much for the conversation. guest: my pleasure, entirety. -- my pleasure, entirely. rate unchanged at 3.7%. more ahead on washington journal. juliel be speaking to about her recent piece in the nation magazine. she said the gop is having problems attracting female candidates and voters. we will speak to her next.

♪ >> this weekend on american history tv, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, the california gold rush and the environment at 10:00 on real america, the 1977 journalist.talian on sunday at 4:30 p.m. eastern, scholars on the history of u.s. policy toward iran and iran's nuclear program. at 6:00, and historian talks about his book about the automobile past and present. past ons our nation american history tv.

watch c-span's campaign 2020 coverage of the democratic presidential candidates at the party convention. our live coverage is saturday at or00 a.m. eastern, online with the free c-span radio app. ♪ >> what is your vision in 2020? we are asking students what issue you want to see the presidential candidates addressed during the campaign? c-span's video documentary competition. are $100,000 in prizes at stake. students are asked to produce a short video documentary. information to help you get started is on our website.

>> washington journal continues. host: julie kohler is with us. she is a contributor to the nation magazine. she is here to talk about where the republican is with women voters and women in the party in general, representatives on capitol hill. we have you in because of the piece you just wrote in the nation, the republican party's white women problem. it is been characterized by hostile sexism and women are turning away. what prompted you to write the article? guest: i was interested in a special election held in north carolina in july and it got a lot of national media attention because there were two republican candidates that made it past the runoff, a republican man and republican woman. the woman was heavily endorsed by a number of new efforts that

had propped up in the republican party 2018. in the wake of 2018, which we kind of think of as the year of the woman, but it was the year of the democratic woman. womens of new democratic were elected in congress and state legislators across the country. the numbers of republican women dwindled. the numbers went from 23 to 13 in the house and 50 seats were lost by republican women in state legislators across the country. they started sounding the alarm bells and started organizing efforts to endorse and bring money in early to support republican women candidates. they spent quite heavily in the republican race in north carolina yet the outcome was she lost by over 20 points to her

opponent. that made me really question whether this issue, which i think there are some in the party that are sounding alarm bells over, can be solved by just recruiting and endorsing? can they endorse themselves out of this predicament? some $900,000re put into the race. have there been any after action reports or analysis about why she lost by such a big margin? of the peoplee speculating and i think there will be some deeper dives into the day that when they are available. what we see and what we heard anecdotally was there are deeper issues with the republican brand right now, quite frankly with women voters. women of color have voted overwhelmingly democratic. black women are the core base of the democratic party.

erosionhave seen is an of white women support of republican candidates. to 2018, we saw a 10 point swing and how college-educated white women voted. they favored the democratic candidate by over 10 points in 2018. non-college-educated white women, we saw a seven point swing. you have a smaller base of voters voting republican and what you have is a base deeply aligned with president trump and very supportive of him. you need to look at the cultural driving support within the republican party base and whether that is conducive to supporting women candidates. what we saw in north carolina was it was not. many voters in the primary said

they did not trust dr. perry and that she was significantly hard-core even though she ran on a pro-life christian agenda. that cost into question whether it is just a factor of early endorsement. it is hard for some candidates to get money early on and breakthrough, or whether it is a deeper issue. host: who on the house side is dealing with efforts to enlist women candidates? she has been a leader in the party to try to find early was at and she said 2018 real crisis for the party and the need to address this. host: in your article you wrote that efforts to elect more republican women -- acknowledging the importance of diversity and inclusion only to a limited degree.

this reflects a broader reality, all but one of the 47 women of color serving in congress are democrats, as are 96% of women of color that our state legislators. guest: it is a difficult argument to make that you need to broaden representation and include a wider variety of people to represent your party when the republican party is overwhelmingly white now. it is hard to make the case that we need to be more inclusive with gender without looking at race. host: our guest is julie kohler. lines byroken up our democrats, (202) 748-8000, ,epublicans, (202) 748-8001 independents and others, (202)

748-8002. congresswoman liz cheney is the conference chair. any discussion we covered, she outlined how the republicans should approach enlisting more women. [video clip] i think it is crucial, we need to get more women to run. we need to find what are obstacles to women -- in my view, women spend a lot more time assessing what they don't have, assessing experience they have not had rather than just going for it. i think it is important for us to encourage women to jump in. at the end of the day, we have to get more women voters. a large part of that at conference will be making sure our message is getting out, making sure we are demonstrating that if you put our policies as republicans against the policies of the democrats, and in

particular the very far left policies are seeing now, coming from freshman democrats and their presidential candidates, that it is our policies that provide opportunities. it is our policies to provide security. it is our policies that help ensure everyone has an equal shot, we have an economy that is growing and providing jobs. and we are listening. a huge part of attracting women voters is demonstrating we are willing to listen to people's concerns and we are willing to have conversations with small groups around the country as well as at the national level about the kind of future our party will build versus the kind of future the democrats will offer if they are voted in again. host: that was liz cheney back in january, talking about getting the message out. how is the message rested netting with voters? guest: i think it is not. i agree with her analysis.

the ability to elect more republican women is connected to attracting republican women voters. women aree seeing is leaving the republican, at least from 2016 to 2018 and that is true for white women who have historically voted republican. whether or not that trend continues, it will determine who wins elections, but what the representation of the republican party looks like. host: next call is from new york. caller: good morning. i am retired, and i wanted to question, do you think the reason why republican women don't run -- look at what these women go through.

examples, sarah huckabee. other women in the trump organization, they are called -- every -ist there is. i think they fear now coming out in public to be labeled a thatlican, and it is sad you cannot even do what you need to do. i would like your reaction, thank you. guest: thanks for the call. look, i think that women of all bothical parties, of political parties face additional challenges when they run and when they step in the public office. it can be criticized in some ways that male candidates and elected officials just aren't. that is true. i will say the republican congressional committee has said that they received, they are getting record numbers of republican women who are interested in running in the lead up to 2020.

i think there are women who are willing to step up, and if there is recruitment, that they will get into the race. but i am not sure -- i think the big question is, can they win? not only did we see declining numbers of republican women in in 2018, but we saw significantly lower rates of republican women winning their primary elections in 2018. republican women prevailed in their primary rates at 44%, where democratic women prevailed at rates of 53%. i think you have to look at what is going on with the voting based on whether or not the republican base is really willing and interested in a electing more women. host: julie kohler, our guests. florida, withr, jo on our republican line. caller: i want ms. kohler to

know, as an african-american woman, i am a republican and probably support president trump and the republican party. it is always astonishing to me therer my white sister say what black women, how black women usually vote. please believe me, not all of us are voting democrat. not all of us are liberals like that. by and large, are conservatives. they just have not had the message. the left-sided media has told them what to think, but they don't support abortion and are very strict on lgbt rights and things like that. i want to let you know and let the listeners out there know that there are so many of us african-american women who are republicans.

we are proud republicans. so i thank you for listening. host: thank you, jo. your response? guest: i think we also have to have these caveats when we are talking about overall rate of how different demographic groups tend to vote, that that never encompasses everyone at the individual level. yes, as a voting group, african-american women did vote overwhelmingly democratic and have for recent history, but of always have different perspectives among every demographic. you are a host: senior advisor among the democracy alliance. what do you do? guest: we invest in organizations that help strengthen democracy and move our country in a more progressive direction. host: individual corporate donors? guest: not just individual corporate donors, we have foundations and some institutions like labor unions that participate. host: let's go to stephen in

maryland, on our democrats line. good morning. caller: yeah, i just wanted to say that i don't see how anybody could support a president who has denigrated women the way he hasn't continues to -- has and continues to remain in this party. we had the worst of the worst lying,y, patriarchy, paying for having sex -- anyway. anyway, i think the reflection of a lack of republican women is also a reflection of the church-based that they have and how the church treats the women, you know? women can't be pastors, women can't have leadership in the church and that kind of reflects in their ideology as they move towards politics as well. thanks. host: julie. julie kohler? think that has

driven, in fact, many women out of the party. been thet only substantive issues, some of the policy issues that have come to define the trump administration, the taccone and -- the draconian abortion bans that have been that have been passed in many states, the family separation policies and the very inhumane detention policies of this administration, i think that has been profoundly alienating too many women. also, certainly the president's conduct, his demeanor, the allegations of harassment and assault are deeply upsetting and to serving to many women, and i andt and disturbing -- disturbing to many women. host: marcia in chicago. caller: yeah, hi. i wanted to get in on this. i am an african american woman who voted for trump very probably. -- very proudly. also my daughter. now i am noticing there are more

people -- i was in church last sunday, and there were lots of black people, women, who are voting for trump. they are turning away from the democratic party because they have been losing ground. i wonder if you have any perspective on that? thank you. guest: thanks for the call. it is an interesting anecdote and we will have to see if that indeed plays out. it has not been apparent in any of the polling or any of the election results to date, but we will see. every election is another test, and we will see if that indeed is a shift. host: what we're talking about, it made the front page of the washington times. ooks for fresh faces, focusing on young kim, looking for a rematch of a race , andarrowly lost last year if she wins, she will become the first korean-american republican in congress, who will be a valuable voice as the party

seeks to reclaim territory in the suburbs. ofant to read you a comment the rnc chairwoman, rhonda mcdaniel. she told reporters, she said that a fight against socialism is helping republicans win over college-educated white women, particularly in suburban districts. are you seeing that? guest: well, we have not seen it in election results to date. goal, andell be their i think the republican party is very concerned about the erosion of support from white women that ,e saw on the republican party to the democratic party in 2018. they are rightly concerned that if they cannot win back some of those voters, the party's future looks quite bleak. i think they are appropriately targeting the voters that they need to target, whether or not they can reverse the trend is the big question for 2020. host: johnson in connecticut,

independent line. good morning. caller: yes, yes good morning, mr. scanlon. i am just amazed that someone from the nation of the far-left rag and the democracy alliance -- that is way progressive. is interested in public and women. i used to be a democrat and i had to leave that party because i don't even know -- i don't know what happened to it. i don't care what happens to it, but i can tell you this. there are a lot of republican women, i mean, a lot of democratic women and independent not like the democratic party, just like i don't like it anymore, and are afraid to speak up. my main question is, i keep hearing this bigoted statement -- people of color. i have a definition, but i would like to hear before i give my definition what this reporters definition is which he uses people of color. to me, that is a very noninclusive, a very bigoted statement. i would like to hear your

definition? .ost: hold on, john i want to be clear, julie kohler is not an -- not a reporter. she is an advisor with democracy alliance. so julie, he was asking for your definition of person of colo r. guest: it is generally used to describe people of african american latinx, -- african-american, latinx, and asian-american dissent. --.sually means host: john, that is the definition. your final word on this? caller: my sixth grade art teacher taught me that black is not a caller. white is a caller. why? white can reflect and refract light. i know this is a catchphrase someone made up, just like how jackson made african-americans

back in the 90's and that was the new catchphrase. we are supposed to call them african-americans. blacks in this country's are more un-american than -- american than whites. they have been here for 400 years and have more ancestors in this country. host: we will hear from sarah on our democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have been very disenchanted with the infighting between the democrat and republican parties, and i feel like they don't listen to the people and they and things up in congress, we the people, none of our business gets done. my question to you, why do we need to parties? -- need two parties? if we are just voting for the person we believe is going to win the popular vote and get the people's business done.

and if they make campaign promises that are false or they fulfill,ot then they should be liable for lying through the campaign and get the hell out and make room for people that can take care of our country and take care of the issues of artificial intelligence, education, housing, our citizens first, and stop with all the -- i think racism starts with the government, because of all the thatams that are out there ask the questions on what caller you are. you are.olor if you are an american citizen, why does it matter? host: a response to her? guest: what she is expecting, frustrationn singer

a lot of folks feel with politics, a lack of progress and a lack -- she is experiencing a similar frustration a lot of folks feel with politics, a lack of progress and a lack of getting stuff done. democraticck to the midterms, the number of women elected to the house and congress in 2018. what do you think the driving factors were, particularly for the women elected last year? guest: i have been talking with a number of recently elected or newly elected win and state legislators around the country, many of whom have never really envisioned that they would have a career in politics. recently we talked about 2016 as being kind of the deciding factor for them. there was a lot of reporting that it was in opposition to trump, and i think for some women, it was, they felt that the country, his election represented something that they needed to work to counterbalance. for many others, it was

something deeper and more symbolic. i have heard people talk about the fact that they just felt that their community was not represented. the interests of the people they are living with every day are so not part of the political discussion and debate, and they felt a real responsibility to run really grassroots campaigns a lot of the time that were community driven, but to bring new voices into the political process. host: you have heard about the outreach efforts of the republicans in the upcoming election. where are democrats recruiting field candidates for 2020, do you know? guest: i think it continues to be very strong. i think we will continue to see a very strong race of new women running for office and a very diverse group of democratic women running for office. i think that is an important distinction to make as well. marianne joins us from lakewood, new jersey, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning.

i'm so sick and tired of the left-wing hypocrisy. first of all, i would rather have donald trump -- i'm 82 years old, and i would rather have donald trump as our president then obama. what did he do for the black community? nothing. absolutely nothing. with millionaires and terrorists, another white hater who hated america. reverend white, another white hater. let me tell you something, they claim trump tells a lot of lies and everything, what about all the lies that trump -- obama has told? benghazi, that he left all those americans to die, and even hillary, all the crooked lies that she has told and she got away with. and then they worried about the baby that the border, but they don't mind having babies killed?

our issuesing on this morning of women in the republican party, marianne in new jersey says she is 82 years old. do you see any difference in terms of support for the party in the age groups? guest: yeah, increasingly i think the republican base is older on average. younger voters are trending more democratic, so that is something you are seeing a difference in. and again, to be competitive over the long haul, republicans will need to look at that, whether they attract support from younger voters as well. host: a speech from the tampa bay times, donald trump's strategy for women is the economy, is that enough? the 2018 election results and recent polls show that women have flipped on the president and it could decide 2020. i want to read a piece from this -- they write that while women voters are trump's latest electoral vulnerability, standing between him and another four years, white women voters surprising piece of the

coalition that catapulted him into office. they have shifted again in 2018 and health puts democrats back -- healthin the u.s. puts democrats back in charge in the u.s. house. it early, but polls show trump is under white with -- underwater with white women, even ones without college degrees. women, overwhelmingly white, waited to hear from trump's to does a female surrogates, pam bondi and kellyanne conway. guest: i agree with everything in that article, they accurately reflected what the polls are, are with even more white women favoring democratic candidates even more heavily than they did in 2018. we will see that he wrote and intinues -- if that he wrote osion continues. his approval ratings for president from our 89%, 90%

against republican voters? he remains enormous lee populars -- enormously popular with the republican base. host: tina from milwaukee. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to congratulate julie for taking all of the calls that she has taken on this morning. i am a black female and an elderly woman, and i know racism when i see it. i know sexism when i see it. some people are calling in and saying they are black and going through the republicans. i don't know how many of those people are really who they say they are. doesn't matter to me, because if they are making that kind of statement, they need to go back and take a look at, in the mirror. they get so much, you are a brave young woman. -- thank you so much, you are a brave young woman.

and this does not affect just the women, this also affects the men in our country also. we do not need to lose focus on what is affecting all of us, and it is not good. thank you for coming on and thanks for taking my call. host: thanks, tina. guest: thank you. i'm not sure if i can response to that, but thanks for the call. host: james is next, lawrence, massachusetts, democrat line. caller: good morning. i'm sitting here with my laptop on my lap. the young lady was asked who funded the organization and she gave, she kind of refused to answer that. i would like to give her the opportunity to tell people who fund them, if not i will read the list off my computer here. they include both george and jonathan soros, rob reiner, stein, a staff of the clintons, i want to know why she is so disingenuous at telling us who funds her organization. host: steve, we mentioned that role -- general organizations.

what is your point at the individuals you are talking about? is an: the point is, this ultra liberal left organization funded by george soros to give acorn,o people like american radio work, center for american progress and everything like this. it is a little stilted what is going on here, sir. thank you. host: the organization defines itself as a progressive organization. guest: that's right, so our donors are progressive. in texas, we go to rachel on our independent line. caller: yes. i just want to say, if you check into the labor department, they give credit to obama for creating jobs -- are you still there, sir? host: we are, yeah. caller: if that's true, how did trump help the black jobs? you know, help the blacksmith jobs? -- the blacks with jobs? if the jobs are created under the obama administration.

and people talk about obama and billionaires, how about trump and epstein? with childing out molesters. i watched that man on howard stern years ago and he was always going on about how he went backstage with the miss teen pageants and looking at naked little girls' bodies. this man is sick. i do not understand why america loves this man. and if they were to turn off fox news and listen to what he says, they would not vote for him again either. host: going back to the jobs numbers, they are pretty low in african-american communities. is that resonating with women voters in those communities at all? economicu have seen indicators that remain fairly positive over the past couple of years and you also see tremendous economic anxiety. even though the overall jobless numbers are relatively low, you

see a lot of families that are still struggling, a lot of individuals that have to hold more than one job in order to support their families. a lot of fears around potential booming recession, and a lot of insecurity and real economic hardship related to the presidents trade war. -- president of the trade war. i think we have people that are tradeg -- president's war. i think we have people that are feeling a lot of economic angst. host: a numbers pull that we will point out, a recent nbc news/wall street journal poll that shows from earlier this month, it is actually from august, that found president trump trailing a generic democrat by 12 points overall. the democrat leads president trump by 33 points among college-educated white women. the margin shrinks among white women without a college education, but president trump

still trails there, 49% to 43%. cindy is on our republican line, with us from st. joseph, minnesota. caller: hello. i feel that the republican party platform has to be more specific. and i say that from experience, being involved in it as alternates and delegates for two different presidential elections. whereou get to the vpou, you find out you have platform suggestions and your bylaws of allow youican party to bring forth those suggestions to be including in the republican platform, they are shot down before they are even andwed to be discussed voted on. so the republican party today is very corrupt. it is more of a paul ryan, america first, not supporting our president. and we want to support our president.

today we find out, especially in my state, that the republican party has been bringing in all this illegal immigration in the hopes to assimilate -- apparently they failed on that, and now they are desperately trying to still maintain their position. one, we should exemplify the laws in this country that mirror this. this should be it for the republican party -- god, family, and country. through that, we will continue to make america great. but we need to make sure that people have the opportunity to come forth and not be shot down right at the beginning stages, acause this is how people say legal elections, gerrymandering, all this sort -- illegal elections, gerrymandering, all of this sort of thing. cindy, you talked about

developing the platform. you are a republican caller from minnesota. is there a frustration on your part, that the party is not listening to what you think it should be proposing? frustration, not a they downright do not even follow the laws of their own party platform. at the very start, you can go to your caucus and make suggestions, what the republican party should be standing for. so people in the entire area come forth with their presentation of it. that is typed up and brought to the next meeting with the vpou. that is where those suggestions, we in our particular vpou, had two pages of them. all of them were trying to get our local mayors and city officials to talk and let us talk, and even the city meetings and town hall meetings, about why are we continuing to build more and more schools for all these illegal immigrants, why

are they here and why is nobody following the law? immigration should be under control better and we are always no answer.en so when it got to the vpou, people had this on the platform for the republican party. but they were not even allowed to be heard out. they were shot down immediately before people could vote on it to add it to the platform. so it is very, very corrupt in this particular state. it is very corrupt. host: cindy, thanks for sharing your experience. julie? guest: she probably has a much better sense than i do than the -- of the inner workings of the caucuses in these various states. let me go back to the point you raised in the poll that you cited about trump's support among white women, the tremendous of just tremendous numbers of white women saying they are favoring democratic candidates, according to that poll. if that holds up in 2020, the significance of that cannot be overstated.

white women on average have voted republican for decades. if we see white women favoring democratic candidates by those margins, i think we would be on the brink of a major political realignment in this country. is still a ways out. we do not know if those will actually be predictive of how people vote in 2020, but those polls certainly show some deep erosion of support for 2020. host: let's go to our democrat line. susan, good morning. harrison township, michigan. caller: you know, women are becoming more educated and a lot of women i have talked to over the years said they were republican because their father or husband were republican. they really were not interested in politics. i think that trump has really made them aware of, you should be interested in politics, what is going on. we have this man child in the house, and i really house, andk

-- i was listening to barr, who was on before. it was very upsetting. i cannot believe he said it does not matter what kind of guns are available. that is unbelievable. who needs to go hunting with an assault rifle? herde do not take out a of deer. the guy is an idiot and he is trying to keep his position. thank you. host: thank you. julie? guest: i think what she accurately captured there is a wave, not only a shift in voting, but a wave of activism among women. we saw this beginning with the historic women's march and really continuing, so women have gotten so politically active and involved. they are out canvassing, they marching and protesting and registering folks to vote and talking to others at their pta or wherever to really

encourage folks to get involved. and i think that is an incredibly encouraging sign across the board. we want to maximize people's engagement in the political process and i think this energy you see among women and that you saw in 2018 is not likely to dissipate anytime soon. host: we will go to our independent line next and hear from jay in omaha, arkansas. hi, jay. make sure you meet your television. go ahead with your comment or question. is, i hopecomment the women of the republican party stand up. this is not the republican party that we know. trump killed the republican party. it is now the party of trump. so i just hope that the women do their studies and men and women of our country, he has already committed so many impeachable offenses, it is ridiculous. he needs to be impeached now, and we need our republican party back.

until then, me and i hope a lot of other women stand up to this man. host: julie koehler, we have not talked about the historical -- we talked about 2016, 2018, but looking back more recently, 2012, 2008, what were the percentage of women supporting the republican party in those elections? guest: women overall have trended democrats. that has largely began with women of caller. that has largely began with women of caller. -- women of color. white women have been voting republican for decades. as long as we are collecting this data. go back to the 1970's, white women have been a reliable republican voting block. it surprised everyone in 2016, we saw the exit polls, seeing forof white women voted president trump, but it has been the continuation of a long-standing pattern. this has been a recent shift, and i think it is interesting to see, is this a phenomenon just see theald trump? we

temporary shift in white women's voting patterns or a more permanent political alignment? host: our next caller, good morning. caller: hello. i would like to say, every time someone talks about president trump, we have to bring up president obama. the differences between president obama and president trump, he knew how to lead this country. he is the one who got the country out of the debt we fell 's time, from the wars and everything. he did not get credit for that. donald trump is taking all the credit for that. another thing i want to say, donald trump calls himself a white nationalist. why would anybody vote for a white nationalists of any party -- white nationalists of any party -- white nationalist of any party? he opens hise mouth, it's obama, it's obama.

i don't understand republican women or the men, where that goes. why they hate obama so bad when obama was very respectful to this country. donald talks about every race and that iswhite, what i don't like about him. thank you. host: marian in south carolina, talking about president obama. what about trump himself? what has he done himself to help enlist candidates or support candidates who are running for four -- or to run for office in 2020? guest: i do not know what the president's personal involvement has been. this has been more led by some women in the republican party that are concerned about the lack of women's representation in the party. it has not necessarily received as much support from as much of the rest of the republican and conservative establishment. if you look at the north carolina race, which i think was very illustrative, i think it

exposed a bit of a rift in the republican party. members ofwomen the house republicans congress supported dr. joe perry. she only had eight republican housman supporting her -- republican house men supporting her. dr. greg murphy received robo , rudyfrom giuliani giuliani in support of his candidacy. hannity tweeted out support. much of the republican establishment was all in for dr. greg murphy, and he ultimately prevailed by 20 points. so i don't actually think that it's necessarily the majority of the party that is concerned about this trend, but i do think that some republican women within the party are raising alarm bells. host: and those 13 women will become 12, susan brooks is retiring in indiana. she has been tasked with recruiting candidates. do we know why from her?

guest: we are seeing a lot of --ublican to republican retirements in the lead up to 2020, and i think it is more political factors. it is disagreements over where the party is headed, looking at their own reelection prospects, and many factors go into the determinations of whether or not to run. i think you also sought to duncan black members, republican members of congress, will hurt -- you saw two black members, republican members of congress. will heard said he is retiring. host: julie koehler, thank you for being with us. we will be here talking about your top policy issues. congress getting ready to return on monday. eye on theing an damage from hurricane dorian. (202) 748-8000 is the number to call for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

for independents, (202) 748-80 3 2. your top public policy issue. here, sheridan mayor roger miller talks about the city's history and its economy. >> sheridan is in the middle, the north edge of wyoming along the foothills of big horn mountain, right along the edge of montana. is the basis of where we started, coal and timber. telephone poles from big more mountain -- big horn mountain with around the country. this railroad stopping in sheridan grew our base from where it was to where it is today. but the coal industry has subsided. the majority of the economic drivers for sheridan our tourism that comes through every year. we also have a ranching area around our community, we have some light manufacturing that

goes on in our community, so we have quite a variety of different things. one of the unique things here is wayo rodeo. we have over 30,000 people that show up for the rodeo. we operate almost everything in the city around our rodeo for a week. it is an amazing region and part of wyoming, and an amazing part really is that undiscovered. it is a jewel and a jam, and we hope everyone comes to visited for sure. >> washington journal continues. host: up until 10:00 eastern, we will talk about your top public policy issue. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. a story in the washington post and elsewhere on the fighting oninst the education --

the fighting against michigan state university. the education department finding a systemic failure to protect students from sexual abuse. the university has faced a reckoning since larry nassar pleaded guilty to sexual assault. scores of women gave harrowing testimony about the abuse they suffered, and how the school officials did not help them. they also point out in this article that the law on this is called the clay react. the cleary act requires colleges earyuniversities -- cl act, requiring colleges and universities to warn students of ongoing threats to their safety. the size of the fine, the spokeswoman for the education department says the fine was $2.4 million. $4.5gan state was fined

million. let's hear from shelby in florida, republican caller. good morning. caller: good morning. the top issue for me -- i'm sorry, i appreciate these bands much ---- -- c-span so it is the wonderful programming, sees and history -- c-span history, book tv, and the learning lectures you are bringing to the country. you guys do so much for that. i missed seeing the democracy as a 60 woman, but plus-year-old woman and a 90 a blackr-old mother, , we see the intersection of education and the economy. we received the job numbers today, we have been talking about women as it relates to their public and party, but my is one about the

holistic women issue. we have this invested in education in america -- have disinvested in education in america. the intersection of education and public education, the intersection of where we are with funding public education for all of our children to have i went to private school because my parents paid. they are not asking for the government to create a voucher or a tax credit so that corporations -- or a business roundtable discussions about corporate ceos coming out and then reading the contract of the other corporate who have already seen the value of the intersection of their workers helping with creation of the prophet and their production of their values. intersection of public education affects women and the economy

greatly. the woman is not employed, choice of employment is for a woman's personal choice, to say they are going to work outside of the home, and they do not have an education -- we are an asset in our country now, where we are must haves. we must have our people educated. educate it to bring the capacity of the innovative and creative skills that we need in order to become a civil, social, successful society. i want to ask the lady about the impact of melania trump, whereby a woman who is not an educated mann married a rich, white and i -- i see that intersection of contrasting that with an educated woman, michelle obama, that married another educated black male. and how the impact on her particular brand will affect the

therban white women in republican party, because mrs. obama was a great asset to us as a role model woman. whether we were republican, independence, or democrats. host: shelby in florida, thank you for calling it. we are glad you like our education programs at history programs. 1870, a historic day on woman cast a vote in the first general election. that was luisa swain. we are joined now by a representative from the luisa swain foundation. we talked about the significance of this date, a first woman to cast her vote in the general election, but who was luisa swain? swain was a luisa lady born in norfolk,

-- and then daughter of a sea captain, who went away after she was born and never return. she moved with her mother to charleston, south carolina and became an orphan shortly after, on her mother's death. she found her relatives when she d toa teenager and move baltimore, maryland, and married stephen swain. to her was born four sons and a daughter. they moved west when they -- when their youngest child was only six years old, and she cast her vote on november 6, 1870. she was 70 years old. and she walked into american history. host: did she know at the time the history of her vote? think she did.

the most plausible story that we that the that time was ladies of laramie got together the day before the vote and changed her to be the one to break historic ground. some -- there's some credence to that story, the louisa swain foundation is in something the of ladies of laramie knitted for her to symbolize her first vote. the local newspaper confirms the story, by noting that first woman voter was really a lady, widely respected. she was in her highest degree, interesting and impressive. there is too much incense in our

community for any jeers or sneers to be tossed on such an occasion. this is theclear, years before the 19th amendment to the u.s. constitution. what was this election all about in laramie, wyoming? election, itas an was an election for territorial and county officials. host: tell us how the louisa swain foundation is celebrating this historic day? guest: well, today we will have a ceremony that will begin in a couple of hours here in laramie. ur 11th annual louisa swain day. the u.s. congress in 2008 passed a resolution proclaiming september 6 to be louisa swain day. we will be celebrating the 11th here, louisa swain day

and it will be the 149th anniversary of her vote. each year we have a woman that reenacts hersa and vote, and this year we are honored to have the librarian of congress to perform that duty. carla hayden will be portraying louisa swain? guest: yes, and significantly, carla hayden is the first woman to be appointed and confirmed as the librarian of congress. she was appointed by president obama in 2016 and confirmed by the u.s. senate. so we are quite honored to have her perform a reenactment of louisa's vote today and to be our special guest. really appreciate you

joining us on the program this morning, and we hope to see video or something on social media of the event today. swainfoundation.com, i hope you enjoy the ceremony. thank you for telling us all about it. guest: and thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak with you and your viewers. host: we will continue with your calls and comments on top public policy issues. is in alexandria, virginia, independent line. -- barbara is in alexandria, virginia, independent line. go ahead. caller: hello, i have enjoyed your program this morning. i want to make two comments on the current issue, what are your topics of concern? i think if we don't deal with gun regulation, regulation as opposed to control, and think those will be the two hottest topics in the

election, and it is really sad that over the last four years we have not been able to address this in a civil manner. that's all i have to say today. thank you for listening and i look forward to your comments. you we would keep our eye on hurricane dorion, smashing into the bahamas and affecting the coast. we are seeing this tweet from the associated press, it is making landfall on cape hatteras, eight after striking the bahamas. -- eight daysp after striking the bahamas. anthony up next in detroit. thank you. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: [inaudible] but -- host: anthony, you there? caller: yeah, ok. i thought i was off the air for a second. host: no, you are on the air,

though ahead. why do you always keep obama's name up? he was not well respected. going to let you go. i'm getting a little confused with the feedback. from burlison, texas, republican line. caller: yeah, i don't wonder why we are in so much turmoil. why don't people understand that we should have more than just republican or democrat to choose from? about electing somebody, look at what they have actually done. a lot of these people have done absolutely nothing for the american people . our children's education is being thrown away. they areonder why committing suicide and killing , you are not even teaching them nothing. they are not prepared to go to

college, you know? i just don't understand a lot about the way this country is ran, because you are running it into the ground and you are killing everybody. host: the house and senate will brief pror forma sessions today. this will be their last before their august from recess. senate leaders spar over what the fall agenda should be. schumerl says nominees, said gun control. as mitch mcconnell sees it, the fall agenda for congress is more of the same promise eating president trump's nominees and -- promise, speeding president trump's nominees. -- or tried to punish russia for its 2016 election travesty.ould be a lawmakers return next week after a lengthy summer vacation. masssaw several horrific

shootings elevate guns to a top level issue and senate minority leader charles schumer of new york said that in a letter to colleagues that they must quickly approve a background check extension bill that has already cleared the house. vance on our independent line in richmond, california. welcome. yes, i think that what we have going on today is a says allve church that of politics needs to be geared for the provision and protection of women, and it's always women first. this dino centric type of is really destroying our country because it is ignoring med. -- ignoring men. the prisoners. men are 91% of the job fatalities. women live on average seven years longer than men. men are 80% of the suicides.

what is happening? why is it always women first? this is the first woman who is the librarian of congress, this is -- we hear it over and over and over with everything that of theneed to have 50% women members of congress being women. we have all sorts of statistical men who are to why tends top of their game to prevail, but they forget about the man at the bottom rungs of society or even on the middle rungs of society. a is a system, a morality, dynastic morality that has taken over our political discourse. host: here's kathleen next in indianola, mississippi on our democrat line. caller: good morning.

start. know where to first, we work all our life. we take care of the children, have our children and everything tryinger way, they are to take health care away from us. there are over 22 million people every day, disabled. have a program. what are they going to put in for us? millione over 1.2 children on medicaid and food stamps, but [inaudible] whole world, everything is going backwards. it's like the 1950's, 1930's. it's backwards. this whole march that is we are paid $7.25 an

hour for our children. they have food in the morning, food in the evening. [inaudible] so we keep on calling, i called once a month. mentionthleen, you $7.25 an hour. that is still await you are seeing in mississippi? -- the weight you are seeing in mississippi? caller: yes, yes. -- the wage you are seeing in mississippi? caller: yes, yes. mean, it is [inaudible] even though we are united states citizens. we get letters from the food

stamps and medicaid about how our food stamps and medicaid will be cut off due to sonny perdue. the new violations came out in 2019. we've got about 10 minutes left. we will try to get as many calls as we can. two things in congress, tweet from our capitol hill producer, craig kaplan. we told you about the senate. here is craig kaplan tweeting about the house. announcingy leaders september house floor agenda in a dear colleagues letter. they plan to vote the week of september 16 on a clean continuing resolution to fund the government passed the past septembers-- 30 to avoid a shutdown. and from reuters, big impacts on privacy and antitrust. the house of representatives antitrust panel will hold hearings next week to discuss the effect of consumer data collection by big tech platforms ,ike alphabet's google, amazon

on online top -- online competition. let's go next to mark in saint peters, missouri. republican line. caller: yes, i am calling just let you know that my most important public policy deals with immigration. i want you to know that i applaud president trump for doing something when the republicans and the democrats in congress, they just refuse and they fail to act on it. at the democratic presidential candidates, they are all -- at least a lot of them -- want open borders and are talking free health care and for the immigrants that are coming in -- i think most of the united states citizens, we know there is no such thing as a free lunch. someone is going to have to pay for it. so i think before our country could move forward, we need to take care of this immigration policy and get that all wrapped

up. really, that is all i have to say. headline of the washington post, the chief of the u.s. asylum office is reassigned as the white house pushes for tighter immigration controls. jeremy is in marietta, georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing this morning? independent presidential up.idate jeremy -- calling i believe immigration is one of the key issues, along with gun control. there is a lot of government reform i think needs to take place now. i believe we can have health care cover everybody in the united states if we can actually get both parties to dropped the parties and actually talk to each other as individuals. as far as making sure that everybody in the united states is actually protected and safe,

that should not be a really hard issue to cover. we have more than one border that has to be secured in the united states of america. really happy to get my voice out there, and i love hearing everyone's opinions today. i am praying for all the people in north carolina. this report in politico.com, republicans to scrap primaries and caucuses as trump challengers cry foul. they write that for states are poised to cancel their 2020 gop presidential primaries and caucuses, a move that would cut off oxygen to donna -- donald trump's longshot challengers. carolina, nevada, arizona, and kansas are expected to finalize the cancellations in meetings this weekend, according to three gop officials who are familiar with the plan. ,ur caller from florida

democratic line. public policy issue. jerry, what are you thinking about? good morning. governments first and foremost responsibility is the safety of the american people, and the fact that the -- mitch mcconnell and the rest of the senate republicans refused to ban the assault weapons is a national disgrace and dereliction of duty. host: thanks, jerry. jerry in jacksonville. that is coming up in a few minutes. we will take you live to the american enterprise institute. storyt to get back to a we talked about in the beginning of the week, a potential on the taliban. the this is a front page of the washington times this morning, hope for -- hope for taliban peal phase. talked at length are wary of signing off on the u.s. agreement and fresh u.s. cavities in afghanistan -- casualties in afghanistan and taliban terrorist strikes

threatening to turn public opinion against it. even at the deal seemed closed thursday, the taliban carried out another suicide bombing near the u.s. embassy in the heart of kabul, wounding the servicemen and at least 10 civilians. this was the third in a string during u.s. led talks with taliban leaders and marked the fourth over two weeks. president had long complained they had been shut out of the talks, led by the u.s. special envoy in qatar. secretary of state mike pompeo harbors doubts about the agreement. i want to show you something else from the washington post on mike pompeo. this is a report that came up initially in the daily signal from the heritage foundation -- pompeo says u.s. delivered on afghanistan mission as the deal looms.

they interviewed mike pompeo. suzanne is in sacramento, california on the independent line. good morning. caller: yes. i just wanted to make a quick comment about education as an important issue -- you mentioned some cases that have been settled. i used to be the affirmative-action director of penn state. i made a finding of institutional racism and they fired me for it. there are so many things out there that you could report on, and a wealth of information, things like how the women, or people of color refer to themselves as people of color, how immigration came about, always to exclude some group. there is a big hole in the kind of information people are getting, and somebody commented about people of color, you didn't really know how to respond because you do not know the history of that. it is not a criticism, but you could really do a lot better if you could take some of the erroneous comments that people basesnd turn those into

of new programming that has historical accuracy. i mean, those of us who are authors and have a lot of information and research that it been done, we cannot get into you all. your book people do not accept i am not some radical from a foreign land. i am just unable to get that material through, and i have two national women of color organizations. we don't have any access. it is not being given to the majority of us, and i think it would help programming if people could get facts because the call-in show is great, we need a voice for everything, but it does not correct some major misunderstandings and miseducation. i appreciate your advice