funded by these television companies and more, including mediacom. >> coming up on "washington journal" reviews to january 6 congressional hearing beginning later thisand brett samuels, whe reporter for "the hill," talks about the challenges facing president biden's domestic and foreign policy. also, a look at iran's nuclear activities and the prospects for a renewed and deal with daryl

kimball, executive director of the arms control association. drawn the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: as they return from the memorial day break, the house and senate will likely debate and vote on significant gun violence legislation. the path of the u.s. house is more clear, with consideration mid week of the protecting our children act. on the senate side, there is reporting that an agreement is close among a bipartisan group of senators with a deadline of today come up with a plan. it is monday, june 6. welcome to washington journal. are opening our question about those debates in congress this week, your message to congress

on gun violence legislation. republicans, the line to use is (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents and others, that is (202) 748-8002. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. tell us your name and where you are texting from. we are on facebook, twitter, and instagram. you can reach us there at @cspanwj. it is really just one piece of legislation so far. the house will take up several, but the main piece of the protecting our children act passed last week and is set for a vote midweek this week. here is what is in the legislation. it would raise the purchasing age for summer automatic weapons from 18 to 21. it would outlaw high-capacity magazines and bump for civilian use. it would establish requirements regulate in the storage of firearms and cracked on gun

trafficking and subject ghost gun purchases to background checks. that has passed so far in the house judiciary committee and awaits debate and vote this week. the path in the senate is behind closed doors until now. today was the self-imposed deadline, which may be extended somewhat. we are hearing reports among a bipartisan group of senators and some senators were on the sunday shows yesterday. here is reporting about that. senators say a gun deal is within reach but without biden's wish list. the senators said there was a growing momentum to forge a bipartisan congressional response to recent mass shootings that could toughen federal gun laws for the first time in a generation. a deal is not yet in hand and the talks are expected to continue for several days as

negotiators seek to garner enough republican support to get a compromise bill through the senate. should an agreement come, it is certain to fall short of the parameters that president biden laid out in a white house address thursday when he called for renewing the federal assault weapons ban as well as expanding federal firearms background checks for gun buyers and removing the immunity from lawsuits. the post writes that a proposal would encourage states to set up red flag laws that would allow authorities to keep guns away from people thought to be a threat to their communities remains under discussion, as do measures tackling school security and mental health, according to people involved in the discussions. one of the people in the discussions is senator chris murphy of connecticut. here is what he said yesterday on cnn's state of the union. >> republicans passed a sweeping

massive reforms. why don't you make that the template and say, this is donald trump's home state. rick scott signed this into law when he was governor. republicans in the legislature in this pro-gun state were on board. why not just make republicans vote for that? >> as i mentioned, we are trying to figure out what has 60 votes. the template for florida is the right one, which is due significant mental health investment, school safety money, and impactful changes in gun laws. that is the kind of package we are putting together and that could pass the senate. >> florida did raise the age to purchase a semi automatic rifle. it does not sound like that will be in the package you are talking about. >> we are trying to discover what can get to 60 votes. there is interest in taking a look at the age range and doing

what is necessary to make sure we are not giving a weapon to anybody who has during their younger years and mental health history, a juvenile record. those juvenile records are not accessible when they walk into the gun store as an adult. having a conversation about 18 to 21 and how to make sure only the right people are getting their hands on weapons. host: senators are potentially agreeing on gun legislation. this is how the post is phrasing those discussions in the headline "gun deal in works." this is the hill this morning. senator toomey says he hopes half the senate republicans will vote for a potential gun deal. we will hear from him yesterday

on one of the sunday shows in a little bit. most interested in hearing from you on gun violence legislation. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. let's hear from joe in florida, democrats line. caller: the message to congress is to remind them the men terms are getting closer. many americans support gun control, like red flags and criminal records. what happened in florida, a massacre. those students, they are devastated.

scott, he got pressure. he has no choice. we need to put pressure on the governor of texas and other states, red states. this needs to be stopped. this is insane. kids are getting killed. that is not right. that is insane. have a good day. host: let's hear from chris on the independent line in kentucky. caller: i think we need control bad. i do not know if it will work or not, but it will be a start. we have a retired prosecutor chasing people around with a drone at the cost of $500,000 a

day. i think control would be a good place to start. host: also on the defendant line, rick in minnesota -- independent line, rick in minnesota. caller: my message is for enough good people who tend toward the middle to start getting together and create -- get a snowball rolling in terms of an independent party. this is going to happen again and eventually -- i do not know. politics as they are now, nothing is going to change. the only thing that might happen is if enough good people get

together and start the american moderate party. it has happened before a couple times in our history. maybe it can happen again. if it does not, we are doomed and that is it. host: this american moderate party of yours, what do you think its stance on guns would be? caller: number one, you have to get rid of some. going from the age of 18 to 21 -- so some 21-year-old will come in and rip off a bunch of bullets in a few minutes. you have to get rid of the assault. you cannot make them anymore. give them to the military and that is it. people do not understand the second amendment. there has to be -- i hate cliches, a seachange, with the

assault rifles and all kinds of other countries do this. i am not expressing myself well. host: you are doing fine. i appreciate that. on your point of the age issue, a little more about that from the cnn reporting. senator murphy was on state of the union with jake tapper and they write that, pressed by jake tapper, raising the legal age was on the table. murphy wrote, we are trying to discover what can get 60 votes. murphy also called laws enacted in republican controlled florida in the wake of the mass shooting at the high school and parkland the right template for what senate negotiators are trying to accomplish. we are trying to figure out what has 60 votes, but i think the template in florida is right, which is to do something with a

mental health investment but impactful changes in gun laws. that is the kind of package we are putting together now and the kind of package that can pass the senate. the republican line, your message to congress on gun violence legislation. laura is in washington. caller: my message is that our children -- the issue is our children. i do not see them doing anything to protect our children, nothing. immediately they attacked the american people in the second amendment and -- instead of caring about the children all over this country. i do not support any gun control. we are being invaded on the southern side.

the history of gun control has led to people being slaughtered in their own streets in venezuela, all over the place. i do not want to see this stuff. what i want to see is legitimate action toward protecting children. host: what do you think is the biggest thing congress could do to protect children in school from gun violence? caller: immediately to dispatch armed guards into the schools to make sure nothing more is happening. there have been massacres all this weekend and our kids deserve to know. the former gets armed guards -- president gets armed guards what our kids do not. they did not do anything with them. i am sick of these babies being

killed all the time. it seems funny to me since we have had 200 years of this kind of stuff not going on with rational, decent legislation. now we have people appear who want to take the guns. i am not a big gun person, but i support hundred percent the second amendment and i want our children protected. host: these weekend shootings, not in schools, horrible nonetheless. from usa today, six dead. let's hear from stephanie in brooklyn on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i have concerns about the mass shootings. years ago when ronald reagan was governor of california, there was a group of what they called the pink panthers.

when governor reagan saw there was demanding freedom and due process because the second amendment said you can carry guns -- when they saw that, there was a group of black africans, americans, carrying long guns to protect themselves, because of the second amendment, they came up with a law to have those guns taken away from that group of people. i am saying if we have a group of young 15-year-old black african-americans carrying these long ar-15 through the streets of america, they would immediately ban those.

they would not allow those guns to be in the streets. since they have stopped that and put more black american boys in jail and they have felonies and they cannot carry guns because they cannot get permits, so it makes it harder. there is a larger percentage of african-americans with guns now on the second -- under the second amendment. i believe they should get rid of these ar-15's because it is killing these young children. host: let's hear from scottsdale, arizona. caller: here is a few things people are not thinking about. the fbi has been withholding information from the american people on sandy hook.

that in itself would help them, to release the information to all the local governments. that is the first thing. the second thing is there are a lot of people that know or has knowledge of the individual that causes the murders of children, especially in texas, and elsewhere. it is everywhere. there are people that are not coming forward. they even allow it. the third thing is who is the insane store owner who sold this kid two guns, that much ammunition? it does not make sense that that store owner would not even come forward and allow that even happen. nobody is even talking about that. it is true -- i totally believe that this reckless spending in

the crazy new green deal is a waste of money. we need to take the money and save our kids and the schools. host: our conversation is about your message to congress on gun violence legislation. senators meeting behind closed doors, a bipartisan group of senators meeting behind closed doors. the senate itself will be in session today over on c-span. the house is back for legislative business beginning tomorrow at 2:00 here on c-span. senator pat toomey, one of those in conversation on gun violence legislation not about background checks. [video clip] >> democrats need 10 republican votes. you are one of the republicans working with chris murphy. he said today you all are writing this legislation now. it will not an assault weapons

or have comprehensive bound -- background checks as part of it. is your proposal to expand background checks still in it? >> i hope we will have an expansion of background checks. senator manchin and i have been working on this for a long time. we have tried to establish at least for commercial sales of firearms there ought to be background checks. i do not know that we will get exactly what senator manchin and i developed some years ago. it will probably be something different and that is fine. there are a number of mechanisms you could use to expand background checks, but i think it makes sense. we all agree that violent criminals and mentally ill people shall not have firearms, so we need a mechanism to increase the likelihood that we will identify such a person and prevent them from buying a gun legally.

that is the idea behind expanding background checks. >> you had proposed background check expansion in 2013, 2015, 2019. you're saying what a surviving now is essentially a watered-down version of that. how is it different? >> this is a moving target, if you will. we are still in discussions and still trying to figure out what mechanism is going to enable us to get the votes we would need, so i cannot be precise about that. it has not been finally resolved, but something in the space of expanding background checks i think is on the table and i hope will be part of the final package. host: any senate action is waiting to be determined. the house according to the speaker's office will take up

the protecting our children act. it passed the judiciary committee last week. also, a bill that would implement a nationwide red flag network and a nationwide active shooter alert act could get a vote this week. some of the schedule this week, fox says the senate is back in session today at the memorial day -- after the memorial day recess. the focus will be whether bipartisan talks can yield an agreement to curb gun violence. from our viewers, a couple comments. we had viewers define how you identify a person who needs mental health treatment. how'd you get a person to listen, says george for michigan . dave from maryland, i do not own guns but it is important. it is about constitutional freedom and not letting woke liberals take them away.

and david from orlando. tell republicans we do not want your guns. we just went action on gun control. use red flag laws. back to calls and dena from florida, democrats line. caller: i think all ar-15's should be completely taken out of this country. there are so many that can be sold underground or not legally. if anybody uses a gun that can kill elephants and all this stuff, number one they are sick because they are not trying to save the planet. why should these guns be out of circulation? i do not care how old you are. you do not need ar-15's in this country.

i am going to vote for whoever bans the sale of our fifteens period. -- ar-15's period. host: next is holland, michigan. caller: that caller is a prime example people who do not know about guns trying to tell people about guns. c-span, is this the clinton spend network? all you guys do this week -- the last two weeks is gun violence. the week before that was abortion. the week before that, it was on january 6. the democrats just control everything, including c-span and the topics of the day. it is sickening. all you do is you pander to the democrat party.

it is 80% democrat on this program, 20% republican. any person with a brain who watches this show every day can see that. i see that you do it with the calls come out with the people online. what is next, a podcast from the democrat party? host: we try to balance the topics, the guests, the callers every day of the week, every day we do this show, but we sure appreciate your opinion. this is an opinion at townhall.com. no compromise on guns. he writes, here's my proposed gun-control compromise following the latest attack on children that millions of us did not commit. you gun fascists can kiss my schumer and we keep our guns. let's also repeal the national firearms act and impose national

constitutional carrier. i think this balances our respective interests regarding guns. i legitimate interest is maintaining the capacity to deter and defeat tyrants and criminals. you're a legitimate in limiting our ability to do so is nonexistent. he writes there are several republicans who are apparently eager to come to a compromise on guns democrats, whose goal is to rule unchallenged over canadian serfs. if i want one of my clients and suggested i propose we resolve this matter by giving the other side a lot of money and getting nothing in return, i would have to find an alternative income stream too. let's hear from don on the independent line in cooksville, tennessee. caller: good morning. how are you doing? this is not going to be a bash

on biden, but there are three points that need to be brought up. number one, just shoot your gun off in the air as a warning to potential break-ins. i have seen little dots of daylight through the roof. those spots are where bullets went through the roof from people firing in the air. he said policeman need to learn to shoot people in the legs another chest. i only see that happening at long range. number three, hunter biden withheld information on a gun he ended up throwing into a trashcan. host: two bloomington, minnesota. tom is on the democrat line. caller: i took you off speaker because the fellow said i was chopping up on speaker. i have three quick things to say.

number one, you guys are not biased. you're so unbiased and makes me sick. sometimes i get angry, sometimes i am happy. as a moderate democrat, you guys are not biased to anyone. minneapolis is a pretty big city and we had the george floyd killing up here. it was one sick, bad racist who killed that man. because of that, and we are a pretty big city appear, the 12 biggest in the u.s. or something, we had $500 million of damage to the city. so we know what violence is up. we have a lot of gangs appear, which is hard to believe. so it would make sense from a moderate democrat standpoint,

where i sit, to ban ar-15's somehow. they really are weapons of war, but that may not work out. we have to get something through with 60 votes in the senate. that is the problem. they are going to have to compromise. they are really going to have to work hard to figure out what they can get through. i think they will only find out by sitting down and doing the work themselves. it is going to take democrats and republicans working together. maybe bump stocks. there will always be some killing. there will always be something new because we cannot control all the guns in america. they cannot even control the guns in russia probably. we are a free country. there are a lot of guns out here. people, if they want to shoot these ar-15's, i think people can go and rinse them at a gun

range and shoot them, but i am not going to argue about that one particular thing. the senators from both sides will have to get together and compromise. they will have to figure out how to get what they can get through , give it a shot. anything is better than nothing at this point. it will help reduce gun violence. one last thing, i cannot understand how we do not have a clear answer to this. there have been a lot of professors that did studies on who is killing and why and how large the killing is and they must know that black-and-white analysis of who has been doing that mass murdering -- should be able to figure out where we can best employ our prevention.

host: this is the front page of "the washington times" this morning. lawmakers want biden on the sideline for gun laws. senator chris murphy urged president biden sunday to stay out of the negotiations or risk scuttling a deal. mr. biden calls for changes to gun laws, adding to the daily of democratic gun-control proposals in congress, making it harder to strike a bipartisan deal to get legislation passed, lawmakers say. i think the senate needs to do this ourselves, mr. murphy said on cnn. right now, the senate needs to handle these negotiations. mr. murphy and senator john cornyn are leading the negotiations to get a deal that can garner the 60 votes needed to survive in the senate. the talks center around changes to background checks and federal

incentives for states to adopt red flag laws and allow authorities to confiscate firearms from people whom a court deems dangerous. president biden made his wishes clear thursday in his white house address on what he would like to see in gun legislation. here is part of his 15 minute address. [video clip] >> we need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. if we cannot, we should raise the age to purchase them from 18 to 21, strengthen background checks, and act safe storage laws and red flag laws, repeal the immunity that protects gun manufacturers from liability, address the mental health crisis deepening the trauma of gun violence. these are rational, common sense measures. here is what it all means.

we should reinstate the assault weapons ban on high-capacity magazines that we passed in 1994 with bipartisan support in congress and the support of law enforcement. nine categories of semi automatic weapons were included, like ar-15's. in the 10 years it was long, mass shootings went down. after republicans let the law expire in 2004, those weapons were allowed to be sold again and mass shootings tripled. those are the facts. a few years ago, the family of the inventor of the ar-15 said he would have been horrified to know his design was being used to slaughter children and other innocent lives instead of being used as a military weapon on the battlefield as it was designed for. enough.

we should limit how many rounds a weapon can hold. why should an ordinary citizen be able to purchase an assault weapon that holds 30 round magazines that let mass shooters fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of minutes? the damage is so devastating in uvalde parents had to do dna swabs to identify the remains of their children, nine and 10-year-old children. enough. wish should expand background checks to keep guns out of the hands of fugitives and those under restraining orders. stronger background checks are something the majority of americans, including gun owners, agree on. i also believe we should have safe storage laws and personal liability for not locking up your gun. the shooter in sandy hook came from a home full of guns.

they were too easy to access. that is how he got the weapons. if you own a weapon, you have a responsibility to secure it. every responsible gun owner agrees to make sure no one else can have access to it, to lock it up, to have trigger locks. if you do not and do something bad happens, you should be held responsible. we should have national red flag laws so a parent, teacher, counselor can flag for a court that a child, student, patient is exhibiting violent tendencies, threatening classmates, or experiencing suicidal thoughts quit making them a danger to themselves or others. host: with debate likely this week on gun violence legislation, we are asking you your message to congress. republicans, it is (202)

748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents and others, (202) 748-8002. comments on social media and by text, this one from august, who says make it mandatory that we show the carnage of dead children with actual pictures of their death. then show how they reconstruct their faces for burial. my message, work on one or two things at a time. then go to the next items on your list. find common ground on one or two things to move forward and stop killing the citizenry. to congress, red flag laws are not objective without due process. background checks must be thorough. monitor social media of new buyers for violent tendencies. from chris in illinois, my message to congress, do something. do not just stop after a few

days of soundbites and grandstanding and forget about it until the next shooting. the majority of americans agree on many common sense measures. listen to them and work together to accomplish something. in wisconsin, we hear from cara on the republican line. caller: i do not have specific feelings about this because i do not own a gun and i feel the biggest thing is the age limit, but if i recall correctly the shooter at the grocery store was 34 years old, so 21 is probably not the right age. they should probably survey all the shooters and find out what their age was and 18 is certainly too young. those assault rifles -- there should be something done about not allowing them for purchase.

they are for the military and should stay there. host: to alex and washington, d.c., democrats line. caller: your caller a few callers back said somebody must've done a study about what shooters had in common. there have been so many studies. we have figure out all of these mass shooters, the majority of them, have a few things in common. one of them was early childhood trauma. i appreciated the congressperson saying invest -- investing middle help -- met -- in mental health is part of what will eventually pass the senate. early childhood trauma, we have the blueprint to address that. we know the signs of that and hopefully fewer kids will become

adults who might become mass shooters. the other thing everybody had in common was the means to carry out their plan, so access to a firearm. the majority of mass shooters in schools got their firearm the used to commit these mass shootings a family member. it was accessible in the home or someone they knew had a gun. being able to limit their ability to carry out the plan, their access to firearms, that is where those red flag laws come into play. these are -- republicans say none of the things going into this law going to help stop another mass shooting or school shooting. that is a lie. we know these things work and

can work. host: let me ask you a question about identifying children who have had childhood trauma. let's say a kid has a traumatic event or events through his early childhood into his early teens and his parents are aware there may -- or maybe health professionals are aware but that record is protected as a juvenile. what should happen to that information when the child becomes legally an adult at 18 and certainly under some conditions 21 but let's just say 18 she becomes an adult. watched happened to the information on that formerly child's mental health or emotional issues as a child? caller: i work at schools now. i am a speech therapist. i work closely with the school psychologist.

we are talking constant anxiety of walking to school every day and wonder is this the day are schools going to get shot up. how can we not let these kids slip through the cracks and once they graduate high school -- there are ways that if you have a diagnosed mental health issue, if you go to college, trade school some other institution, a record can follow you and you can get accommodations and services in those settings. if we can take those records and somehow make them accessible to places where you can buy guns legally -- if we can get those records to places where you can -- people who are selling firearms to say this person had a history of olein or sexual abuse or experience domestic violence, some kind of trauma that follows them through their childhood, maybe that would give

pause or there can be a waiting period for them to get some kind of evaluation and we can make a decision from there. host: let's go to bob in michigan on the independent line . you are on the air. go ahead. we can hear you ok. go ahead. make sure you mute your volume and go ahead with your comment. bob in michigan, the floor is yours for a second or two longer. you have to make sure to mute your volume here and it is just going to confuse all of us. we will hear from hazel on the republican line next. caller: the question is what should congress do. not that they should do it, but they should turn from their wicked ways. they should restore bible reading and prayer to public

schools. anything other than that is not going to work. revelation says with violence shall my tea babylon be thrown down and bound no more -- found no more at all. that is what is going to happen. violence is going to continue until the end. host: let's hear from bob on the independent line. caller: this is about congress and gun violence and legislation. first, they should ban body armor and tactical gear. if you look at the supermarket in buffalo, the armed guard did shoot the man but it did not help. a lot people out there claim we do not ban automobiles, so let's treat guns like automobiles. all guns need to be registered annually. gun owners need to be licensed to be able to have one.

every gun owner must hold liability insurance before they can have one. therefore you have to be licensed and have liability insurance before you can purchase one. having been a retired teacher, what are you going to do, walk the kids into school every day of the -- with an armed guard? does that mean there is no recess, not allowing them to go out at lunchtime? are you going to build walls and put barbed wire at the top? that becomes almost impossible to do. the only thing you have to do is use it as a well regulated militia and i believe the words well-regulated are important. owners have to be licensed and register their guns every year and have liability insurance. if they do not, they are not a law-abiding citizen. host: cbs yuka -- yougov poll.

according to the poll, with cbs news and yougov, should gun laws be more strict? 58% said yes. they also break it down by party . should gun laws be more strict? 79% of democrats said yes. 50% of independents said yes and only 20% of republicans said yes on that question. gordon is in kansas, republican line. good morning. >> i would like for all these people who keep saying these are weapons of war to call their senators and congressmen and have them send the ar-15's to zelenskyy in ukraine and see how

loud he screams when he receives semi automatic rifles when weapons of war are automatic rifles and you cannot legislate attitudes. we are going to keep our guns and people are not going to follow a law that they do not agree with. host: you will see debate and vote on the protecting our children act in the u.s. house midweek. a member of the house judiciary committee, which passed that legislation last week. these were some of the comments of the republican congressman at that meeting. >> their intentions are clear. they want to take away law-abiding citizens' ability to purchase the firearm of their choice. do not let them fool you that they are not attempting to take away your ability to purchase handguns. they are using the magazine band to do it.

last year, the glock 19 was the highest sold handgun in the united states. it comes with a 15 round magazine. that would be banned. i have a six-hour -- sig sauer. this would be banned. here is a 12 round magazine. this will be banned under the current bill. it does not fit because this was made for a 21 round magazine. here is a sig sauer that takes a 20 run magazine. a 12 run magazine does not fit. this gun would be banned. here is a gun i carry every day to protect myself, my family, my wife, my home. this comes with a 15 round magazine. here's a seven round magazine,

which would be less than will be lawful under the bill. it does not fit, so this would be banned. >> that is not loaded. >> i am in my house. i can do whatever i want with my guns. >> that hearing is available online at c-span.org. our question this morning, your message to congress on gun violence legislation. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. others, (202) 748-8002. this is the new york post. texas, buffalo victim families to testify. survivors and families of those slaughtered will testify before congressional committees next week amid a push for new gun laws in the wake of the massacres. the house oversight committee

announced it would hold hearings wednesday testimony from nine people, including a fourth-grader who survived the robb elementary shooting but cover herself and her friend -- by covering herself in her friend's blood and playing dead. caller: my message to congress is they should do their duty and follow the constitution. earlier a gentleman referred to the second amendment and the first part is a well regulated militia, so that clearly is giving congress the power to regulate gun ownership, but you have to look at the actual constitution to put the second amendment into context. article one, section eight of the constitution says congress has the power to call for the

militia, so my belief is the second amendment creates the militia that congress has the power to call forth. there is no sense giving congress the power to do something if there is no way for them to do it. also under section eight, congress has the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. the constitution is giving congress the power to regulate gun ownership. i believe the proper context of the second moment -- amendment is it establishes the well-regulated militia that the constitution gave congress the power to call forth. this is not guns for everybody. that is not what the second amendment says.

it says well-regulated militia and article one, section eight gives congress the power to regulate that. host: jimbo, california, independent line. caller: thank you. i want to say that my message to congress is that i agree with former supreme court justice anthony scalia when he says there are limits on all of the amendments to the constitution. i cannot shout out into a crowded movie theater "fire" if there is none. one thing i remember is we used to have limits on weapons designed for soldiers on the battlefield being owned by civilians.

i think that basically we have some sociopathic tendencies in congress now, that they lack the ability to empathize with us little people who are at the receiving end of the angry young men who have these weapons of war that should only be used by shoulders -- soldiers. only until these kind of a tax up the food chain will the mcconnell and -- when the mcconnell or cruise family reunion is on the receiving end of these kind of things. they cannot empathize with the misery we are enduring. they will have to be direct recipients of it. some people are brilliant and can learn from other people's mistakes. some people are idiots like me at have to fumble through every mistake ourselves.

apparently congress is that way. winston churchill was right when he said that about america, that we will exhaust -- america will do the right thing after we exhaust all the other options. that is clearly the case here. thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion. host: thanks for calling. chicago was on the line, republican. caller: i would like to send a message to congress. i am going to keep my weapon. i am a black woman. i am 60 years old. i have had a lot of problems appear in chicago and a lot of those problems have to do with open borders. we have a huge population of people in my community right now -- we do not know who those people are or where they came

from. they could be anybody. they could use any names they desire because they are not reportable. last year -- a year ago in march, my brother was killed in california, los angeles. that is another story. he was killed by an illegal immigrant. he was sitting in his car on his telephone and the guy shot in the car and killed him. he was shot four times. the reason we do not know. the reason i have a gun is because of that and some other things in our community here. we have had houses broken into. we have no idea who is doing it, and it is a safety issue. we are going to keep our guns. we have clocks -- glocks.

i love my glock. i do not care what kind of laws they pass. it does not make any difference. safety. we have to be safe. that is all i have to say to congress. you can pass whatever laws you want, but you're not getting my glock. host: buffalo dispatcher fired after tops worker was hung up on. a 911 dispatcher has been fired after an employee trapped inside the buffalo supermarket said she was hung up on. the dispatcher was placed on administrative leave last month after an assistant office manager at the supermarket told the buffalo news that she called 911 and whispered to the dispatcher in the hope of making the official aware of the mass shooting unfolding at the grocery store but instead of assistance in a moment when she was scared for her life rogers

said the dispatcher dismissed her in a nasty tone. we will hear from new york next. this is kathleen on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i am so sick of this. that weapon is a weapon of mass destruction, mass shootings. that weapon only belongs in a combat zone during warm. i am sick of they want to take away my guns. just listen. nobodies try to take away your guns. banned that assault rifle i have to tell you, i truly believe they do not want to bend that weapon for the white militia.

the oath keepers, the proud boys, that is the weapon they use when they get ready for his civil war. there is no reason they cannot band that weapon. it does not belong in our streets. band that weapon. host: two joey in north carolina. caller: i do believe there is a correlation between liberals crying to defund the police and all these mass shootings. ever since they started defunding police, we have had all the shootings. how do we get the criminals to abide by these gun laws? has there ever been a criminal who requests a background check? all these laws, all they do is affect legal gun owners.

you will not get a gang banger who is going to request a permit for a gun. has there ever been a member of the nra responsible for a mass shooting? i will give you the answer. it is no. that is all i have. host: to baltimore, independent line. this is david. caller: some people want to take all the guns away from all the citizens. my question is why can't the government take away the guns from the criminals and disturbed? if we cannot do the small part of the job, how do we do the large job? the problem is not the gun. people want to make the problem to be the gun on the table

sitting there, but the problem is inside the human heart. the problems is between our ears. we have not heard, recognized, taken heart that there is a difference between good and people and that our creator is the one who will tell us what the difference is. host: can the law be strengthened in terms of mental health issues and emotional issues that have apparently driven some more motivated some shooters? caller: i'm sure it would be very difficult. i do not know how you would go about it. most law -- the problem with law is the desire is to enforce it and we have a great weakening and corruption in our courts in particular.

police are usually people who want to do a good job to keep the public safe, but they say crime does not pay. if crime did not pay -- ask the lawyers. crime does pay. i am from baltimore. we have had problems in our courts and going through some right now. can we make a law that everybody will obey? absolutely, we could make a law -- let me back up. i do not think we can make a law that people will obey. if they will not take to heart god's laws, the 10 commandments -- we have to learn how to care about one another enough to listen to god, who made us. host: a comment on twitter that

says my message to congress is they should not make any law that infringes on our right to protect and defend our free state. in host: go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is, if we are going to talk about the manufacturing of the guns, and we want to hold them accountable, did we not hold purdue manufacturing the opiates? that would be the same basis, the same level, in my opinion. however, anybody that wants to take that, that's their decision. i appreciate your time and giving me the opportunity to voice my issue. host: thanks for calling.

diane and florida, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to note to congress that they said 21 years of age would be a good age. i think the brain is not developed until 25 years old. i think they need to look into that a little more, about making decisions about anything wrong or right, or life. i learned that a while ago by working in schools. i do have five children and three of them are boys. i noticed that a lot of these -- a lot of these young men are using guns. i think it is psychological and they need to look at that aspect in the way the brain works, as far as children are concerned. i worked at a school and i know how that works. host: what grade level do you work? caller: it was kindergarten, primary, which is vitally important, which starts you off. rate-based learning is very

important, and the government needs to look into that. host: i'm glad you are doing that and thank you for doing that. we will be joined by "politico 's" called cheney. -- kyle cheney. later, brett san mills will join us. he is a reporter for "the hill." he will talk about president biden's domestic and foreign challenges. ♪ >> after months of closed-door investigations, the january 6 house committee is set to go public. they will talk to key witnesses

about what transpired and why during the assault on the u.s. capitol. watch our live coverage beginning thursday at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfilled view of government. -- unfiltered view of government. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those on c-span's new podcast. >> season one focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the presidential campaign, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly, johnson's secretaries knew, because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact, they were the ones who made sure the conversations were

taped, as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. >> you also hear some blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number of people assigned to kennedy the day he died, and the number assigned to me now. if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i want go. promise, i won't go anywhere. i will stay right behind these black gates. >> will -- listen on the c-span now app or where he gave podcast. -- wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a senior legal affairs reporter for "politico" on with us now to talk about the january 6 select committee. kyle cheney, although these

aren't the first public hearings, certainly since last year and certainly the most nifty ones they held in public, correct? guest: that's right. this is the first when they have done since they conducted their investigation and actually have some findings to share with the american people. host: what do you think the format of this hearing will be? will they have witnesses on thursday night as well? guest: we actually don't really know. i suspect they will. they haven't announced any witnesses. they have cap details close to their vest. i think they want to have maximum impact, which is why they're trying to keep it somewhat mysterious as long as they can. i do suspect we will see different topic areas at each of the hearings that will break down the different leanings of their investigations. host: do you have any idea on the numbers of people the committee has interviewed, obviously in private, ahead of

this hearing? is that give us an indication of where they are headed in this investigation? guest: yes. they interviewed over 1000 people. i think we only know of may be a couple hundred of who those people are, just based on tracking the committee, the lawyers, all of that. we do know they got some very distinct lines of inquiry, things about what donald trump was doing in the -- preceding january 6 and trying to overturn the election. also, the proud boys and oath keepers getting involved. the money trails. there are different lanes that i think we will see broken out in these hearings. host: we mentioned that this is a select committee, not a permanent standing committee. this was selected by the speaker. tells about the genesis of this committee, particularly the choice of the republican members of the select committee. guest: sure.

this committee was never supposed to exist. after the attack, there was bipartisan outrage at what happened, which somewhat retreated a little bit as donald trump reasserted his grip over the republican party. what you initially saw was a call for a bipartisan commission, like the 9/11 commission, that would independently investigate this and come up with some findings that were free of the partisan render. the republicans ended up sinking that legislation. what happened instead was that speaker pelosi said we have to have some investigation, so i'm going to appoint a select committee. it happened there was there were supposed to be nine at democratic appointees and five republican appointees. maybe it was seven and five. when a minority leader mccarthy

said his to the panel, pelosi vetoed them, -- vetoed two of them, which is within her power. so, senator mccarthy withdrew all of his picks and boycotted the committee. host: kyle cheney, a senior legal affairs reporter for "politico." we welcome your calls and comments. (202) 748-8001 is for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for immigrants, and for independents and others, it is (202) 748-8002 . what is expected and when there they expected to wrap up and publish their findings? guest: we are anticipating six hearings or maybe eight. they are escalating. i think that will remain in

flux, depending on how the hearings go and which witnesses they get confirmed. we don't really know much about who they are going to call, but we are expecting some high-profile names eventually. one thing that is very important is that it is not the end of the road for them. they're talking about a timeline that involves releasing their actual report in september. again, that could change. that is fluid for them. there are certain things that may even extend beyond the legal fights they are having to try to get more information going into october or beyond the midterm election. host: as thursday's hearing comes up, who are some of the members you will be watching most closely? guest: the happiest ones are chair bennie thompson and vice chair liz cheney, and cheney probably more so because as the lead of one of two republicans on the committee, and perhaps one of the most prominent leadership roles on this committee, how she messages the results here and tries to

connect with republicans at home who may or may not be tuning into these hearings at all, she has pulled no punches about her own colleagues and their complicity in what happened leading up to january 6. the way she talks about republican involvement is a very important message, because it connects differently than that neo-democrats in calling out donald trump when you hear her doing it. host: what about other members on the committee? who do you expect the toughest questioning to come from? guest: i think cheney wrath is an interesting one to watch. he led the investigation into trump, and adam schiff similarly led this. those two have a long history of pursuing intense investigations of the former president. i think lofgren is another one.

she is another health staffer. -- house staffer. host: jamie raskin has written in his book leading up to the impeachment that he was furious that some of the earliest leaks that came out of that group and tried to shut down the leaks, but it has been just the opposite with this committee. there has been regular information on who is testifying , the information they are gathering in this committee. do you think that has been part of a strategy at guest: the junior six committee? guest:i think it is hard to tell. more than 1000 witnesses. we still can identify more than maybe 250 of them. some of those are the witnesses themselves or the committee declaring who they subpoenaed, who is being deposed, and people watching who is coming into the building. the leaks that have come out, we again don't necessarily know the

sources of a lot of them. sometimes, it could be from the committee, it could be from the witnesses themselves or their attorneys. different motivations are involved. i think what we have seen is like the text messages from mark meadows, the former chief of staff, that has been a consistent source of a drip of leaks. that is some of the most important information the committee has obtained. the committee has released strategically some of its own transfer of information in court filings. that has been a way for them to signal to the public whether investigation has gone, what they have uncovered. some of it is very intentional. host: (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and for all others, (202) 748-8002. tom is in harrisburg, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: good morning. i am part of the independent group and still very neutral. i look at polling. the january 6 issue, like the

issue of others, pulled high engineer is six. number two, i'm finding there is a boomerang. trying to help the people democrats are trying to hurt is evidence in here -- evident here in pennsylvania. he won in a landslide. host: call cheney. -- kyle cheney. guest: i think that connects with the average voters at home. they look at generous six as something in the past, and the real, visceral outrage over it has faded. i think the committee knows that. when you ask them what their goal is, they give a different answer. we need to do this for history, we need to document the truth of what happened, and that has been a -- an important thing for historians. i think what they want to do here is change that somewhat, at

the very least. they think they can convince people that what happened was bad, but it is not over, it is something ongoing and there are still attempts to cede bad actors in elections that could create problems in the future. they want to show people who may be preparing to do something better orchestrated next time. i think they feel like they could potentially move some of those numbers. i feel like they did that during the first impeachment over ukraine, which was far more complicated and less connected to the average voter they are not january 6. they want to remind people what they felt like on january 6, when outrage was very real. host: next up is lynn on the democrats line, in ohio. lynn, make sure you meet your television and go on with your comment or question for kyle cheney.

lynn in ohio, you are on the line. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning to you guys. this has been an interesting morning. i have one question. when we are investigating all of these events, why is it that nobody has brought in the fact that all of the male shooters, they are males? they are not females. can you answer that question? host: i think you are referring to our previous segment on gun violence. let me ask you, kyle cheney, is there any indication that the witnesses may include some of the actual participants at the january 6 attack echo -- attack? guest: i think it's possible. in my account, the people who have been charged and have pleaded guilty in participating

in the mall but breach of the capitol, they interviewed with the committee and it's probably more than that. all the ones who testified to the committee have expressed remorse to their actions and said they have been duped into this by donald trump and the result of the elections. they want to discuss with the committee. whether they want to do that in a public setting, with the intense spot like the committee will bring, that is an open question. but i do think it is very likely that we will hear from or maybe cease video testimony from those people about why they did what they did on january 6. host: speaking of the former president, has donald trump commented on whether he will be watching and paying attention to what will happen on thursday? guest: i don't know if he is going to watch it he has essentially said he is going to push back on this. they will try to counter message the hearing and downplay the significance of january 6, and

treat it a partisan affair, not a moment for the bipartisan resolve that the committee wants to present. i think there will be major pushback from him and his people , and their friendly media outlets, to try to undercut the committee. host: do you think it's likely we will get testimony from former vice president pence's staff? guest: i think that's very possible. i know they work very cooperative with the select committee. the chief of staff, the chief lawyer, they were two of the most important witnesses. we have seen some of their testimony and we know how crucial that has been to them. the vice president himself hasn't necessarily cooperated, but there is no way his people would have without his blessing. whether we see them again in public is an open question, but i think that would be among the group of the high profile potential witnesses. host: scott in arkansas,

republican line. caller: good morning. mr. cheney, please, if you could explain to the listeners that speaker pelosi has authority over security of the capitol, and also truly explain why she is off-limits with that committee. thank you. guest: this is something of a misconception about the committee. first of all, speaker pelosi does have a role in capitol security, but this is the same role as leader mcconnell had on generous six. they both oversee appointees of the capitol police board, which is the group that had responsibility for security on the capitol campus. that board appoints the police chief, handles a lot of the security briefings and decision-making. while speaker pelosi certainly has a role, she has been

emphatic that she has no day-to-day operational role in securities. she has delegated that to the senate side, to the sergeant at arms. you also have the capitol police. the one thing i think people don't fully appreciate is that the select committee has actually done a pretty intensive investigation of the security dynamics at the capital. we have heard a lot of counter messaging from the republicans about, why haven't we look at what went wrong on the january 6 committee -- january 6 security? there have been more findings on that then people have appreciated. they brought in security officials and their predecessors that were in charge on january 6 and have since been relieved of their roles. they have talked to security officials. i'm curious to see what they come up with there. it is not going to be a total ignoring of the issue. host: charles in new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning.

i am a long-term listener. the senate, the house, the committee for the hearing, i believe that the committee was serious, they would not be holding what i think is going to be a reality show. everybody knows what a reality show is. everything is pre-scripted, the audience will be standing up on their feet yelling and screaming "we didn't know that." i would like a response on whether or not this is a particular way of showing it. guest: that is actually a great question, because i think the committee has struggled with this question. the issue is they have seen reports in the past that have had explosive and important findings to them that have landed with a thud. you look at the mueller report and that is probably the best guide about what they don't want to see happen. that included intense amounts of

information for russian interference in the 2016 election, and potential contact between russians and donald trump's campaign. i think the committee salt that that report came out, it was very dense and text-heavy, there is nothing visual about it, and certain findings were manipulated and counter message area effectively. that essentially amounted to very little. i think what they want to do is avoid the fate of the mueller report. they know that the reality of capturing viewers attention in the public's attention means that there has to be a bit of a showmanship element to this, and that might be unsavory when you're dealing with something as serious and important as government investigation. i think they are treating that as the reality that we live in, and that is the way you get people to focus on something

that might otherwise make your eyes bleed a little bit. host: they're coming at this in a different media environment than watergate, iran contra in the 80's. this is an error of media were people are changing channels and streaming. they have to capture people's attention in this hearing, which gets underway thursday night. guest: right. as i mentioned before, this is going to be a very expensive counter messaging push from pro-trump media that gets a lot of eyeballs. to contend with that, they're going to have to do a something that also can draw the gaze back to them and not allow others to drown them out. host: all of our viewers and radio listeners will have complete, uninhibited coverage beginning at 8:00 eastern on thursday night. the first of the public hearings of the select committee on january 6, 8:00 eastern on c-span, streaming live on

c-span.org and our mobile app, c-span now. charlotte, north carolina, michelle is up on the democrats line. good morning. caller: hello. host: michelle, make sure you mute your volume, then go ahead with your comment. caller: ok. i am not looking at pulling on this matter, i'm looking at accountability. i think some of this has been swept over near the rug, what would've taken place then. [indiscernible] guest: i think that's right. i think the committee views part of their mission or their role as, again, laying out the truth of what happened for americans so that it doesn't get swept under the rug. you can't have a violent attack on the capitol, one that was seated for weeks in an attempt

to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, and not do and indicate -- an investigation into that, at least for history. i think they also know that the justice department is investigating various aspects of this in a way that seems to be growing and encompassing people at higher and higher levels. i think they're hopeful that even when they are done, the continues pursuing accountability on their part as well. host: so, we think the justice department will pursue legal action in the cases of steve banning, peter navarro for refusing to testify before the committee? guest: yes. they have both been charged with contempt of congress. steve bannon was to go on trial in july, and navarro probably much later in the year or maybe even next year. the bottom line is, it is very rare to see charges for contempt of congress. to see two arriving out of a single investigation, that

hasn't happened in a very long time. the justice department has shown that they will stand up for the prerogatives of the committee in some circumstances. they did not do so in the case of the mark meadows indians give in -- and dan's covino. host: let's hear from jerry in new jersey, republican line. caller: hello and good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i went to the fbi site and it said that it was not an insurrection because there was not a single gun confiscated. my question is, with 40,000 hours of tapes, why can we not see any of it? that showed 10 minutes of it. but with 40,000 hours of tapes, something isn't right and they're showing no transparency. if they won't show the tapes,

the only four people that were killed were bystanders at the capitol. so, why would they keep saying an insurrection when the fbi said it wasn't daca -- wasn't? and not one gun was compensated. host: we will hear from our guest. guest: there are couple of misconceptions there, which is actually at least, as far as i'm aware, six or seven people were charged with having firearms with them at the capital. the numbers probably much higher than that, but because people weren't arrested for the most part in real time, we won't know the full expanse of that. the first jury trial with a conviction was a man from texas who was convicted of having a gun with him when he stormed the edge of the capitol grounds. there is a bit of a misconception about where -- about were riders armed --

rioters armed. a number of firearms were seen and people have been charged for carrying. on the hours of tape, in fact, many, many hours have come out, mostly by court cases, the hundreds and hundreds of people charged. the government typically released or hosted many, many hours, hundreds and hundreds of hours of footage connected to those cases that have come out publicly. among the trove of about 14,000 hours of total surveillance footage, with even more hours from people's cell phones, other devices, body worn cameras, a lot of that has come out. not the full collection and we will probably never see the full collection, but members of congress have seen a lot of it. it is acceptable and viewable in all the cases that have emerged from the riot. host: obviously in creating a committee like this, there are a lot of staffers and extra hours on research and investigation, interviewing.

we have an idea of the addition of a cost of the select committee echo guest: not the complete cost. i want to say they have just released their first three months of the year statements of disbursement. i want to say it was in the 2 million-dollar range for the first three months of the year. i don't know that that captures the full extent. a lot of the staffers are investigators, former justice department people who came to the committee, using their expertise. some people who come from other committees of congress, some extremism experts. then, you have the house legal office, the legal counsel that has done a lot of the litigation against donald trump and his allies. host: let's go to market in indiana, independent line. caller: greetings and inks for taking my call. i wanted to say that this can't be considered an independent

investigation. if it was, i believe we would have looked into the riots from the left for two years. i am an independent, i vote both ways. there is something to this illegal activity of voting fraud. with that said, that's it. thank you for your time. i don't think "politico" is the greatest independent source we have to be able to dictate if it is fair or not. thank you very much. host: kyle cheney, what are you looking for on that first night of hearings this thursday? what do you think is the take away from that echo guest: i think it will primarily be setting the table. they have kept their cards pretty close. as for the showmanship element, to keep viewers interested in tuning in, i think we will learn

new information on what they have uncovered. i think we will hear a lot about how they view this as premeditated, carefully organized and coordinated attack on the capital -- capitol. it was not necessarily just a random occurrence or spontaneous event. i think we are going to learn a lot about how they broadly view this sort of affront to democracy here. they will break down how they are going to organize the rest of their hearings. again, i don't who their witnesses will be, so it is all very fluid, but that is the table setting for the hearing. host: kyle cheney is a senior legal's affair reported for "politico" and you can follow him on twitter. thank you so much for being with us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: still to come, next up, the week ahead for the white house for president bynum. we are joined by white house reporter for "the hill" brett samuels.

later in the program, "arms control association's" daryl kimball will be with us on iran's nuclear activities and the possible new deal. ♪ >> after months of closed-door investigations, the house january 6 committee is had to go public. tune in as committee members discuss what transpired and why during the assault on the u.s. capitol. watch live coverage getting thursday at 8 p.m. eastern on

c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app, or any time online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: joint is brett stamos, has reporter for "the hill." looking ahead, what are some of the key events that the president is headed to this week? guest: the president is back

from a weekend in delaware. he will be headed this week to los angeles. the u.s. is hosting the summit of the ninth iteration of this event, with leaders from south america, central america, and north america all getting together to discuss climate, immigration, the economy, all sorts of things. the president will be the host in los angeles this time around. he will be headed there wednesday through friday. it will be interesting to see who in fact actually attends. that is one of the big questions around this event. who will be on the final guest list? the u.s. has boxed out a few countries, much to the dismay of mexico and some others. it will be interesting to see if the white house is able to turn this event into a success. host: the ones they boxed out, is it cuba? guest: cuba, venezuela, nicaragua. there have been some countries, like mexico, that have potentially said that everybody

should be invited to the summit. but the white house has been a little pickier, a little choosier about certain governments. we will see who is attending and if there is any stretch among leaders, and whether that overshadows the agenda. host: he had a headline "five things to watch when biden and harris attends the summit of the americas." why is this event important to the white house, and light of domestic for receipt -- domestic policy challenges and foreign-policy challenges with the ukraine war? guest: immigration and migration is something that republicans are certainly very keen to talk up and criticize the white house over. that sort of goes hand-in-hand with the refugee situation in ukraine. it has only exacerbated that issue. there may certainly be some talk about migration, the issue of refugees, whether they can

broker a deal among some of the attendees of the summit. on top of that, there are a fence on climate change. vice president harris will be attending a summit on reproductive rights and promoting women-owned businesses. there is an opportunity for all kinds of agenda items that the white house wants to promote and show they are able to collaborate with allies on, at a time when ukraine certainly is put in the spotlight, whether the u.s. can work with allies and get the agenda done. host: the president spoke last week about these mass in texas and buffalo. the house has moved forward on legislation and will vote on that legislation this week. there is word of seneca negotiations behind closed doors on a possible deal. as the president satisfied to let congress work it out and sign whatever may come through, whatever may pass through the

house and senate? guest: at the end of the day, the president may not have much choice but to accept what the senate was able to get done, just because with the 60 vote filibuster requirement, needing to get 10 republican votes, needing joe manchin and all 50 democrats on board, i think the reality is him of the things he laid out in his speech last week , like extended background checks or raising the age of purchasing assault weapons, some of those things are not going to get the votes they need in the senate. ultimately, i think if the senate group is able to come to a deal and pass something, even if it is a governmental, i think the white house will certainly accept that and take it as progress, even if it is not quite what the president laid out or really hoped for as a best case scenario in response to the shootings. host: we welcome our viewers calls and listeners as well. (202) 748-8001 is the line to republicans, (202) 748-8000 free

democrats, and for independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. brett samuels is a reporter with "the hill," talking about the foreign policies and the nagging domestic policy issues. gas prices, inflation in general, but gas prices in particular. the headline from "the headline from "washington times" this morning, "gas prices have doubled since biden was inaugurated." according to averages, it is now $4.84 per gallon it nationwide. guest: heading into the summer here, driving season, a lot of families wanting to go on vacation, that is only going to remain a concern for a lot of families. the white house, the president, they have tried to show that they are taking action, whether it is encouraging releases of oil from the strategic petroleum

reserve, there is talk now that the president may go to the middle east and meet with the crown prince of saudi arabia, which is a complex decision on their part. they are certainly trying to show that they are working on this, but ultimately, as you said, nagging is a great word. it has been a persistent issue that, even as they take steps here and there that may immediately lower prices just a little bit, in the long term, it has just been an issue that has hounded them. host: is the press office indicating what the president is hearing from democrats up for reelection that would be all democrat house members and many democratic senators? guest: yeah, they have sort of tried to temper talk about campaign season and midterm season. i think they are aware and trying to project that they are aware of the kitchen table cost of this, the fact that this is a

direct impact on families and families are the ones paying for this at the pump. they tried to play it as this putin price height, as a result of the war in ukraine. ultimately, i think americans are just frustrated. as you said, gas prices have doubled in little over a year. they seem to be setting new records every day for high prices. i think there's just this frustration and the white house is aware of that. ultimately, how much can they do in the immediate term to lower those prices and show that they are working on this? host: has there been frustration as well that some members of the administration go off message with inflation? there is not one solid administration response to what is going on with inflation in this country. guest: i think we saw last week, the president wrote this opinion piece in "the wall street journal," laying out his plan for addressing inflation. he wants to lower the deficit,

such as lowering the cost of childcare, and contrasting that with the republican agenda. then, we also solve the treasury secretary on cnn say essentially that they were wrong on inflation to say it was transitory and would go away in a few months last year. i think last week, we started to see the white house very quickly focusing on inflation, but also may be still trying a little bit to fine-tune their message on how much to acknowledge that they got predictions wrong versus how much to say they are working on it and focus on that. they are aware that the inflations for the summer, it will be interesting to see how aggressively they push and how much they acknowledge that the last year was to blame for it, how to handle it will certainly be interesting and top of mind for voters. host: you touched on the visit to saudi arabia. they just announced this in the headlines of the "new york

times" this morning. it is to help biden pool oil prices. tells about the difficulty of making that choice to go to saudi arabia. guest: the president, when he came in office, when he was on the campaign trail, he talked about the importance of human rights and making saudi arabia something of a pariah on the international stage. obviously, with its human rights records, specifically the murder of the "washington post" journalist, for president biden to go for making saudi arabia a pariah and give it consequences for its actions, to now having to go meet with the crown prince, who is said to be involved with that murder of the "washington post" journalist, the white house is going to have to swear those two things. it is domestic politics needing to go to saudi arabia to talk about releasing more oil, getting the global supply in

order. ning to go and talk about that is the political reality of the moment that they need to put that front and center, and maybe that declaration about human rights -- host: is that move kind of emblematic of the way joe biden has been as a politician through his career? guest: yeah, that is a good point. i think the white house and the president kind of realize that the way they need to get to this moment, this is what needs to take priority. as we said, americans are frustrated about gas prices. if this is a step they think can help, they are willing to weigh the pros and cons and go forward with this meeting if they think it will generally help the domestic economy. host: let's go to college. we will hear first from paul in new york city, on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: yes, we can. caller: i guess my question is, do you see any significant

policy change likely to happen? going and asking the saudis to pump more oil hasn't really been positively received. i guess the other thing i have a question about is student loan forgiveness. it is thought by others to be inflationary. do you think that they will continue with that? is there going to be any deviation [indiscernible] guest: those are all good points. on the student loan side, i think it is going with

corinthian college students. there is a growing sense that the white house with wrought some kind of student loan forgiveness. they have been talking about capping it on income, potentially, maybe $10,000 in debt. that is certainly money that could be coming into the government coffers if they resume those payments. there is a lot of debate there, but i think that seems to be the direction white house is headed on student loan payments. as far as broader policy changes, i think the administration is adamant that if the senate is somehow able to rally around senate democrats and rally around some kind of narrow reconciliation package, key parts of the biden agenda, lowering health care and childcare, these day-to-day costs for families, they are adamant that that will help lower inflation because it will lower costs, people will have more money, and so it goes.

there are a few signs, at least publicly, about that happening imminently. in the meantime, it does just seem to be problems the white house are trying to take these and committal steps with big policy changes and it remains to be seen what the white house could or would do on that front. host: let's hear from brandon in california, republican line. caller: hi. i would like this young man to help educate me on these toxic chinese solar panels through green energy put on all of our aquifers out here in california. host: is there one in particular you're talking about, brandon echo in terms of one company that is doing this or what? caller: yeah, toxic solar panels, all of them made in china with their toxic waste, the silver cyanide.

what if we were attacked by china and those things were falling apart? it would create a superfund site because it would poison our groundwater for the rest of eternity. host: let's maybe rot in that out with the president's green energy agenda right now. guest: the white house is expected this morning to announce that they are going to try to ramp up the import of solar panels, boost green energy and solar energy. one step that the white house is taking here to try and boost the green energy agenda, renewable energy -- i don't know our caller would be happy to learn that they are lifting tariffs on those panels. they will be bringing in more solar panels, trying to make it easier to do that. as far as the broader climate

agenda, that is something that just seems to be gummed up in the senate. senator manchin has the issues with some of the tax credits that the administration proposed. again, another example of seeing if they can find a more narrow kind of agreement there. in the meantime, it seems to be a wait and see game there. host: an is calling from north carolina. go ahead. caller: i don't think that the democrats in the administration talked enough about inflation as being global, even though there are some things they could do to help your. but inflation is global and it is in the other large developed countries. in fact, one country will be looking at given -- giving a stipend or stimulus to help their citizens with energy. i think democrats need to make sure that people understand that this is not just happening in the united states, it is

happening because of the pandemic and the war. i think that is very important, to keep saying that there is something that the administration can do alone to fix it, it doesn't seem possible because it is happening in other countries. republicans have not done this because that is their line, that inflation was caused and there were things that could be done differently. democrats need to explain that this is a global problem. thank you. host: thank you. brett samuels. guest: i think that is a good point. lastly, we saw the white house roll out this idea that june is going to be the month that they are going to talk about the economy. they want to address inflation head-on, they want to talk about what their plans are, what they have done for the economy and these different investments. as far as the point about talking about inflation being global, i think that is absolutely something the white house would like to focus on

more and probably should focus on more. we see here and there that they talk about gas prices specifically being the sort of ripple effect on the war in ukraine and effects on supply chains. certainly, whether it is food shortages, meet experts because of the war in ukraine, these have also cause prices to go up. i think that is definitely something the white house probably needs to talk more about or educate the public about better because, to the caller's point, the president can only do so much to single-handedly bring down prices or single-handedly bring in -- rein in issues. i think that is something the white house would like to focus on more, probably will focus on more, but i think they need to educate the public to a degree on that. host: you have been covering the white house for "the hill" for a number of years. one of the changes is at the party. is that pretty typical, 1.5 years into the presidency seeing

some major changes? guest: it has been pretty contained to the press office. timewise, it is not unusual to see after about one year. some of these folks worked on the campaign, so three years of their life. people do want to kind of ck change. it is interesting that a few of these trip -- these press aides, like jen psaki going to msnbc. the deputy or more system-level press aides, they are shuffling to other spots in the administration. they are not leaving the administration, but going to the treasury department and such. host: in terms of the way they move, is there any difference between the weight jen -- the way jen psaki briefed and the current press a gecko --press

aid? host: i think she is been very level -- guest: i think she has been very levelheaded. so far, she has upheld the old tradition from jen that she brings just about every day. i think the press corps is probably still getting into the rhythms of the new briefing stock, but so far, yes, she has certainly made an effort to be out there just about every day one we have been in town. host: to missouri next up, independent line, this is mark. mark in missouri, you are on the air. caller: hello and thank you for taking my call. host: thank you. caller: it is really apparent of course that joe biden is having some domestic issues, as well as foreign issues. i would like to know what mr. samuels thinks about joe biden's mental acuity. for him to handle these types of

situations, it is very apparent to all of the people that he has made several gaffes and misstatements along the way. he has that she needs cards with talking points on them, he care member peoples's names, he is calling on predetermined reporters. he is really not calling on press conference to answer questions. what do you think about joe biden's mental acuity to handle these problems and to really do the job that the american people wanted him to do? guest: i think that is something that the white house is sort of used answering those questions and what they would frequently say is that you can just watch joe biden and watch him deliver these speeches, watch him meet with foreign leaders. we saw him in asia a couple of weeks ago meeting with various

foreign leaders. i think he is able to handle the rigors of the job. obviously, he keeps up with his schedule, does all of this travel and meeting with foreign leaders. certainly, as a member of the press, i would agree and advocate for more press conferences. he hasn't held a sort of extended press conference at the white house in quite some time. we did see while he was in asia, he did hold two abbreviated press conferences, where he called on a few reporters. certainly, to the colors question -- caller's question, i think it is something republicans will bring up repeatedly. especially in the run ups to the 2024 election, with some speculation about whether president biden runs for reelection. he has not given any indication so far, but if he is able to do the job and keep up, i think as far as the gaffes, that is something people of grown accustomed to with joe biden. he is able to keep up with the

day-to-day of the presidency. certainly, these questions are going to go away. host: your colleague had an article last week about the baby formula shortage. the headline of that piece was " biden compounds his formula problems and was unaware of the problem just before it became widely known." why was that and what was the fallout from the echo -- from that? guest: this was joe biden kind of speaking off-the-cuff, saying that he didn't know the baby formula shortage was going to be a full-blown crisis until april. essentially, it was all hands on deck publicly to respond to this. he said this in a meeting where the formula manufacturers essentially said that back in february when this recall happened -- host: after the closing. guest: right. the manufacturers when that plant closed in february, they

knew at the time that it was going to create a crisis. there is some disconnect over, why didn't the president know for two months after that echo -- after that? host: do you think he was kept in the dark? guest: they won't have any answers for that. they won't say who specifically was working on this, who was talking to the president on this, did he not want to know, did they intentionally keep him in the dark? i think this is an issue where the white house has been shown to be reacting to problems, instead of proactively working. they say they have been working on this around-the-clock. the president showed that he was maybe not aware of it, which begs the question, who was working on it, why didn't he know, was he kept out of the loop, was it just lost in the shuffle? he was dealing with all kinds of issues in europe and domestically, but certainly, this has been something of an issue to show that they are on top of it and not just reacting

to it as it gets worse. host: we will get a couple more calls with our guest, brett samuels. georgia, republican line. caller: good morning. you need to explain to president biden that gas is priced on the futures market. it is what gas prices are going to be in the futures market. every policy since he has brought in has been a war on fossil fuels. i heard a farmer the other day who said that for every acre of land he plants, he has to put into hundred pounds of fertilizer, 100 pounds of phosphate, 100 pounds of ammonia. these farmers [indiscernible] they have to have diesel fuel to haul these things to market. biden's policies are going to kill thousands of people in africa because they can't afford

this to plant their crops. they use a lot of nitrogen. those are some of my colleagues -- comments. he has to wake up. host: ok. samuels. guest: i think like what an earlier caller talked about, which is sort of the global connectivity of some of these issues, i think the white house is trying to get across and needs to do a better job, to an extent. a lot of these issues are connected. certain crops come from europe, but those supply chains are rattled because of this war in europe. on the domestic side here in the u.s., i think the president is going to continue to show that he is trying to work on this, but certainly, he will need to juggle both the domestic fuel side, the gasoline prices, which are this global issue of supply chains and making sure they have enough supply of these various fuels, materials, etc. host: one more call.

missouri. it is the democrats line. wilhelm, go ahead. caller: yes. why not do the keystone pipeline? that would help bring down gas prices some more. that would do it right there. that is all i have to say for now. goodbye. host: we will end with a question about the russia-ukraine conflict, this challenge of getting gas prices down. the challenge for the administration, balancing both the conflict and the president's own domestic demand here at home. guest: certainly. to the keystone pipeline, the white house has had and will say that fuel wasn't running through that pipeline yet, so to just turn it on, that doesn't mean there would suddenly be fuel and

prices would go down. to the 100 days of russia-ukraine, we have seen weekly, if not every other week, the u.s. announces some kind of new aid package, usually new security aid. they are sitting new weapons, oftentimes bigger weapons that have longer-range or greater capabilities. we have seen the biden administration continuing to show they are willing to provide the support for ukraine, willing to help them in their fight. they still don't want to send u.s. troops, they don't want to be in a hot war with russia, directly fighting russia. 100 days in, the biden administration has certainly shown they are committed to helping ukraine through this. it will be interesting to see, as ukrainians continue to plead for americans and the world to not look away, to not forget about what is happening here, i think that will be kind of the question as this drags on, because experts and officials in the government say that we are in this for the long haul. there is no quick into this, it

doesn't seem. it will be interesting to see how committed the public remains how front of mind this remains, especially entering host: his ar. thanks for being here. guest: thanks for having me. host: we will open up our phone lines for open form, your chance to weigh in on any public policy you are following. the lines stay the same. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. we will get to you momentarily. ♪

>> after months of closed-door investigations, the january 6 committee is set to go public tune in as committee members question witnesses about what transpired and why during the assault on the u.s. capitol. watch our live coverage thursday at 8:00 eastern on c-span. c-span it, your unfiltered view of government. >> six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear those conversations on the new podcast presidential recordings. >> the presidency of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the civil rights act, the presidential

campaign it, the gulf of tonkin incident, the march on selma. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> johnson's secretaries new. they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. there were the ones who major the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. question here some blunt talk. >> i want to report of the number people that signed to kennedy the day he died. if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i will stay behind here. >> find it on the mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts.

>> washington journal continues. host: open forum for the next 20 minutes. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. any news or public policy news you are following, including what we've talked about today. news from overseas, parliamentary struggle in london. the british prime minister to face a no-confidence vote. he will face a no-confidence vote today that could oust him from power as discontent finally threatens to topple him. he is also seen as invincible despite many scandals. he is renowned for connecting with voters. he struggled to turn the page that he and his staff repeatedly

held parties that flouted the covid-19 restrictions they imposed on others. with no clear front runner to succeed him, most observers think he will defeat the challenge and remain prime minister. the fact enough lawmakers are demanded of vote represents a watershed motor and a narrow victory would lead him a hollow leader. it is a sign of deep conservative divisions less than three years after johnson led the party to its biggest election victory in decades. let's go to cheryl. she is in california. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the issue that is most on my mind is the issue of gun control. i think in america right now, we have so many issues that are going on in america.

these issues are not issues about this administration. it festered because of our inability to act and resolve problems. it appears to me that no matter what the problem is that we are dealing with, whether it's gun control, the domestic issues that we are dealing with in terms of inflation, we don't understand. i don't hear any solutions that come from the right. the only thing they do is complain about what the president is not doing. the situation with gun control, this is a very easy situation to resolve. we know that it's a problem. we can't come together even

though the public wants a solution. we can't get our politician we've elected to do the right thing. this issue with gun control illustrates the other issues and why we can't get anything accomplished. until the american people recognize it and take a different stand at the polls, we will continue to just keep talking. host: (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. independents (202) 748-8002. it is open form. we will go to the and dependent line next susan is in tucson. caller: i would like to know on the january 6, the biggest thing

to me is you never hear about and i've seen a video where somebody laid a pipe bomb and walked away, i know they have security cameras and they have dna testing. i would like to know who set those bombs. that was a big deal. they need to tell us more about that. as far as school shootings, don't they treat it like courthouses and make metal detectors priority one. i see a lot of schools with out fences. they could do a lot more. schools need that security. of course, they've heard these people say online or on facebook , there are a lot of warnings. we didn't take him seriously. take everything seriously.

i would like to know about what they are going to do with the border. there are 10,000 waiting to come in. that's going to be two days, next week, this coming week. what are we supposed to do with all that? jobs aren't as good as they are same. what about when everybody takes all these jobs? is arsenal security pain for all of these people? -- our social security pain for -- paying for all these people? host: on the issue of guns, we will see a debate later this week in the house and they will take up that protecting our children act. houses back for legislative work tomorrow. the session is in session later today. the bipartisan senators are

meeting behind closed doors on potential gun legislation. in idaho, we hear next from susan. caller: i'm another susan. i would like to address the oil prices. our inflation of the 70's and 80's resulted with the oil embargo from the israeli arab war. that was compounded with the iran situation. we are in a war now or we are trying to assist our allies. i would also like to point out that the cost to shell and exxon from withdrawing from the russian production is billions of dollars. i've seen $4 billion to exxon it, $4 billion to shell. i don't know what bp has lost.

that's a lot of money. we could be a little more patient with inflation. host: thanks for the call. it is monday, june 6. it is the 78th anniversary of the invasion of normandy. this is the headline from france 24 this morning. jim is in pittsburgh. pittsburgh, pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: you just mentioned the d-day invasion.

we don't have statues like the red flag laws where if you own a weapon and somebody says they don't like you, they can report you would have you taken away. i think the red flag laws need to be strongly opposed by our senators. host: next is elaine in michigan. caller: hello. listening to you respond to some of your collars, i applaud your patience. when i hear people who are january 6 deniers and trump supporters, all those who spew fox news, i remember mark twain

quote that went never argue with stupid people. they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. some of your collars are so uninformed. it's just sad. you are very patient and i thank you for keeping it all together for us. host: connie is on the republican line in texas. caller: -- host: we will go to laura instead. laura in baltimore, there we go. you are on the air. caller: thank you for c-span. i am so grateful for c-span. it's one of the last platforms for input from the citizenry.

we are looking at roe v. wade and taking it apart. i would like to mention another supreme court decision. this was in 1982. a town in texas said they didn't have the money to educate all of the influx of undocumented or illegal or whatever you want to call it people coming in. supreme court said you do have to educate every person in your jurisdiction. i think that was a flawed decision. we are seeing it now. i just wanted to make that. i'm in favor of legal immigration.

what's happening now is really bad. we need a solution to it. host: laura points out the abortion issue. there is some reporting on the end of the supreme court term. the five biggest issues to watch at the supreme court as the high profile term ends, the hilt writes this. the justices are poised to strike down roe v. wade as all eyes are on abortion rights. will that draft opinion become law? will they scale back their ambitions amid the fallout? elite opinion written in february would eliminate the constitutional right to abortion up to the point of where a fetus is viable. that is typical of 24 weeks.

this would let states choose how to regulate the procedure and produce a legal patchwork of states. charles is calling on the republican line in georgia. caller: the only way to fix this problem is term limits. do away with all their staff. if you watch c-span, they have all of these committee meetings, it needs to stop. that's what i have to say. host: elizabeth is in state college, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. gun control, it seems republicans want to shoot down any good decisions democrats have. they would rather have things as they are, have these shootings

rather than do the right things just because the democrats want them. president biden is a good man. he cares about our country. i would like to have the trump people sit and think and give me some good things the former president has done for the country other than line the pockets of his rich friends. what has that man ever done for you? president biden is trying to do right by the country. he has served his country well. the country is going in the wrong direction. we need more people like president biden in our government. host: chris in oklahoma, you are

on the air. you are on the air. i'm sorry about that. i had the wrong one. now you are on the air. caller: hello. i wanted to make a comment that as long as the people we are electing to represent us are beholden to the corporate interests who fund their campaigns, we are wasting our breath. thank you. host: dorothy is in dayton, ohio. caller: hello. i would like to say the frustrating part to me with voters and the administration right now and the media is they never answer questions. we've got a committee working on it.

they never have a solution. i want to get back to the keystone pipeline. every time you ask a liberal about keystone, their answer is the keystone pipeline didn't have oil running through it. we were energy independent. had the keystone pipeline been left in place, we would've had the oil to sell it to germany, russia would not be the monopoly. common sense stuff. biden said it himself. i want to transform america and get rid of fossil fuels. there's no electric cart stations around. everything he does is just ass

backwards. i do want to say something else about c-span it. i used to love c-span. you used to feature the best-selling books on the new york times and we feature this republican event or this democrat event. you are right in line with the rest of the media, all your books except for the few occasional books that conservatives right, you are about racial inequality and the climate change and you've gone left. host: we appreciate your input and appreciate you watching.

coming up here on washington journal, we will be joined next by daryl kimball, talking about the latest report on the iranian nuclear activities and the prospects for a renewed deal. ♪ >> c-span's online store, browse through our collection of products, apparel, books, home to court, accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government.

our newsletter recaps the day for you, from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code to sign up for this email and stay up-to-date. subscribe to date using the qr code. >> be up-to-date in publishing with activities podcast. -- book tv's podcast. you can find about books on c-span now on our free mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to

russia's invasion of ukraine. we also have international perspectives from the u.n. and statements from foreign leaders. our web resource page is where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. >> washington journal continues. host: we're joined by daryl kimball. we are talking about the latest news from the arena unit nuclear deal. welcome back to washington journal. where are we on the nuclear deal? guest: we are in a difficult spot. the united states withdrew from the deal in 2018 since then, the

situation has been deteriorating. sanctions were reimposed on iran in 2018. in 2019, they started exceeding the limits that were set by the original agreement. now, they have exceeded the limits on the amount of low enriched uranium, they have begun enriching that higher levels. the latest report that was just sent to the board of governors last week, i ran right now has enough 60% enriched uranium if further enriched to weapons grade, they would have enough material for one nuclear bomb. that doesn't mean they would

have the bomb. that is a technical threshold that we are trying to keep iran away from. the original deal would have required limits that would have made it very difficult to reach that level. it would've taken at least 12 months. host: today start this out of the u.s. withdrawal back in 2019? 18? they ramped up the nuclear program again? guest: the trump administration, which was critical of the obama administration plan of action it, which is the name for the deal, they argued that instead of pursuing that approach, they would put more pressure on iran to negotiate a better deal. they withdrew from the

agreement, which iran was complying with. what has happened since then, the situation has deteriorated. the capacity to increase material has increased. they are deploying more sophisticated centrifuges that can spin it to enrich uranium. we have what i would say is a threshold nuclear weapon state. it makes it more urgent that the by the ministration restore mutual compliance with the deal. they are still hung up over a couple of unrelated issues they haven't solved. host: the agency gets this information from iran. wide -- what's the benefit for them to allow inspectors in? guest: they are required to

allow inspectors and because it is a party to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, that prohibits them from acquiring material for nuclear weapons. there are these inspections. the 2015 deal put in place even more rigorous inspections. it's in their interest to abide by this because it once eventually for the sanctions to be lifted. it is also in their interest to have them there because they can show the world exactly how much -- what they are doing to increase their nuclear capacity. this is their way of putting pressure on the u.s. and europe to take the steps necessary to remove those sanctions. host: we are talking about iranian nuclear activity. our guest is daryl kimball. we welcome your calls and

questions. (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. the trump administration withdraws from the treaty. the by demonstration reenters talks last year with the iranians? guest: not directly. they said we don't want to sit down directly with you. that has created difficulty. the lead negotiator has not been able to sit down with his iranian counterpart. there have been talks instigated by the european union. they were engaged in these talks in a hotel in vienna. they would go between two rooms in the hotel. they are not doing that now. the process has bogged down.

what is interesting is they did reach an agreement about how to restore compliance. when i ran would take the steps necessary to rollback its program. all of this would be implemented in 3-4 months. it would extend the timeline to take iran to amass that quantity of bomb grade nuclear material from nine months. they have not been able to reach a compromise on the unrelated issue. iran wants them to remove the tariffs designation for the revolutionary guard. the biden administration has refused to do that without some compensatory measures. they haven't been able to reach that agreement. host: we've seen some of the

effective sanctions in the ukraine war. what effects have -- how have the sanctions affected iran? guest: it is hurting the iranian people. it is dampening the economy in many ways. it's more difficult to get medicine and humanitarian relief in the middle of the covid pandemic. the iranian economy in some ways is still functioning. there is a black market economy that has emerged and the government has been living under international sanctions for many years. they think they can hold out for longer. they are not going to compromise on their basic principles. the united states has hoped always the sanctions could cripple the economy and lead to

an uprising on the part of the people. we have not seen that. clearly, the sanctions are hurting ordinary iranians. host: is the united states the only country that has withdrawn? guest: this was a multi-estate negotiation. russia, china, germany, france, the u.k., the united states are part of this on one side. it was only the united states that withdrew from the agreement. without any clear justification other than the fact that the trump administration argued the deal wasn't good enough. they wanted to reopen negotiations. mike pompeo laid out 12 conditions that the united states wanted iran to meet covering issues related to the nuclear program and nonnuclear

issues. the iranians didn't budge. the europeans have tried to hold this together. we are at a point where we could see a restoration of compliance. it is being held up over this one issue, over the terrorist designation. host: the republican guard? guest: which is mainly a symbolic designation. we've got to remember the raining revolutionary guard in other ways is being sanctioned by the united states, by europe. we are moving -- moving this would not have the effect on their ability to engage in trade or economic contact with outside entities. it's important for the iranians.

it is important so far for the biden administration not to dismiss this without some assurance from iran that they are not going to try to hit u.s. citizens or personnel in the region. host: has the long-term role from the open -- obama administration been to never allow iran any sort of ability to produce a nuclear weapon? guest: the goal has been to make it as difficult as possible for iran to do so. we've got to be clear. they have engaged in activities in the past that are related to nuclear weapons design. there is still an investigation going on about some of that. it is our assessment that one point they had an organized program. they don't have one today.

in order to build a bomb, you have to have enough terrio you have to have a warhead design. you have to have a delivery system. if we can hold them back to be able to affect all of those technical requirements for a bomb program, we can be assured they are not going to get the bomb, or we will have enough warning time in order to intervene if they do try to -- toward a bomb. host: how about the delivery system? guest: they have a ballistic missile system like a lot of countries. they are at the medium range at most. they have had some experiment with long-range missiles. they don't have a sophisticated program like north korea. even if you had that long-range

missile, you have to have a nuclear warhead that is small enough and light enough to be carried by that missile. that takes time. it takes experimentation. even though they might reach this technical milestone to amass enough material for one bomb, it still is four years away from having the capacity to have a workable nuclear weapon. host: tell us about your organization. what is your mission? guest: our mission has been underway for 50 years. it is to address the dangers posed by the world's most dangerous weapons.

we just held our annual meeting last week. we addressed many of these issues, including the iran nuclear crisis and we are honored to have a statement from the president recognizing our anniversary and what lies ahead. host: what do you see in terms of arms control in ukraine? guest: it is a devastating situation. russia is using a number of weapons that have been prohibited by the world, landmines, they are striking civilian targets in populated areas. all of these things are against the norms of behavior. there is the danger that there could be there could be the use

of nuclear weapons down the line. we are in a very tenuous situation with that war affecting ukraine and potentially the world. host: we will hear first from chris in massachusetts. caller: can your guest tell us which country was the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the middle east? which country still refuses to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. it's not iran. i have a follow-up question. guest: the collar is pretty well informed about the proliferation situation. israel acquired nuclear weapons around 1968. it does not acknowledge it has a nuclear arsenal. it is believed to have 150 nuclear weapons. it's not a member of the treaty.

it would be a dangerous situation we had two countries in the middle east region with nuclear weapons, particularly to with bad relations. caller: the follow-up question, i'm sure your guest is aware of what the amendment is. with any country that possesses nuclear weapons without having signed the nonproliferation treaty, they shall not receive foreign aid. the largest recipient of it at saint foreign aid is israel. how does it get away with this? i will take the question off air. guest: the fact that israel doesn't acknowledge its nuclear weapons arsenal is one of the reasons why the united states can overlook that provision of u.s. law.

what i would say is one wrong does not make a right. it's important that israel becomes part of the nuclear nonproliferation effort. israel today still has deep concerns about its security in a dangerous region. solving this iran nuclear problem is part of that larger equation. that's why it's important that the biden administration puts greater emphasis on returning the united states and iran back to compliance as soon as possible. host: go ahead. caller: good morning. just a quick question. you think it would be more helpful if when president obama

sent that money -- i think it was $1.7 billion. maybe we could buy them off? thank you. host: do you know what he's referring to? guest: back in 2015 when this agreement was negotiated, the united states on froze a large amount of rain and assets that have been frozen as a result of sanctions. that was part of the arrangement. that returned money that was theirs mainly due to oil revenue over the years. in return, what iran was doing was reducing the amount of uranium it had on its soil, removing centrifuges from two of their facilities and allowing us to have greater access to their facilities to make sure they weren't violating that

agreement. that was part of the agreement. iran is very frustrated because the united states walked out of an agreement that it was fulfilling up until 2019. we are in a deteriorating situation. this is a sign of how bad this could get. host: any other countries lifting sanctions? guest: in 2016 when i ran met the requirements, the night states, europeans, others lifted sanctions. the europeans have not reimposed the same sanctions. the u.s. sanctions, the united states can sanction an entity in another country like germany or the u.k. or france if they are

engaging in trades with a country that is under sanctions. that has meant that other countries, other u.s. allies and potential oil buyers, have not been able to engage in trade with iran since the trump administration reimposed the sanctions that were designed to be lifted under this agreement. host: let's hear from chris in san antonio. caller: thanks for taking my call. what makes me nervous is trusting the iranians. we think they are complying. how do you know? it makes me nervous. especially joe biden's foreign policy. he's been wrong on everything. it makes me nervous to trust the iranians. guest: it should make us nervous to trust any country that has pursued these kinds of

capabilities, that can provide the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. it's not a matter of trusting them. the solution is to put the joint conference plan of action back into place. that allows for more rigorous and intrusive international a comic energy inspection on the ground. the report that came out from the director general last week is a testament to the fact that the agency has a powerful capability to see inside the nuclear program, to alert the world about what the ratings are doing and gives them a chance to respond. we should be concerned about trusting governments like iran. we should be more interested in restoring compliance with this agreement. otherwise, we could be flying

blind in a year or two and we won't know what they are doing inside these facilities. host: our phone lines, republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. i wanted to play for you some comments. this is his testimony before the foreign relations committee in may. >> turn into your point about former president trump. he got out of the agreement and all of these terrible things happen. what are you doing about it? what are you doing about it? you said don't worry, we're going to have an agreement that is stronger. that train left the station long time ago. it doesn't even exist.

we heard we will be shorter and weaker if you do wind up getting into an agreement, which i hope you don't. what is your plan? i don't know what the policy is. you keep setting at the table and negotiating. how long is this going to go on? >> there was a question about how long we will go. our goal, we are prepared to get back into the agreement for as long as our assessment is worth the sanctions relief we would provide. that doesn't mean we only negotiate. we have not lifted a single sanction. we have added to those sanctions. we have taken steps to go after their ballistic missile program. we are strengthening israel and are allies to counter the threat.

where doing all of that whether the talks continue or not. at this point, it is our assessment that the nonproliferation benefits of the deal are worth the sanctions relief we would provide. host: it's interesting he used the phrase the effort has to be worth the sanctions relief. guest: i think he is talking about the fact that the original plan of action was designed through a variety of restrictions to keep iran 12 months away from the point they are right now, which is to amass enough bomb grade nuclear material for just one bomb. what they are looking at is given the fact that we've been in this less constrained

situation since the trump administration walked away from the deal, can we restore those benefits? what he said is what i said earlier, if the deal is restored, if they lift the sanctions and they rollback the program to where things were three years ago, i ran it would be at least nine months away from that point. that is a tremendous non-pleura for ration benefit -- nonproliferation benefit. senator ritchie asked that question should recognize the biden administration has said the first step toward reaching a longer and stronger deal, one that lasts longer and covers more issues is to restore compliance with the agreement the united states and other countries reached in 2015.

we are going to see further deterioration. the other thing i would add, we have maybe three months left in order to close off the single issue on the revolutionary guard , that is holding up this agreement. iran is continuing to amass more material. the report says they now have 43 kilograms of 60% material. they could accumulate more. they could deploy more advanced centrifuges which allow them to enrich at a faster pace. in response to these findings, we will likely see the board of governors led by the u.s. and europeans censure iran and calling them to cooperate with the organization on its investigation of past

activities. they are not providing credible answers. that would ratchet up the pressure. host: let's hear from maryland on the democrats line. caller: you are very informative about this. i was watching this deal go down. i think they did a good job of writing this. the former secretary of state under donald trump said he wanted to stay in the deal. donald trump fired him. i think donald trump was jealous because obama had a good deal. trump went in there and was jealous. he wanted to do away with obama's policies.

he did away with it. it was a disastrous decision. i want to know, do you think this deal was a good deal? guest: i do think it was a very good deal. beginning in 2010 into 2014, iran was accelerating the pace of its enrichment program. it was working on a reactor that could produce tony him. we knew what we know today, they experimented with nuclear weapons designs. it was a disturbing situation. the obama administration works very hard with our allies to put in norma's sanctions pressure on iran to negotiate this complex deal that rolled back there

program and put tougher sanctions in place. the color has a point. in this town, there is so much partisanship, it's hard for democrats to see the wisdom in republican policies and republicans to see the wisdom in democratic policies. if we look at this from an objective standpoint, this held back iran's nuclear capabilities. nothing has -- is permanent. this bought time to deal with other issues and problems iran creates. now we are in a situation where we could be in a freefall if we don't come back together and reach an agreement to restore compliance. host: israel was not pleased. what has been the broader political reaction in the middle east of other nationstates to

the deal? guest: israel has a jekyll and hyde approach to this. the former prime minister was very much opposed. he did not like it. he urged the trump administration to withdraw. israel's security officials and intelligence experts understand the value of the agreement. that could mean in their view israel is taking military action against iran. that's not a very good approach in the long run. iran would be able to reconstitute a -- those capabilities. it would lead to military strikes or a war. israel today has expressed its

support for a diplomatic solution. it is also an easy about the administration lifting the foreign terrorist organization designation. what the president will need to do is assess the broader dangers here to the united states. it may be politically difficult for him to lift that foreign terrorist is asian designation. if this deal collapses, it will not just be politically damaging. it will be dangerous for the world. host: the white house announced a saudi visit in coming weeks. where do they stand on the deal? guest: they have begun quiet talks with iran on a security issues. i don't believe they are clearly opposed to the restoration agreement.

they don't seem to be a big factor in the calculations. what need to remember is this is down to one narrow issue. this symbolic terrorist designation. if that can be resolved and i think it will require more intensive diplomacy in the next few weeks, we will see a deal to restore compliance. it will stabilize the security situation. host: let's hear from change -- james in tennessee. you are on the air. go-ahead. caller: i would like to pursue the idea of intervention and restoration. suppose we do enter into a new agreement and it isn't complied

with. what would you suggest we do then in the form of intervention to reinforce compliance? thank you for your attention. guest: that's a good question. the original 2015 nuclear deal had built into it an option for how the world can respond to iran if it doesn't comply with the nuclear restrictions. that was to snap back all of the sanctions on iran. that could be done very quickly. it would not requires the russians and chinese to go along. what happened was the unexpected, the united states withdrew from the agreement. that has limited the world's ability to respond to iranian

noncompliance with the deal. if there is an agreement to restore u.s. iranian compliance, that original snapback of sanctions would be available if iran were to be found in violation of the. host: let's hear from david on the independent line. caller: i would like to say about the young fellow that answer the phone, exceptionally nice. my question is because of the buildup in kuwait, is that because because they are starting to talk? guest: there are a number of reasons. it's not new developments in kuwait, i'm not familiar with what you are discussing.

is it the broader recognition by both that they have security disagreements and they have common concerns they need to talk about directly? one is the war in yemen. host: a recent piece from john bolton was headlined, abide to the iran nuclear deal is dead? the administration -- the former national. advisor said the success of the disinformation campaign underscores a crucial point. it is not capable of verifying compliance without agreements such as the proliferation treaty or other arms-control arrangements.

what are your thoughts? guest: i have disagreed with him on many occasions. the situation we have today, what he's referring to is a fact that iran has continued to argue that it's past military experiments are something other than military experiments. they have been trying to delay an obvious gate went went on. this goes back 20 years or more. the information that has been made available shows it began maybe around 2000. up until 2004, that's the assessment. this is at a remarkable ability

to go to these sites where the activities took place. they can detect human made uranium and hold iran to account. iran today is having difficulty answering these questions. i think it's much more effective than people give them credit for. host: have you had the chance to go on at of these inspections and see how they work? guest: i have not. the capabilities are becoming increasingly sophisticated. they use a variety of means to monitor these sites. there are some ongoing static monitoring cameras at facilities.

it is under seal, that means they can see if it's been tampered with. there are frequent on-site inspections from inspectors to come from a variety different countries. they have been keeping a very close eye on what iran is doing. the problem is not that we know what they are doing, problem is what they are doing. if the agreement is not restored, some access that was added as a result of the nuclear deal in 2015 it could be lost. we would have a less interested look into what's happening. host: we would love to have you back in a few months and see what the latest is. the executive director of the

arms control association. thank you so much for being here. thank you for being with us. we are back tomorrow at 7:00 eastern and we hope you are. enjoy the rest of your day. >> congressman raskin talks about the january 6 committee hearings. he is being interviewed by the washington post. watch live coverage beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern today. a report on medicare's financial report for the future.

you can see both of these events live on c-span. you can watch full coverage on c-span now, our video app, or online at c-span.org. >> after months of closed door investigations, the house generally sixth committee is set to go public. tune in as committee members question key members as to what transpired. watch on c-span, c-span now, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government.

>> broadband is a force for empowerment, that is why charter invented billions, upgrading technology, empowering communities big and small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communication supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> next, remarks from vice president kamala harris at the u.s. conference of mayors meeting in reno, nevada. this is about 25 minutes. ♪ facing our greatest challenge right now, that is why we are doing our part, so it is easier to do yours. >> sparklight supports c-span is a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front