originally given seven years for ratification. congress reported to change the rules. i filed the first lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of that change of process on behalf of washington state legislatures more than 30 years ago. we won that case. the rule was, you can't change the rules in the middle of the stream. if you have to have an agreement on the subject matter to start with and you can't change the rules in the middle of the stream, this fearmongering going from the extreme left and right is just nonsense. the power of the convention is no different than congress. you can call a convention for a particular purpose. congress could propose amendments for a particular purpose. just because congress proposes an amendment on minimum wage, doesn't mean the whole constitution suffers. >> you are a constitutional lawyer. how many times have you argued before the supreme court? >> just once. i have filed lots of briefs but only argued one time. >> you ever think about why the founders put article v in there? what was their think sng. >> it was very important to the adoption of the constitution. it is clear that the massachusetts convention would not have ratified the constitution but for article v. they knew the process wasn't perfect. the reason they gave us this form of article v as george mason said at the constitutional convention, we'll never get a proposal that limits the power of the federal government out of congress. you will only get a proposal to limit federal power from the states. they wanted checks and balances, not just vertical but who are z horizontal. the ultimate political power is the ability to lawfully change the constitution. only the state legislatures can awfully change the constitution by themselves. it takes an overwhelming majority to do that. the state legislatures all by themselves can propose and ratify amendments. congress only has a ministerial role. >> you need 34 state toss do that. a couple have to be democratic control of legislatures. what's your selling point to those legislatures? >> the decrease of federal power is an increase in the power of the people and the power of the states. this should be a bipartisan issue. when we make presentations like in berkley, california, we asked the people in berkley, who do you want making decisions for berkley? you want berkley making the decisions or sacramento or washington, d.c.? whether you are in pokatel, idaho or berkley, everybody says, we want to make our decisions locally. this is about letting california be california and idaho idaho and wee olympi and wee opal ming. >> chad is next. >> caller: this guys sounds like abject stupidity, if you have a less of a government, the state would do that. it would all go to hell. that's what people like this want. they want everything to go to hell. i think this is pure evil. i think we should have more of a socialist federal government. it is just evil to take the state's convention themselves. >> well, he wants a socialist government. that reveals his person. a person that wants a socialist government, it probably doesn't make a lot of sense. the epa issue in seattle, fixing real problems and real job lay laughs. the epa has adopting a fish eating standard. washington state eats more fish. they have higher mercury discharge levels. they are losing jobs in seattle, the jobs are threatened in seattle with boeing airplane company because the people there aren't able to get equal treatment by the epa. i think washington state legislature could pass just very appropriate environmental protection for the state of washington. we don't need the epa to make edicts for washington state. washington state can do it all by itself. >> dave in lake zurich, illinois. independent line. >> caller: yes, sir. thanks for taking my call. are you familiar with article 26? >> article 26 of what? >> caller: there is no article 26. there are 7 articles of the constitution and 27 amendments. if you mean amendment 26? >> caller: yes, amendment 26. i'm sorry. i'm not a constitutional attorney. i'm a citizen here. >> go ahead, dave. >> what about it? >> caller: are you familiar with it? >> yes. >> caller: unless the public really gets angry, nothing happens. the people in power, specially the attorneys that come out of law school need to feel their power here. this article, sent to the states, march 23rd, 1971, was the fastest ratified amendment. the kids of the day who are not 21 could not vote but still be drafted. my generation, my generation and i'm i'm a veteran of the vietnam area, had to riot and start to destroy, destroy schools that were so concerned about control. you can't vote but you can get drafted. i can go die for the great legislators that come up with this stuff but i can't vote. because of this action is the only way that any legislators any place will move is when the grassroots action becomes so powerful that their own livelihoods are put at steake 12. >> do you agree? >> i absolutely agree with that. the 18-year-old vote, jerry springer had a lot to do with that. if people think that washington, d.c. has a grand diesed away too much of its own power and is building its power base to the detriment of the vote of the people and the state, with he need a grassroots activist. >> orlando, florida, next. jean on the republican line? hello, there. >> caller: hi. my question is, when this convention is called, how do you envision it would operate? how would you really organize itself and do the things it has to do. >> the principle rule is this. it is one state, one vote. that's the nature of a convention of states as opposed to a congress. a congress, it is the individual delegates vote. in the convention of states, states vote, one state, one vote. that's the central organizing principle. i hope that we will be organized some place in the middle of the country. any place by washington, d.c. is okay with me. >> anything to keep that convention of the states from veering off the top picks that you are calling for, balanced budget, money out of washington. how do you keep amendments from being proposed by states that weren't part of the original plan? >> the rules will say it would be nonjermaine. theoretically, people can vote to amend the rules. the 34 sthaates that called the convention will be coming with instructions. you stick to this top pick. those delicates, which is way more than enough to keep the thing in order, will be under instructions to stay to the subject matter. the other 16, 17, whatever number of states it is that don't have instructions wouldn't be able to carry the day. ultimately, you can file a lawsuit. i filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality. we could file a lawsuit if delegates try to change the rules. it will be called for a particular purpose. >> our guest is michael barton is co-founder of the state projects. calling for a convention of the states to address constitutional issues. we welcome your calls an comments. we go to steve in robertsville, missouri, democrats line. hi, steve. >> caller: thank you, sir. i spotted this fraud right off the bad as soon as he come up there and said, this is deregulation on everything. that's the whole problem. we have regulation on everything. we have an out of control government. it is like donald trump talking about ronald reagan and how great he was. well, ronald reagan deregulated everything, lowered the taxes on the rich. he said we are going to close the border in 1986. it never happened, because they got cheap labor. this is all a fraud and that's all i got to say. thank you very much. >> the caller is self-conflicted, because he says the government is out of control but we need more regulation. regulation doesn't regulate government. regulation regulates private people. that's the problem that we have in the country. there is too much regulation, too many conflicting regulations. the basic genius of the founders would be that one level and only one level of government should deal with each issue. sure, we need some regulations and rules. do we need conflicting rules? do we need federal law, local law, state law? or can we get by with one level of government regulating roads, education, wage and price ss. >> welcome your comments on twitter. >> needed a totally new constitution in line with new realities. if it isn't broken, don't fix it. >> i'm for the convention to rewrite. rewriting the second amendment. >> the federal government needs to be more powerful. you cannot have 50 different state laws on maernlg, abortion nd amayor w and marijuana. >> let's go back to our calls, xenos on our republican line hi. >> caller: i would just like to clarify a couple of things. first of all, i think it is great what he is doing. i'm from new york but i live in texas. anything that takes more power away from the federal government is good. that being said, i think we need a few basic laws at the federal dev level that regulate all of the states. i've seen, for example, in arkansas, they have terrible roads but in other states, they have perfectly smooth highways all over the place. i can get there is a certain level of difference between each state and the way it runs things. i think we need more power given to the individual and not corporations, which for some reason are defined as people. >> the biggest benefit is that it increases the power of the people. the more government power we have, the less freedom we have. freedom is the ultimate objective to limit government power. the rights of the people. i'm a first amendment and fourth amendment lit gator. what i do day in and day out. if we are going to protect the rights of the people. the founders thought we didn't need a bill of rights. they said the federal government is so limited in its power, it can't possibly be for the rights of the people, why we are spying on our own citizens and abusing the rights of the citizens daily, because we have too powerful of a federal government. >> does your group see any reason to change any of the amendments in the bill of rights? >> no, they would not be jermaine. >> grand rapids, michigan, michael, good morning. democrats line? >> caller: to me, this is just a move to move us back to the issues of the civil war. we all know that during the civil war, war states rights denied minorities any rights at all. i think the federal government's role is to make sure that we are all treated equally. under this, there is no equality. each state can do whatever they want to do under the minorities and the poor. >> that is not true under our application. it is thou our application is there to limit the power of the federal government to spend too much money, to regulate businesses and jobs toond go into so much debt. the supreme court has no checks and balances. if somebody wrote an application for a wide-open convention, you could talk about the 13th, 14th, 15th amend. but, the politics of that are such that there are no votes in this country. we have to deal with political reality. it is theoretically possible president obama could nominate me. the political chances of that happening are zero. people don't go around and say, what if mike farris gets nominated? >> it is not possibly. it is possible to trim the power of the federal government and trim the regulations and have a little check and balances on the supreme court. in he dramatic move one direction or another is not possible. i think it is time we go in a very strong direction as far as we possibly can in limiting some of the power in washington, increasing the rights of the people, increasing the responsibility of the states. >> that previous caller's view, state versus federal rights or obligation, grace on twitter agrees. tweeting that the federal government needs to control civil rights law, not the states, otherwise, we would be back to slavery in some states and the civil war. >> i want to ask about some of your articles. some virginia republicans want to amend the u.s. constitution but a party split in the way. a big sign says, no article v convention. conservative legislatures are pushing a measure meant to reign in federal power. what's the status of your effort in virginia? >> in virginia, we had the votes to pass it in the virginia house of delicates. we were one vote short in the senate. in the senate, there is a one vote margin between the republicans and the democrats. there were two republicans on the wrong side haveon the othere of the issue. they were listening to the john birch society. they preach this wrongway convention and that the constitutional was illegally adopted in the first place, which is historically inaccurate. non nonetheless, the fearmongering that goes on is an obstacle. we need to switch two votes in the virginia senate and be able to pass it. >> here is bob in philadelphia. >> i have a comment and a question. the comment is, this is a great idea. if you hold it, you should hold it in philadelphia at the constitution center, which is the birth place of this country. that's my comment. my question is, you said it is one state, one vote. that being said, if you have a state that's 90% liberal, does that mean conservatives do not have a voice. if it was two votes, a democrat and republican, everybody has a voice. i thisnk that might be a better way to go. a fair way. >> even though it is one state, one vote, every state will have multiple delegates. the state legislature gets to decide the methodology and the aportionment of the delegates. some sort of representation is likely in many of the states. let's say pennsylvania has nine delegates. let's say it is six republicans and three democrats, just to make up numbers. that would be some sort of representation but then the pennsylvania would caucus on each of the issues and i don't think every issue would be a straight partisan issue. i think there would be some bipartisan matters that would be discussed. that would be the way the system works. it reflects more bipartisanship and more diverse forms of power than you might think right at first. >> virginia is next. let's here from eugene on the democrat's line. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: something you said earlier about striking at the foundation of citizens united, it seems to me that through years now, big money has been electing their representatives in each state. it has such a skewed voting. it is very unbalanced in many of the states. my concern is that what we would be doing is weakening the government, not benefiting it. the states would be more -- easier affected by big money than the current government actually is. the best way to clean up the federal government would be to hire and get somebody in place that has been honest and got no ties to big money. somebody like bernie sanders. there is a solution. >> well, the reality is the cost of a u.s. senate race and the cost of a virginia state senate race are world's apart. the vast majority of money to be made is in washington, d.c. if we take away the financial incentive, most domestic spending is shifted away from washington, d.c. into the states, then there will be a reallocation of power. it will be diffuse in nature. the ability of the people to control the electives. try to make an appointment to visit your u.s. senator or make an appointment to visit your state senator. it is so much easier to visit your state and local representatives. the money is not there. i don't know what experience the caller has. i have been around state and federal government for a long, long time. big money plays a huge role in washington, d.c. it is much more muted at the state level. >> i want to ask about the opinion piece you wrote in "the daily caller" entitled, the supreme court redefining marriage is proof we need an article v convention. explain that to us. >> self-government says the elected officials make a law. we should make the constitutional law, we should make the statutory law. that is, we don't like the law that gets made, we can vote the rascals out. you can't vote the supreme court out. people will say and have said hundreds of thousands of times, the supreme court legalized same-sex marriage. that's exactly what happened. they are not supposed to legalize anything. people who wrote the 14th amendment legalized same-sex marriage. if you put those words out on a table, there are no way in the world the people that wrote the 14th amendment wrote the words that ended up meaning we should have same-sex marriage. we can do it state by state if the people want to vote it in. fine. if the legislatures want to vote it in, fine. the question is, who decides? most of these issues boil down to who should make these decisions? >> we don't believe that unelected officials should be able to make such nation-changing decisions as the supreme court made in that case. whichever side of the case it came down, the supreme court shouldn't make that decision, the elected people should make that. >> how do they currently define the role of the supreme court? >> the supreme court defines the role as being the only twhaun can interpret the constitution of the united states. i was involved in writing the federal religious freedom restoration act. in bernie versus florez, which is the follow-up case, they ruled rifra to be united states constitutional on the state level, because only the supreme court can interpret the constitution. it is different to say they are the only interpreter versus one of the interpreters. >> more calls for michael farris. >> caller: good morning. i too am a veteran that was drafted and served before we had the opportunity to vote. i also take exception to the gentleman saking they are luna ticks and i take exception to him and his organization that are doing nothing but trying to circumvent the constitution that we veterans swore to uphold and defend. thank you. >> well, first of all, i didn't say anyone that opposes me is lunatic fringe. i say the people that make the argument that the constitutional provision of article v will automatically result in a run away convention, the extreme left and the extreme right, are the ones that make that argument. there is no law, policy, political reality behind that. that particular argument is the argument of the lunatic fringe. there are other people that oppose us. if they want a bigger federal government, they should oppose us. people that want the supreme court to have no checks and balances, they should oppose us. those are not lune atic positions. they are responsible positions. i don't agree with them but that's different than saying the constitutional convention is a runaway. it is going to change the second amendment and bring slavery back. those kind of arguments are not responsible arguments. >> joe in florida, on our democrat line. welcome. >> caller: good morning. i was pleased to hear you talk just a couple of callers ago about the people that wroeth the 14th amendment. in my opinion, there is one thing in the 14th amendment that really needs to be changed and it wasn't designed for this purpose. that is, for people that get around the legal immigration laws by visiting the united states, foreign nationals, dropping a baby to become a citizen. i know that the framers did not intend for that to happen. i would love to see that changed. >> the whole issue of birth right citizenship that is addressed in the 14th amendment, the assumption that congress can legislate about, section 5 of the 14th amendment gives congress the power to enforce the provisions of that article by appropriate legislation. so you could pass -- congress could legitimately pass laws that eliminate the so-called anchor baby provisions by making sure that the person who is giving birth has a legitimate attachment to the united states as a condition to giving birth right citizenship. that could be done if there are the votes to do it. that is not something that needs to be addressed at the constitutional level. it is not something we are seeking to address. that would change the power of the federal government in a way that the federal government needs to be in power. the federal government needs to have the seoul jurisdiction over immigration. that shouldn't be diverse through the states. >> so that cob a legislative solution. >> donald trump in his position power released over the weekend on immigration calls for as well an end to birth right citizenship. >> this remains the biggest illegal immigration by a 2-1. no other country would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. would this come up? >> that's outside the scope of what we are trying to accomplish. >> let's hear from jim in park hills, missouri. >> caller: good morning to you. my issue is, i guess i might be one of those fear amongers. the constitution was wrote and we just keep adding to it. it makes it difficult to even understand for normal people. the lawyers, you can hear the lawyer talk, the words they use. the american people are so confused and so upset with the government now. we call it a government. it is a corporation. you talk about money. this money. trying to control the money. we actually -- the money we have in this country is not real money. it is not backed by anything. so what kind of issues are you going to bring up with the constitution with that we have to see the money. the american people, i say people, i don't say citizens, because that's a word that lawyers use. the thing i got is about the money. >> we're going to respond. thanks, jim. >> well, the ability of the federal government to create money out of thin air is an issue that worries a lot of people. it is something that could be addressed at the convention that we are talking about. most people are concerned about the ability to spend money that we don't have. the whole debt issue, spending money that somebody thinks is a good idea. we never give consideration. do we have the resources to do this? i think that becoming fiscally responsible is an absolute essential factor if we are going to retain the liberty of this country. i have a lot of kids and a lot of grandkids. i simply believe that they will be economic slaves if we don't get this out of control spending under control. the biggest issue on money is to stop the abusive federal spending and say, we have to live within our means. >> one final comment on twitter. >> limiting government doesn't limit upward mobility. it is the elite and tribal cast that owns government. there is no bipartisan now in fed government. i don't have faith that a convention of states would be much different. how about you? >> it is bipartisan on what issue, the issue of how much power should washington, d.c. have. the founders pitted the states gerns the federal government for the very purpose of believing the states would try to limit federal power. so we shouldn't be thinking republican and democrat. we should be thinking washington and regular america. this is a time for regular america to rise up and to say, we need to limit washington's power. that's the bipartisanship that matters. it is regular america against washington. i think regular america needs to stand up, speak up, show up and limit the power of washington, d.c. >> viewers and listenerers can find out more at convention of states.com. you are on twitter at cos project. michael farris, thanks so much for joining us this morning on "washington journal." next up, we speak with teddy downey, the executive editor of "capitol forum." later on, the on going debate over big game hunting and cecil with jeff kerr, general council for the peta foundation. all of that ahead. >> with the senate in its august break, we will feature booktv programming weeknights in primetime on c-span2. with the senate in its august break, will receive book tv prime time on cspan2. for the weekends, a few book tv special programs. saturday, live from jackson, mississippi, for the inaugural mississippi book festival beginning at 11:30 a.m. eastern with discussions on harper lee, civil rights and the civil war. on saturday, september 5th, we're live from our nation's capital for the 15th annual book festival. followed on swund our live, in-depth program with former second lady and senior fellow of the american enterprise institute, lynn cheney. "book tv," television for serious readers. tonight on "the communicators." >> he was really into computers and sci-fi. that pushed him. he had always heard about silicon valley and dreamed of getting to america. from a very young age, that's what he planned to do. at 17, he just ran away from home and did it. >> "bloomberg businessweek" technology reporter, ashlee vance on one of silicon leaders. >> he is seen as this next steve jobs kind of figure. there are bits of him like that. he has this attention to detail. he pushes his workers really hard. i tend to lean more to this edison kind of idea. i think elon has a lot to prove. he is a goo that gets these thousands of engineers, the brightest of the bright and these very hard-working individuals and really is able to get product out of them that be commercialized and really change the industry. to me, he is the guy who has -- he has combined software and hardware, this idea of atoms and bits in a way nobody else has. >> tonight, on the communicators on cspan2. "washington journal" continues sitting down with me, executive editor of "the capitol forum." here to talk about economic populism, incoming equality on the campaign trail. the issue as it relates to campaign 2016. first of all, "the capitol forum." what does your group do? >> with he provide investigative news and legal analysis for a range of subscribers, policy makers, investors, corporations and industry stake holders. >> we have a front page look at a recent story in "usa today." one of the issues that's certainly playing up in part of campaign 2016. they looked at ceo pay and their headline was 9 ceos paid 800 times more than their workers. the average ceo of a standard & poors 500 company was paid 216 times more than the median employees than their companies according to "usa today" analysis from glassdoor.com and ceo pay. how and why has this issue sort of bubbled up in the campaigns of bernie sanders and hillary clinton? >> the main reason is that people people are unhappy with the level of income inequality that exists in the country today. there is a lot of talk about the result of income inequality. how much ceos make, how much the average america makes and how big of a gap there is. there is not quite as much conversation about why that occurs. i think at "the capitol forum" we study market competition, which is a big factor in how you get to that big gap. the reality is, if an economy is defined by lots of competition, if there isn't a dramatic amount of consolidation in every industry or a lot of industries across the country, employers compete for workers. they compete to get the best talent. they pay them more, provide better benefits. as a result, competition is really good for the worker. that reduces income inequality. what you have here is some of the elements that have pushed populism in to work in the past. you have consolidated economic power, income inequality. you have consolidated industries that aren't defined by competition. so as a result, bernie sanders with this classic populism that he is promoting and anti-big bank, anti-consolidation, is really working right now. >> in terms of the minimum wage, we have kind of talked about this a little on "washington journal" in terms of people's experience with the economy. a number of organizations are raidsing the minimum wage. some cities are calling for raising the minimum wage. what are we hearing from the candidates on the minimum wage? >> i haven't done a surveyor paid close attention to all of the different proposals. they largely line up as you might expect. conservatives tend to think the minimum wage is not the appropriate way to address problems like income inequality. it creates bad business incentives. our perspective is more to analyze from a market competition point of view. back to the point i was making earlier. structural reason why wages are not going up, employers are not competing over workers. there isn't enough competition. the rules for competition aren't encouraging employers to provide better pay and better benefits to allow for upper mobility of workers. i think that's probably the think that's missing from the conservative side of the aisle. from democrats, i think bernie sanders, hillary clinton, they are going to be calling for significant increase in the minimum wage. again, i think that makes sense, because, the economy is consolidated. it is not efficiently allocating resources and paying workers what they should be earning in a truly competitive market. >> teddy downey is our guest, the executive editor of "the capitol forum." to talk to us about economic populism, minimum wage income and equality. for republicans, 220-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents and others, 202-748-8002. >> the headline in "the wall street journal." wall street is betting on bush and clinton. this was the report that came out in the middle of last month about the half year report on how much the bush campaign and the clinton campaign are getting from wall street. i want to play some comments that hillary clinton made about wall street and when she is calling capitalism. >> i am not talking about charity. i'm talking about clear capitalism. many companies have prospered by improving wages and training their workers that then yields higher productivity, better service, and larger profits. it's easy to try to cut costs by holding down or even decreasing pay and other investments to inflate quarterly stock prices. i would argue that's bad for business in the long run and really bad for our country. workers are assets. investing in them pays off. higher pag higher wages pays off. training pays off. i proposed a new $1500 tax credit for every worker they train and hire and i will soon be proposing a new plan to reform capital gains taxes to reward longer term investments that create jobs more than just quick trades. >> is hillary clinton's message, aimed at both her wall street supporters and the people that are affected by wall street policies? >> part of the problem she is identifying, there is this culture on wall street that focuses on quarterly profits and a lot of our subscribers, our investors, over the years, have gotten to see that the focus very much is on the short-term for them. it makes a lot of sense that she is addressing that as a fundamental problem. it is not really a wall street specific issue that she is hitting at. i think she is really focused on what really is best for workers. i think some of the things she is staying are hard to argue with. would it be good to have the rules to encourage companies to hire over the long-term? i think that's a no-brainer. would it be good for wages to go up? >> again, i think that's a no-brainer. i don't know if she is putting forward enough of policies that would create i turn around she is interested in. >> a number of your capitol forum subscribers are investors. are you hearing back from them? >> really, investors are like anyone else across the country in a lot of ways. they have their teams that they are on that were formed throughout the lives, democrat, republicans. you get conversations that mimic the same conversations that i had with your average person and the people down here. but, i think to the article that you pointed out earlier, they are not particularly worried about this election affecting how they think about investments and how they think policies will change because hillary clinton or jeb bush, which i think a lot of people on wall street still think are the frontrunners and one of them is likely to win really represent either status quo of the way things have gone under the obama administration or perhaps slightly better for businesses and profits and wall street in general. >> you have been in a former position, an adviser for institutional investors. how much in an election year, a presidential election year, is it a big deal for investors to hear guidance on where institutional investors, big investors, to hear what's ahead, what is the take on the presidential feel? how important is that? >> i think it is important to the ex thaetent people are sayi things that are credible. i don't think that a rlot of th candidates are taken at their word for what their policies are going to be. i think the outlook is to look beyond what they are saying and what they would actually do. what is their track record? >> i think again with clinton and bush and the more establishment candidates, you are going to get something very similar to what you are accustomed to from policies in the past and the obama administration in particular and nothing worse that that, really. where as, i think with trump, and sanders, i think there is a little bit of fear what they are saying could be what they do. >> fear on behalf of institutional investors. >> and people who are watching the election and are interested in trying to predict what the policies will be like. it is not looking past what they are saying but really focused on what they are saying. people are listening to what bernie sanders is saying. he has the potential to actually implement policies that are different and are bold and aggressive and populous, as you mentioned earlier. >> we have calls for teddy douney and you. anthony, welcome, republican line? let's go to walter in baltimore. >> caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. i would like to say this economic populism, progressive fairness, it is a matter of getting over the greed. you just flashed the outrageous, the criminal disparity in the pay. i don't want a burrito anymore when i saw chipotle listed on that list. we support the greed in america of donald trump. the hotel is being built by the rapists and murderers he commented on. i beg you to answer this one question. flat tax, another 999 joke that he stated yesterday, brother, that we don't want to be easy on those at the bottom. that is the problem of america. this clown, the republican candidates, as you said, none of them give a doggone about the lower workers. this clown actually said, we don't want to be easy on those at the bottom with regard to the flat tax he was proposing was exposed to him. not in my progressive statement or state of mind. in fact, when he was being interviewed on the clown show. i don't need to name that network. please, brother, comment on the fact that those at the bottom continue to get pressed down where those at the bottom, they are just flying on helium. >> walter, with he will ge will response. on any thoughts of what ben carson will say? >> the caller was focusing on how conservatives in the race maybe have a tendency to say that there shouldn't be welfare programs. we should get away from programs that provide federal assistance to the poor. i think that's what he was getting at. and one of theyñ markets that w looked at, that we look at the capital forum, is the financial services industry. another caller was talking about chipotle and burritos. one of the examples where there is this seeming unfairness and an increasing gap among the workers and the owners is in the financial services industry. there are a couple statistics that are relevant to the campaign that show this gap. one is that there is over $1 trillion in student debt outstanding now. the people who are at the bottom end of this spectrum, students coming out of college trying to find a job. they are having problems addressing a $1 trillion, huge amount of debt. they can't buy homes. they can't buy cars. so they are feeling suppressed. on the other hand, the financial services spectrum has been very good to the people that have done well. it is pretty clear there is another silicon valley bubble. it is pretty clear corporations are doing well with all the stock buy-backs that he this are able to afford. there is a big merger wave right now. the financial services industry has not really done much since dodd/frank to help the people that are worse off. you see wall street and silicon valley really doing well i think that exacerbates what the caller was talking about in terms of inequality. >> next, jack in davenport, iowa, democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. is this a real problem our ira program that reagan set up that they blindly throw money into and they never challenge the powerful technicrats inside the corporation. inequality began under reagan. too much emphasis on blind diversification. no individual oversight. shouldn't our iras pay money into individual stocks forcing people to think where they put their retirement money? >> i think the biggest problem with people and their retiremen don't have enough money to put into a retirement account. so, if you're in the position of trying to figure out where that money goes, i think you're better off than a lot of the people out there who don't have any money to put into a retirement in the first place. but there's actually a department of labor rule that is somewhat controversial now that is supposed to apply stricter fiduciary standards on financial advisers. i think some of what you've seen in the past is high fees associated with retirement accounts that has contributed to not as much wealth creation for the average american and their retirement account and hopefully if that rule works, there will be a shift in the competitive landscape. instead of financial advisers pushing people into high-fee products they will be competing over how to provide better service and lower fee products and -- which will ultimately allow for more wealth accumulation. >> that rule just proposed by the labor department? >> yes. there are hearings ongoing now. there should be a -- or hearings just ended last week, actually. there should be a final rollout in the coming months. >> wicarly fiorina spoke last wk about the rolling back of certain financial regulations. here's her look. let's look at what happened with dodd frank. what happened with dodd-frank? the agencies that started the housing bubble, fannie mae and freddie mac are still in place. we put dodd-frank in place. ten banks too big to fail became five banks became too big to feel. i would people away all the regulations where only the big can survive. the first is to help community banks grow, be strengthened. the next thing i would do is make sure that families and family-owned businesses and small businesses are getting a line of credit. they are not getting a line of credit today. you see in main street america, all across this country, small businesses not able to get the capital they need to grow. >> carly fee yiorina speaking ae iowa state affair today. live coverage at 11:00 eastern on c-span. the issue is economic populism as a campaign them. our guest is teddy downey. here is mark in north virginia on the independents line. >> caller: good morning. look, i think we're overcomplicating this issue. i'm just sitting here decisionin listening. overall we miss the issue. the first caller has it right. the issue is greed on one end, the other issue is the electorate, it's us. we have the choices to spend our dollars where we want to spend the dollars. wherever we see or feel there's injustice as far as income disparity from those companies, we have the right to boycott. as an entrepreneur myself i feel just like many on the republican side, that business should not be regulated and profits should not be regulated. but we the people have the power to regulate prices by the way we spend. now, henry ford in his day had it perfectly correct. henry ford wasn't just some nice, opulent business person. this was a person who used rationale. i'm going to build a car, but i have to pay the people to afford the car. so therefore, from the beginning and inception of ford, ford employees have always been paid pretty well. so that they could sustain, enjoy the products in which they purchased. now we're in, like, a greed zone on steroids. so when they make the argument if you raise the minimum wage -- which isn't the real problem. the problem is if you raise the minimum wage, the greedsters are going to raise the price of products and services. we'll still be in the same place where we started. so, it's we the people that's going to have to rise up and say these mergers, we don't want. because as the mergers occur over and over again, the consumers, we the people, we have less options. we don't have that many holes to run in. and that the smaller businesses like carly fiorina was talking about, she's right. the small business concept is really a false herring, because when people talk about small businesses, they're talking about 100-plus employees. i'm talking about the mom and pops that's got three people, four people, six people. those are the people that's being crushed in our economy. and are being suppressed to rise. >> lots there, mark. we'll ask teddy downy. he talked a bit about what you addressed, the wave of mergers going on. >> absolutely. one of the biggest problems in the economy is increased consolidation, lack of competition, and what the caller mentioned as a lack of choices. and i think what you have a lot in the economy right now is the illusion of choice. you go to the supermarket, you see a lot of different goods, but the chances are, you know, on any given shelf there are only two company providing the goods on that shelf. if you go to rent a car, it looks like you have ten different car rentals, 12 different desks at an airport, really there's only three companies that own all those brands. so, this is an issue that occurs when industries are consolidated. you have consumers who have less choice, they have less ability to sort of buy with their feet and push industries in different directions. that was one of the issues that the caller mentioned. does that also affect pricing? >> it can. absolutely. prices can certainly go up, as probably have and will with the rental car industry. price is not everything. in a lot of ways, consolidation can have effects that people can't really see that effects their choice but not necessarily price. so, choice, quality, those are some of the inputs in competition that you want to see. when you have huge consolidation in distributors, among distributors, and among retailers like walmart, amazon, they offer low prices, but you have less choice and the supply chain is squeezed pretty significantly resulting in mom and pop businesses up the supply chain being squeezed much in the way that the caller mentioned. the mom and pops not able to compete. >> here is wilmington, delaware, and eric on the republican line. go ahead. >> caller: yeah. we're missing the elephant in the room, and the elephant in the room is the economy is so depressed that wages are actually falling. it's not because some ceo is making millions. nobody is up in arms about an actor making 25 million, $30 million a year on a film working 12 weeks out of the year. it's just a populous message, it's a socialist message. the rich versus the poor. i'm not concerned that my neighbor makes more than me. i'm concerned what i can do not what other people have. that's my comment. >> any thoughts on wages? >> i think the big issue -- i think the average american is not focused on envy or having a problem with their neighbor making more money. i think the big thing is about are they earning it. people who earn their wage, earn loss of money, nobody has a problem with that. if they get the sense you're cheating, or sense that you didn't really earn it, that you were handed it down, that it was -- that it was handed down from your rich parents or grandparents, or if you swindled someone or ripped off the government or polluted the environment, people are unhappy if you made your money that way. a lot of people are working hard and not making a living wage. and they see other people cheating, not working hard, making lots of money. that's where the problems come from. >> here's michelle, she's in toma, wisconsin on the democrats line. >> caller: yes, thanks for taking my call. i think, too, a lot of the problem in our economy is the wage gap. and i don't look at people because they're wealthy and they're the problem. i look at it as though the way things have been heading, our economy and the cost of living has kept going up and kept going up, and peoples wages are not going up. they still continue to have to pay the expensive prices for everything as it goes up. but the wages do not go up. and i just think that's part of the problem, too. i think ceos also need to realize that if it wasn't for the sweat and the hard work of the people who help make those companies successful, that they, too, need to have incentives to keep them going. bonuses, things like that. ceos get bonuses, but employees really don't get bonuses. part of the problem is there. as far as the students coming out of klemm, i don't see why they can't refinance loans just like you would a mortgage. those percentage rates are still too high for these college students to be able to move out of the house and make a living on their own. so, i think that, you know, something has got to give there. and also with social security, i note republic know the republicans are saying that's going to run out, social security disability is going to run out in 2016. people have paid into that their whole lives when they work. they expect it to be there when they retire. so, why is that system going broke when, you know, people have been put nothing it and they say it's the baby boomers, there's such a big spread of baby boomers and stuff. >> we'll get a response. thanks for your call. >> i'm not 100% what the question was there. but, you know, a lot of things came up. you mentioned student debt. as i mentioned earlier, this is one of the big issues for the 2016 campaign. it's one of the big things that is driving this populous backlash against the way that the economy works now. but as i mentioned earlier, there's over $1 trillion in debt outstanding. i think rohit chopra, the student ombudsman there and who recently left, did a good job in getting out the message that this is actually an economic issue. that houses are not being purchased. cars are not being purchased because students are weighed down by a significant amount of student debt. and as a result, the economy is not growing to the extent it should, millennials are staying at home as opposed to getting their own apartments or houses. and this is -- this has a huge drag on the economy. so, how the presidential candidates choose to try to address this issue and how congress and the next president address the issue is going to be one that defines whether or not this populous backlash has sunk in enough to drive a change in behavior. >> just some commentary on those two issues. steven moore's opinion piece on hillary clinton's college tuition plan, cutting college tuitions must start with eliminating waste and fraud. another piece in the "new york times," mentioned housing, their editorial today, the problem with house prices, they write about the housing cannot propel the economy the way it once did. it is growing inequality in incomes. that home prices are increasing in tandem with incomes, it's a sign of stability, but only investment income has been rising steadily in it the recovery, while wages from work have stagnated. one result is that buying a home is still out of reach for many working people, particularly those who would have been first-time buyers in a healthier economy. another result is that builders have largely focused on higher-end homes, leading to a low inventory of new starter homes. your thought on income inequality. our guest is teddy downey, income inequality and economic populism as a campaign theme. we go to houston and helen, independents line. helen in houston, go ahead. >> caller: hi, how are you today? >> doing fine. thanks. >> caller: i would like to ask one question on that. the presidents are running, but who makes the laws? is it the senate and the house of representatives? >> yes, the u.s. congress, the house of representatives, the u.s. senate and the administration -- the president signs the legislation. >> that's my question. why are we knfocused on what th president can do, shouldn't we know cuss on congress and the senate and put the right people in there? >> absolutely. they're critical to passing legislation. the reason there's such a focus on the president is because they have -- presidents have an incredible ability to drive the agenda in congress and they have tools at their disposal to change laws and enforce laws. one thing that people don't probably pay enough attention to is how law enforcement and the people who implement the laws are just as important if not even more important than the people who write them. one good example of this is the financial sector. we talked a little bit more about dodd-frank and the success and lack of success of that law. part of it -- a lot of the problems with that law have been implementation. the people who are implementing it don't act quickly and aggressively to change behavior in the markets that they're trying to regulate or alt eveer competitive outlook. one small group, the new york department of financial services, which is part of the governor's office in new york, i think gives a really good example of what one determined law enforcer can do. a guy by the name of ben losky was the head of that department. really had more of an impact by himself in that agency on the mortgage market and the mortgage servi servicers than the cfpb had in the years that it was working on the same issue. because he was determined and the office -- this small office in new york was determined to change the behavior of that industry, to crack down on misrepresentation and conflicts of interests. so, it doesn't take a lot of determined law enforcers, a lot of determined people who are under the direction of the president to make big change. that's another reason why certainly people in washington are focused on the president, because of all the tools that the administration has at their disposal. >> one of several senators, the only democratic senator running for president is bernie sanders. he was interviewed by chuck todd on "meet the press" yesterday, and talked about the issue of income inequality. >> we are resonating all over this country and here in iowa because we're talking about issues that are life and death issues to the american people. that is the collapse of the american middle class, the massive and grotesque level of wealth inequality in this country, the fact that we are the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all people, the fact that millions of working class families are finding it difficult to send their kids to college. and the basic fact that people are working longer hours for lower wages, and meanwhile almost all of the new income and wealth is going to the top 1%. and then you add to that a campaign finance system as a result of citizens united that allows billionaire families like the koch brothers and others to buy politicians and corrupt the american political process. >> senator -- >> all of that together, the american people are saying enough is enough. >> independent senator bernie sanders running on the democratic ticket, running for the democratic nomination yesterday with chuck todd on "meet the press." our guest is teddy downey, executive editor of the capitol form. yuma, arizona is up. ray, good morning. >> caller: good morning. the reason i called is i think they're called h1b visa, and these corporations ship in people from foreign countries and pay them, like, indentures servants to be "trained" to do something for their company. and so, if one of our problems is we have more people than jobs, we should stop importing people to work for these big companies. that's it. >> teddy downey, houchb w much that is a part of major corporations planning, the use of those visas? >> i think it's a big part. i think we've done a lot of work on this. we've never found a compelling study that showed that h1b visa work was actually 100% as necessary as businesses claim that they are. it's really all about price. how much does it cost to train a worker? how much does it dos get an h1b worker to do the same job. when someone in silicon valley or an industry across the country says they need more h1 visas, they are saying they want lower wage workers so they can make more money on the products and services they're providing. so it is a driver of income inequality. it is an issue. we have not found compelling evidence that the alternative, bringing in workers and training them -- >> from the u.s. american workers. >> -- is not really doable. it may take more time, may be more costly, but this is a social issue. it's how the congress and president and people want their economy to work. i think that's the question. it's not a question of do they absolutely need it. the question is what are the laws we want here? the viewer -- the caller certainly thinks that we should focus on training programs, similar to the one i think we heard earlier from hillary clinton to create incentives to hire and to train. >> couple of tweets and comments for you. this from grace, who says while corporations make record profits in backing politicians that fight against increasing wages proves trickle down was a con. gene says there is no competition in the usa. monopolies rule almost every market and now even hospitals are taking over doctors practices. one more here. someone needs to propose a cap on ceo salaries. out of control. while their pay increases, they cut jobs, benefits and salaries. the s.e.c. just proposed measures regarding ceo pay, did they not? >> they did. these are disclosure rules. they took five years, i think that's the biggest problem with them. i think it shows a tremendous lack of leadership at the s.e.c. that it took five years to get some simple disclosure rules out there. and ultimately having taken a quick look at the rules, i don't think they'll work. a lot of loopholes, it seems like corporations will be able to abuse. temporary workers won't count towards the number. the owners of the business, the corporations will have huge discretion over what period of time they look at, seasonal workers may not count. contract workers may not count. the number is subject to manipulation. overall disclosure and focus on ceo pay is probably very important and it's an important shaming mechanism and an important educational tool so people can understand what that gap really is and try to figure out why it's happening. >> couple more calls. denver is next. dan, good morning. independent line. >> caller: hi. talking about the s.e.c., it seems like they've either been incompetent or complicit in -- with the ceos and stuff. there's no perp walks or anything like that like we had in the tech bubble or, like, solomon brothers. you know, or since martha stewart, any way. then a little bit on that donald trump friday said he would have carl icahn helping him straighten things out here in the country. that seems a little funny. thank you. >> his comment on carl icahn. what is he talking about there? >> well, carl icahn is -- is an activist investor on wall street who likes to buy an interest in companies and get influence through the board and try to push the company in a certain direction that he thinks will create a better valuation or buyout. carl icahn is one of the legends of wall street in terms of his activities in pushing companies around. and getting stocks to be bought or companies to be bought at a higher level than what he originally purchased them at through leveraged buyouts and things like that. there's a lot of talk about barbarians at the gate. >> right. >> he's one of the -- he's one of the icons of that -- of that movement. it's amusing in some respects, but it's part of the trump, i think, image at that point. which is he's a business man, he's unabashed about making lots of money and being successful. talking about corruption as is plainly open. that it happens all the time. and that businesses buy off politicia politicians. and, so just being unabashed about how he's going to use his business acumen and bring other people in who have been successful without a regard to how they got that success and what the implications are for policies is amusing. >> talk about the candidates and economic populism, rick perry's radical proposal to put wall street in its place, they say that rick perry didn't come out and say but a crucial aspect of his plan to reform the financial sector puts him in alliance with liberal radicals such as elizabeth warren, bernie sanders, reports peter schroeder cho gave the details of a major speech that rick perry delivered two weeks ago. one more call for teddy downy. we go to buffalo. kathy, good morning. >> caller: good morning. hello, c-span. thanks for taking my call. >> you bet. >> caller: my comment is this, people of lower education are qualified for lower wage jobs and we make the largest population in america and other countries, too. if we were to earn 100 or more per hour from jobs of lower level education, we will become less reliant on government subsidies. okay. i take my call off the line. >> that's your call for increasing the minimum wage? >> caller: yes. >> yeah. final comments, teddy downy. any >> i missed the question. >> she was talking about people making more money through minimum wage and they would be less reliant on government benefits. >> that's right. again, i put us back to the point i made originally which is that the minimum wage and the discussion about the minimum wage is a way to address a fundamental lack of competition throughout the economy. when there's competition, employers fight to attract the best talent, pay their workers the best, give them good benefits. and create -- that competitive environment throughout the economy creates less need for minimum wage. when you have a largely consolidated economy with -- that lacks that competition, you get these more behavioral rules from the government and calls for minimum wage to address that competition gap. >> teddy downey with capitol form, read more at thecapitolform.com. >> thanks for having me. >> more "washington journal" ahead. the continuing story of big game hunting in the wake of the story of cecil the lion and more. we'll hear from jeff kerr, the general counsel for the peta foundation. looking forward to your calls. all of that ahead as "washington journal" continues on c-span. follow the c-span cities tour as we travel outside the washington beltway to communities across america. >> the idea behind the cities tour is to take the programming for htv, american history television and book tv on the road to produce pieces more visual, that provide a window into the cities that viewers wouldn't normally go to that have rich histories and a rich literary scene. >> a lot of people heard the history of the big cities like new york, l.a., chicago. what about the smaller ones like albany, new york? what's the history of them? >> we've been to over 75 cities. we will have hit 95 cities in april of 2016. >> most of our programming on c-span is event coverage. these are not event coverage pieces. these are shorter. though take you to a home. a historic site. >> we partnered with our cable affiliates to explore the history and literary culture of various cities. >> the key entry into the city is the cable operate other who contacts the city. in essence it's the cable industry bringing us there. >> they're really looking for great characters. you want your viewers to be able to identify with these people that we're talking about. >> it's an experiential type of program. we're taking people on the road to places where they can touch things, see things, learn about, you know, it's not just the local history. a lot of the local history plays into the national story. >> if somebody is watching this, it should be enticing enough that they could get the idea of the story. but also feel as if this is just in our backyard. let's go see it. >> we want viewers to get a sense that, yeah, i've -- i know that place. just from watching one of our pieces. >> the c-span mission, as we do with all of our coverage, bleeds into what we do out on the road. >> you've got to be able to communicate the message about this network. in order to do this job. so, it's done the one thing that we wanted it to do, which is build relationships with the city and our cable partners, and gather some great programming for american history tv and book tv. >> watch the cities tour on the c-span networks. to see where we're going next, see our schedule at cspan.org/cities tour. jeff kerr is general council for the people for the ethical treatment of animals. joining us on "washington journal" this morning to talk about the issue of big game hunting and endangered species. obviously a lot of this in the wake of the killing in zimbabwe of the celebrity lion, i guess you'd say, cecil the lion. again, on the business pages of the "new york times" today, where clicks reign, audience is king. news outlets seek stories that are hard to ignore. certainly the story of cecil the lion has drawn attention to the issue of big game hunting. what is your organization's view on at killing of that lion in particular? >> trophy hunters are serial killers that have no respect for wildlife. they're about exploitation. and about getting some kind of perverse joy and excitement out of the killing of these magnificent animals. this has nothing to do with conservation whatsoever. cecil's killing was an outrage is people around the world are rightly outraged by it. he was lured out of a protected area, a mile outside of that area. he was shot at night with the use of lights with a high-powered crossbow. and then left in anguish to suffer for 40 hours before the trackers tracked him down and shot him to death, cut his head off and took his hide while hiding the gps tracking collar that he had on him because he was being tracked by an oxford university study. it's an outrage. >> obviously this made a lot of news. how unusual is this type of shooting? >> unfortunately it's all too common. these hunts are not some kind of wild man against nature kind of thing. in fact, the vast majority of these are the equivalent of canned hunts, where animals are bred for this purpose. they're in confined areas, the trackers know exactly where they are. and these overblown, overprivileged usually rich, white americans and europeans get some kind of perverse pleasure by going over and blowing them away. and you really have to question the psyche of people who travel halfway around the world, spend $60,000 to go and kill an animal who simply wants nothing more than to be left alone and be with his or her family so they can cut off their head, skin them and hang it on their wall. >> jeff kerr is our guest. peta general counsel. we're having mr. kerr on this morning because we started this conversation last week with a guest who represented the hunters, a hunter's point of view. i want to make sure we open up our phone lines here and get you, our viewers and listeners into the conversation. we set aside our phone numbers like this. eastern and central time zones, 202-748-8001. more mountain and pacific, 202-748-8000. and for hunters, that number is 202-748-8002. john jackson, who represents -- who is former president of a safari organization was on our program last week. i wanted to air some of his comments from last week. get your response and move forward with our conversation and with viewers. here's what he had to say to "washington journal" last week. >> the fish and wildlife service in review of the status of the african lion for example found that the threats were loss of habitat, conflicts with local people, and loss of prey base primarily. and the hunting community provides those things. it provides the most habitat for lion. i'll repeat, the most habitat for lion, the largest part of the budget revenue for management of all wildlife and habitat in the african nations, and provides the first line of defense against poaching, and much more. it's conversation tool. it's used as a tool. there have been regional and national and international workshops on how to save the african lion. in each case, hunting was found not to be the cause of the decline, but the solution and a method of saving the african lion in the wild. >> john jackson laid out several advantages of hunting there. he talked about loss of habitat, revenue provided, number of other issues. what's your response to what you heard? >> i have several responses to the fallacies that he's putting forward. first of all, most of the revenue from the canned hunts, from these rich people going over there to blow away wildlife does not benefit the indigenous people who have enormous problems, no question. this is modern day colonialism where these rich, white people are going over to kill these animals. if they really cared about conversation -- unfortunately conservation nowadays is being thrown around as a word that means exploitation. if they cared about it, they would give money for habitat protection, using to manage wildlife humanly, not blowing them away. many of the problems that he touched on are human-caused problems to begin with. the moving into habitat and so forth. and if that money really wanted to be used for that purpose, the millions of dollars these hunters are spending every year to go over there could be used in other ways without having to kill these animals. >> is there ever a case -- in peta's view -- where hunting is appropriate for population control or for other reasons? >> saying that you have to kill animals to control the population is like saying you have to kill people to address world hunger. true subsistence hunting where people have no ability to feed themselves in a much more natural state is something that peta is not opposed to. that's not what we're talking about here. let's go back to what happened with cecil. he was tracked. he was lured out of a protected area. he was shot with a high-powered bow. he was left to suffer for 40 hours so his head could be cut off and he could be skinned so palmer could put it on his wall. that has nothing to do with conservation. >> let's hear from our viewers on the issue of big game hunting and endangered species with jeff kerr from peta. we go to brian in massachusetts. >> caller: hi. i'm understanding that most professional wildlife biologists in the mainstream wildlife management consider hunting a very useful tool in the management of big game populations. and isn't it a fact that the zimbabwe people are perplexed at peta's strange view of the lion killing? thank you very much. >> nobody that i've talked to or heard of is perplexed by our position against this outrage. cecil was a lion who was tracked, who enjoyed sitting in the shade of jeeps. he was known. he had two prides with 24 children that he was responsible for. and as i mentioned earlier, he was lured out of a protected area and killed horribly. this notion, again, of having kill to control population, we think is a smoke screen. the real issue is human beings living cooperatively with nature and finding humane measures of dealing with animals. >> headline in the "washington post" says peta calls for walter palmer to be hanged for killing cecil the lion. was that just sort of a metaphorical term or -- >> it's hyperbole. nobody expected that to be taken seriously. what we do want very much is for him to be extradited, for him to be charged and for him to face the music and to be jailed if what we understand to be the facts are borne out in a trial. >> the view from zimbabwe in the op-ed piece from the president of zimbabwe, i want to read some of you. we zimbabweans are left shaking our heads wondering why americans care more about african animals than about african people. don't tell us what to do with our animals when you allow your own mountain lions to be hunted near extinction in the eastern united states. don't bemoan the clear cutting of our forests when you turn yours into concrete jungles and don't offer me condolences about cecil unless you are also willing to offer me condolences aboutthr brethren, political violence or hunger. what's your response to that? >> several responses. no questions there are problems around the world in which the way human beings interact and exploit animals. exploitation in one place doesn't justify it in another. we need to find solutions to humans interacting with animals in humane, non-violent ways. i saw a story this weekend about a boy from kenya who learned through his own process that lions don't like flashing lights. so he strung up with a battery and a solar panel flashing lights around their cattle shed to keep lions. ever since he's done it several years ago, there's been no killing of the cattle by the lions, and the lions have not been killed by the humans. >> next call is john. >> caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. yeah. right after this happened i saw that article in the "new york times" from the zimbabwean who was talking about these, you know, how animals attack, they're ferocious. but these creatures are down to extinction levels. and we are overpopulating the planet. they're defenseless. we have all these wars going on around the world, they have no weapons no political body other than peta and other organizations to represent them. it's cowardice. these people go out and shoot a defenseless lion, you know, that's -- it's -- i'm outraged by it. it breaks my heart to look at the way that elephants and that lions and all these great species, and the smaller. we'll suffer from it eventually. i think there's a moral consequence to this. and that the human race is suffering from it. i support your organization. and i'm outraged by this. >> here's carl in east liverpool, ohio. good morning. >> caller: yes. i was just wanting to mention that all lives matter. it's a shame about cecil and other animals, but also where's the outrage over abortion, the killing of children, just seems that our -- we're becoming more sensitized to loss of life. >> well, i agree that all lives matter. but peta is people for the ethical treatment of animals. we're an animal protection organization. we support people doing good things around the world to help people, animals, anybody in need. but we are here and our members and our supporters demand of us to speak up for the animals, that's what we're going to do. if i could say one other thing to pick up on a comment of one of the callers. you played a piece from mr. jackson, the former president of safari club international. it goes back to what i was talking about about the psyche, about the perversion of this. some of the other things he said, i made notes, i will read because i quoted from it. he called the killing of animals for trophy hunting "a higher order experience, like love and affection it can't be explained, but it's real." he claimed the greater the animal, the stronger the feeling. claimed that there was a special natural relationship with the animals with these trophy hunters. that's twisted. that's like saying jeffrey d dahmer enjoyed a special relationship with his victims. this is not about conversation. this is about people going over and getting some bizarre pleasure out of using high-powered rifles, high-powered crossbows to track and kill animals who want nothing but to be left alone. >> you said cecil was killed with a crossbow? >> he was shot and severely wounded with a high-powered crossbow. then he languished for 40 hours before they could find him again. when they finally did, he was finished off with a gunshot by the trackers, then decapitated and skinned. >> by the way, if you're a hunter, particularly if you have big game hunting experience, we have set aside a line for you. 202-748-8002. looking for your calls as well. to arlington, virginia. jonathan, welcome. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm not a member of peta but i'm glad there's an organization out there standing up for these magnificent animals. i want my grandchildren to experience these animals. i'm afraid between deforestation and hunting, that these animals are not going to be around for my grandchildren to enjoy. thank you. >> couldn't have said that better myself. that's why we're here. >> what's the status, particularly in zimbabwe, of animals like lions? >> well, the fish and wildlife service in october of 2014 asked that they be listed as threatened. a particular official status really is not the issue. all of the animals there are endangered from these kinds of canned hunts. these kinds of trophy hunts. that serve no purpose other than to stroke the ego of these overblown, overprivileged people who get some bizarre pleasure out of blowing animals away. most people want to enjoy nature without killing the animals that live in it. >> on twitter, irish eyes twee s s the zimbabwe environmental minister says palmer violated his laws. why hasn't he been extradited. they have a treaty. is pete tha involved in trying extradite mr. palmer? >> it's up to our government, sadly, again, we're back to human inaction in the face of real danger to these animals. he does need to be extra dpdite. caring people around the world and in this country need to call on our government to extradite him back to zimbabwe so he can face the music. this is not the first time he's done something like this. in 2008 he was convicted of a federal -- he pled guilty to a federal felony of lying to fish and wildlife investigators looking into the circumstances when he killed a bear outside of an authorized area. he lied about it. a report in the -- in the daily mail, in the uk, also reported that he offered a bribe of $20,000 to the guides he was with in the hope that they would lie about it as well. unfortunately he got a $3,000 fine for that, instead of facing years in prison and the hefty fine he should have gotten. these laws are there. they're on the books, they need to be enforced aggressively, not only in the united states but in zimbabwe as well. >> the new york daily news reported on that last week. cecil the lion's killer, walter palmer poses next to dead black bear he shot illegally in wisconsin. the photo of mr. palmer with the bear he shot allegedly, the bear he shot. let's hear from a hunter. we go to new tripoli, pennsylvania. ray, thanks for joining us. >> caller: yes, i'm from pennsylvania. the pennsylvania game commission was started in pennsylvania in the early 1900s by hunters. it was encouraged by hunters to preserve the wildlife in pennsylvania which at that time was pretty well decimated by uncontrolled hunting, et cetera. hunters have contributed and paid for most of the conservation efforts across the united states. if you want to look at all the characteristics of animals, a lion is a predator. humans are the ultimate predator. that's engrained in us in some ways. we would like to deny it. we would all like to be well, be nice, everything else, but they have a perverted view. they value animals more than they value people. i'm sure they have pro abortion, have no problem with that thing. if you look at them, in some instances, they have been very much terrorists in this country. >> a terrorist organization. how do you respond to that. >> you're chuckle and mine demonstrates the absurdity. it's a tried and true tactic of attack the messenger. he said himself that the reason conservation had to be started in this country and other places is because of overhunting. the unregulated killing, willy-nilly of animals. if you believe in conservation then spend the money, make the donations, do the hard work to conserve and protect these animals. peta like caring people all around the world just want them to be left alone. that's all they wanted. they have children, they have families, they should be allowed to enjoy them. >> here's mike, who is in columbia, missouri. welcome. go ahead. >> caller: thank you. appreciate your show. i do appreciate peta's pragmatism, and the cecil the lion made me sick. i also appreciate peta's idealism. i wondered if he could touch on and if we could hear more about the things in which caused -- which may inconvenience us americans with regard to road kill and the fact that we're an autocentric society and we don't do anything to help curb and prevent these tragic things that happen on the roadways. and we need to reinforce to kids in public schools that we don't need meat in the human diet. this is just a sort of addiction. hunting is sort of an addiction. it's rarely a necessity. i appreciate you taking my call. do you see hunting as an addiction? >> there's something certainly wrong with it when you look at psyche of these people who as i described earlier who will spend tens of thousands of dollars to travel around the world to kill an animal who just wants to be left alone and claim it's somehow conservation. seems to me there's something seriously wrong there. the caller is right. we do need to take a look at how we interact with animals. we don't need them. we can talk -- we can have another conversation about veganism and how that would help the planet, but i want to come back to something that was talked about earlier. that is that these problems that confront animals are human made. if they're human made, we're encroaching on their territory, we're killing their prey animals, whether for food or hunting. and it needs to stop. we need to live in harmony with these animals and there are humane ways to do it in africa and in the united states. and in relation to the notion about what he described as road kill, there are places in the united states where animals are hunted, deer, for example. animals know how to control their own population. it's based on food supply. these areas are actually seeded with food so they will continue to multiply, so they can be hunted. that's -- that together with our human encroachment on their territory is a large part of the problem. >> don't you think there are real problems with deer in some urban areas in terms of overpopulation and reliable option may be to cull them by hunting? is that a practical option? >> i don't think culling them by hunting is the solution. the solution is humane methods of control and separation, and for us to respect their habitat and give them protected areas that we stop encroaching on. >> here's alberta, pennsylvania. john is also a hunter. >> caller: yes. it's amazing some of the absurdity that's come out of the mouth of this gentleman. the bible says that man is the purveyor and -- of the -- the ruler of everything that's on this planet. back in the day, when they had to hunt for survival, these instincts were engrained in the human psyche. if he really was concerned about endangered species, then maybe he could comment about the 400 to 500,000 raptors, bats, and other bird species that have been destroyed by these wind turbine bird shredders. and one final comment is that -- i don't necessarily agree with the process of this trophy hunting, but it's a business. and -- and the zimbabwe people have chosen to engage in it. they're free people. and there's no reason for them not to control their destiny. if they choose to eliminate the lion as a species in their country, they have the right to do that. >> on john's point, headline, trophy hunting is big business in south africa. what sort of revenue would they lose if they were to end it? >> well, as i mentioned earlier, most of the revenue doesn't go to help the indigenous people who are in dire need. it goes to tour companies, many of which are run by white people, white, rich people from other countries. there's even one over there that has the name vauna, which means master. it's modern day colonialism. to the caller's comment, this is not about survival hunting or some kind of natural state. this is about people who are killing -- i won't even say for sport. there's no sport in it. these hunters are driven out in jeeps, many times at night, using flood lights to blind the animals, then killing them up close with high-powered guns or high-powered crossbows. many times just like with cecil, injuring them terribly so they suffer. sometimes for days before they're finally put out of their misery. all just so somebody can have a head or a skin to put in their den or living room. >> anthony's next. he's in minnesota. anthony, welcome. >> caller: yes. thank you so much. thank you for c-span. i -- i'm really not sure about that comment that we have -- as humans we have an innate characteristic to kill animals. when i see a beautiful deer, my first instinct is not to shoot it with a high-powered rifle. i'd rather just sit down and watch it and -- and respect nature. and i like mr. kerr's comments about -- they call it hunting. it's a sport. well, when you use a laser scope and a range finder and a high-powered rifle, it's not a sport anymore. if you wanted to kill that animal, you should have to run down that deer yourself, and tackle it yourself. you want to make it a sport. i thank peta and mr. kerr. thank you for c-span. thank you. >> thank you. i'd like to pick up on something that caller and the caller before mentioned. i think we have to many times fight our urges. we all have urges of one thing or another. we have to fight urges that are destructive. just as we do in every other walk of our lives. we as human beings have a special obligation, a special responsibility, precisely because we can control our own conduct, especially in relation to animals. we have a special responsibility to look out for their well-being as well as our own. >> couple of comments on twitter. this one says protections must follow animals, not tied to land base. trophy hunting needs to be banned altogether. jim says man is a meat eater and has been since the beginning. our brain needs that type of protein. from carol, i cannot abide killing animals for sport and must tune out this segment. so long for today. >> sorry to lose you, carol, we appreciate your opinion. let's go to michael in ohio. >> caller: i was an avid hunter at one time, the more and more i became watching these programs on tv with hunting, i just -- it turned me off to the point of where i don't want nothing to do with it anymore. i see these hunters standing over these majestic animals, such as the deer, the bears, and they end up, after they kill them, they almost high-five each other. they have these orgasmic reaction to the thrill of the kill. it's just become unprecedented to me. i can't deal with it anymore. i can't hunt no more. i don't want to be part of it anymore. i want to thank you for my call. appreciate your time. >> what's your organization seeing in terms of the level of hunting interest. he mentioned tv shows, i guess he is thinking about the outdoor channel. where are we in hunting? >> we are clearly on the decline, and these shows are a representation of the death throes hopefully of this kind of activity. people just like that caller -- and to the caller, thank you very much for giving up hunting. people don't want to -- they don't consider it to be enjoying nature by going out and killing the animals who live in it. people are much more interested in things that are more lucrative like ecotourism, which can bring in as much if not more money than these hunters and their so-called con investigation efforts. ecotourism is taking off around the world. >> what about folks who go out and hunt, the venicen that they shoot, they are using that food. your organization is against that type of hunting? >> if it's subsistence hunting, where they have no other means to support their family, that's one thing. what we're talking about is different. it's a choice. it's a choice to go out and kill animals for your own pleasure, benefit and entertainment. that's reprehensible. >> is it better to get your food through a -- if you have a choice, get your food through a grocery store, the meat has been processed, obviously at a plant or whatever that you view that as better than going out and hunting it for yourself and getting your own food? >> well, what we view is better is people not eating meat at all. contrary to comments of one of the earlier callers, i've been d vegan for 25 years, perfectly healthy, and it's just a myth that you have to eat meat to have a well-balanced diet. a well-balanced, vegan diet is a wave of the future and it's better for the environment and it's better for your health and better for the animals. >> let's go to mount terrace, washington, and paul is with us. good morning. >> good morning. hi. i just had a comment. i -- i'm so disgusted with this hunter. i grew up in a family of hunters and it's shameful what this guy has done and it's waiting for the deer to come with your beer in your hand and killing them. it's embarrassment, as a hunter and as a meat eater, i'm embarrassed, and i would think this guy should be embarrassed, too. most of the hunters that i know are very good at protecting the forests, the wildlife and all that, but i have known a few that are like this guy that are trophy hunters and we always ate all our venison. we made sure we used the whole animal. there are certain things you do. we were taught how to use firearms, first and you don't take a shot until you make sure you have a kill shot. we no longer hunt anymore, but i'm not opposed to it if it's done properly. this is embarrassing. anyway, that's my comment. and i also don't believe that peta is a terrorist organization. thank you very much for that comment. >> i don't really care if palmer is embarrassed or not. what i care about and what peta cares about and what caring people all over the planet care about is that he be extradited and that he face the charges and that he face the appropriate punishment for what he has done. >> the president of zimbabwe who is a graduate student and running in "the new york times" and the people protesting the death of cecil the lion. also related to that is a story from "the washington post" about the president of zimbabwe. mugabe said people failed to protect cecil the lion, robert mugabe is used to speaking about the evils of imperialism, and on monday addressing the nation he found what he deemed a contemporary example of killing cecil the lion. be warned, some are here to regularly and illegally acquire these resources and what has zimbabwe done in the wake of this particular killing to change their policy towards trophy hunting. unfortunately, was there a ban on it for a short time, only about ten days and it was lifted and every true conservationist and the person who cares about protecting animals of zimbabwe was outraged, and we would call on them to ban or suspend trophy hunting in that country, but there is some truth in that and that is what i said earlier. this is modern-day colonialism. these are again, rich, over-privileged, over-blown people, usually white, usually from the united states or europe who are going down there, paying all this money and out of some bizarre notion of privilege, feel that these animals and these countries and these people there are there for their taking, for their use, for their exploitation as they see fit and those days are over. >> here's tom who is a hunter in erie, pennsylvania. hi, tom. >> i want to clarify first that i'm a former hunter, but i called on this line because my sons and friends still hunt quite a bit, and it is -- it's a big thing in this area, northwestern pennsylvania is beset with deer, but i have to tell you that there was a time back a few years ago where the insurance companies were all over the game commission to loosen up the hunting laws because the deer were driving them broke on our highways and i travel to work at 4:00 in the morning, and i see true to country, and i see road kill all over the place, but i have to say that the deer population is down right now, and there is a balance here that can be recognized by -- by some intelligent conservation, and i don't -- i rather watch deer than hunt them now, even though i used to hunt them and i don't -- i wouldn't take that away from my friends and family that still hunt. >> tom, may i ask you, do you think the deer population is down there because of these, because of deer hunting policies in your part of the state? >> yes. i think it has come back down considerably, but it's not just that. i work with some guys who say they were there when the game commission brought in a flatbed truck full of coyotes and let them loose in the woods and it's just part of conservation. >> we'll get a response, thanks for your call. again, i think what he's describing there is the cause of the problem is our encroachment increasingly on the habitat of these animals. it's not like these animals are saying i'm going to play dodge cars with traffic in the street and it's human beings continually encroaching into these populations and the responsibility is ours to find humane, non-violent, non-lethal means of living cooperatively with deer and other wild life. >> this comment on twitter and a conservationist doesn't need an animal's head as a trophy. >> we go to fort lauderdale florida and liz. hello there. >> hi. i just wanted to say that i don't think people would like it very much if they were lured out of their protected homes by a delivery man, quote, unquote gone postal holding their mail as bait or xbox or playstation and then getting shot. and they are false analogies about lions and humans. there are 7 billion of us and over 20,000 of them. thank you for taking my call. that comment goes directly to what we talked about earlier. these are one of the earlier callers called it lawn chair hunting. that's what's going on here. these people are being driven out by these guides. they know where these animals are and they are just willy-nilly killing these animals up close. again, many times at night using nig lights to blind them just to cut off their heads and take their skins. it's deplorable. >> mike from texas. mike, welcome. >> thank you. good morning. thanks for taking my call. i was a former hunter and was not very good at it. i didn't enjoy it much. i have a question for your guest about not necessarily hunting and bullfighting and dogfighting and that kind of activity. there's cultures that glorify that, and i think it's sick. i'd just like to hear what you have to say. >> thank you for the call and the question. the caller is absolutely right that there are still bullfights and there is dogfighting, but fortunately, that's changing dramatically. spain used to be the haven for bullfighting and cities throughout that country have outlawed and have stopped bullfighting and that's clearly where things are going. it's the rare exception where bullfights are still going on and caring, animal protection advocates and people all over the world are fighting against it, and of course, we all know the horrors of dogfighting and it's a federal crime. we all know the michael vick story of how terribly those animals were exploited and abused and there's no room for it in the civilized society at all. >> here's bill who is in chasy, new york. good morning. >> good morning. i have one comment. it's been mentioned several times this morning that man has an instinct to hunt and prey, and i think that's true, and i think we do have to recognize that. however, i also believe that we have evolved and we've evolved into superior intellect, some people have and that, you know, given the present state of the world, we need to overcome this and do things that are more commensurate with keeping the world balanced and safe. thank you. >> that's what i was talking about earlier of our higher responsibility and our higher obligation to care for these animals and live in harmony with them and there are many things human beings used to do for thousands of years that we've evolved beyond and our interaction with animals is the next version of the civil rights movement in this country as we are learning to peacefully coexist with animals and respect them not as our inferiors, but as our co hab tants of this planet. >> jeff cur is general counsel for the ethical treatment of animals and you can follow him on peta.org. thank you for being here this morning. >> my pleasure. thanks for having me. >> that will do it for "washington journal," see you tomorrow and we hope you have a great day. we'll see you then. c-span3 programming today focuses on law and criminal justice. next, a discussion on incarceration and race. they look at reversing the trend of overcriminalization, particularly in communities of color and how incarceration perpetuates poverty, after that, reverend al sharpton, tvone's roland

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Arkansas , United States , Chad , Arlington , Texas , Delaware , Minnesota , California , Zimbabwe , New Tripoli , Pennsylvania , Park Hills , Missouri , Washington , District Of Columbia , Erie , Arizona , Massachusetts , Iowa , Elon , Virginia , Sacramento , Ireland , Spain , Chicago , Illinois , South Africa , East Liverpool , Ohio , New York , Philadelphia , Florida , Wisconsin , Michigan , Seattle , Mississippi , Denver , Colorado , Seoul , Soul T Ukpyolsi , South Korea , Kenya , Idaho , Houston , Orlando , Americans , America , Zimbabwean , Zimbabweans , Irish , American , Ben Carson , John Burr , Al Sharpton , George Mason , Ronald Reagan , Rick Perry , Dodd Frank , Michael Farris , Mike Farris , Ford , Chuck Todd , Jeff Kerr , Rohit Chopra , Lynn Cheney , Walter Palmer , Steven Moore , Michael Vick , Peter Schroeder Cho , Jerry Springer , Bernie Sanders , Harper Lee , Freddie Mac , Michael Barton , John Jackson , Jeb Bush , Henry Ford , Bloomberg Businessweek , Ashlee Vance , Elizabeth Warren Bernie Sanders , Carly Fiorina , Martha Stewart , Hillary Clinton ,