host: this is the story this morning. new hampshire republicans did a preview of 2016. an unusually early event for 2016 accelerated, even with today's electoral calendar. coming to conservatives to pitch their product, coming to them live over the weekend, it is on our website, the freedom summit it took place in manchester, new hampshire. also, congressman paul ryan, the chair of the budget committee in cedar rapids. early caucus states. all of this coming even before the midterm elections in november. we will get to your calls and comments in a moment. first a look at the other sunday morning programs starting at noon eastern time on c-span radio. nancy callow is standing by. good morning, nancy. >> on today's sunday tv talk shows, so the topics include the first anniversary of the boston marathon bombing, the retirement of kathleen sebelius, politics in an off election, and foreign affairs. you can hear rebroadcast of the program beginning at noon eastern with "meet the press care co-guests include ed markey democratic representative donna edwards, and the former boston police commissioner edward davis. at 1 p.m. it is "this week," with rand paul, deval patrick and ambassador to the united nations, samantha power. at 2:00, "fox news sunday," including tim scott, sheldon whitehouse, the ranking member on the ways and means committee sander levin and charles missed danny of louisiana. "state of the union" follows at 3 p.m., with the chairman of the democratic campaign committee and the chairman of the national republican congressional committee. "face the nation" from cbs with marsha blackburn at 4 p.m. with a elijah cummings of maryland. the sunday network tv talk shows are on c-span radio, brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. again, rebroadcast of the shows begins with "meet the press" at one em, "this week" at 2 p.m. " 3:00 with "fox news sunday," and "face the nation" at four :00 on cbs. across the country, listen on xm satellite radio channel 120 download our free app for your smart phone, or listen online at c-span.org. host: it is early, but we have this from the w m you are page. yesterday at the institute of politics talking about running for president in 2016, regardless of what hillary rodham clinton decides to do. james kindle is the political director for w m you are, he is joining us live from the hampshire. thank you for being with us. it seems early. guest: it really does. we have never had these really large-scale events so early in the cycle. this particular event happened yesterday. the last cycle occurred one year from now. this is actually the second one this year, last month the new hampshire republican party have their own cattle call of nine presidential candidates coming through. particularly on the republican side, there is an energy to get this thing on and going. there is an interesting dimension here, new hampshire with its primary has never been in the stronger position. every four years we hear about another state challenging in 2008. during this time the democrats were headed around the country but right now it does not appear that anyone is challenging on the horizon. if there is something easier for these kids it is to come to new hampshire, knowing it will be a safe that. host: you are looking at a february or early march primary? >> correct. the date is set by one person. secretary of state bill gardner has not set a date. but republicans have particularly set a date in february, which would move back the primary. the last three times it has been in january and has been very close to january 1. this would move back to process a bit. we will have more time to read. host: the freedom summit took place yesterday, put together by americans for prosperity and the koch brothers. how much influence will outside billionaires plates in new hampshire politics? guest: --we have this -- caller: we have these events put together from the koch brothers, but the messages from the candidates are very populous. even ted cruz was talking about income inequality. you might hear from bill de blasio. you are not talking about outcomes. they are talking about opportunities. rand paul had the same message. everyone in the crowd was asked to raise their hands and declare how many had lost a job. the party needs to address people's concerns. a bold statement. i don't know if he was trying to be ironic or not. the republican party has never been about plutocrats, even though they have -- even though they are at the koch brothers event. he is trying to open up the party. while the whole thing was framed by folks like the koch brothers the candidates themselves are delivering a very different message. host: it was estimated that there were about 700 people in attendance for the event. who were these individuals? caller: a lot of them were the standard grassroots activists, but i must say the first person announced to appear at this event was rand paul. there was a heavy ron paul rand paul libertarian presence in the crowd. by the way, you mentioned burner -- bernie sanders. it was really surprising. we talked about this big scale event the c-span broadcast live with 700 people, bernie sanders shows up across town at a college. about 300 400 people. i was completely surprised by that. they were flying people in to see him, i was not expecting that. host: that event will be airing tonight on c-span television, prime time, you can check it out later in the day. let me ask you about senator sanders. last week his staff was very direct, saying that he was thinking about running for president. he told supporters yesterday that if he does run, the decision of hillary running or not running you have no effect on his own decision. caller: he is in an interesting position. he could be the only democrat -- technically in independent, but he could be the only democrat who benefits politically if she runs. if she runs, he may be the only as a challenge to her. if she does not run the limelight shines on his more progressive agenda with a lot of people, possibly elizabeth warren, who could raise more money than he could, but the passion and energy from the left at this event was very interesting. democrats running for election this year don't have any primaries. then they look for the presidential race and they say hillary hillary, hillary. they want their voice to be heard. that may be what is going on here. very unexpected. host: before we let you go the senate race and it am sure, it is official after months of speculation that scott brown is running. give us a real quick snapshot of what the polls are indicating. host: there are three u.s. senators running in this race. the former senator from massachusetts homily the incumbent senator, and then bob smith, the senator who held this very seat for two terms. scott brown is one of the best retail candidates in new hampshire i have ever seen. he will be going up against the most organized and best put together campaign organization if he wins the nomination. in the latest poll that we came out with from the university of new hampshire chose jeanne shaheen up by six percentage points. fundamentally scott brown is more disliked than likely new hampshire. caller: i guess this is called --host: i guess this is called job security in new hampshire. [laughter] thank you for getting up early i appreciate your being with us. we want your calls and comments on all of this. what does it mean for the republicans and the democrats? we are already getting some of your comments on our twitter page. host: from our facebook page there is this -- host: kevin is joining us from merriam, massachusetts democratic line, good morning. caller: good morning. i think we need some conservative values. some pro-candidates in the republican party. either rubio or, i don't know, any other fiscally conservative to just take us out of this mess . we have had this stagnation for years. people have lost their homes lost jobs. you know, what is the answer? we need a republican candidate to whip us out of this mess we are in right now. i mean, the democratic party in my area, we have got 70% on ebt cards. no jobs, no home. we need a candidate, like a ronnie reagan to get us out of this mess. host: thanks for the call. michael says this -- host: will smith has this story from manchester, "firing up the party faithful." he writes -- "stepping up all the available tickets, this would be called in a list of national republican figures in manchester. they found a receptive audience for criticism of the president, the affordable care act, and most things democratic. here is a portion of what he had to say yesterday. [video clip] >> want to know where the country is? the late-night comics are good barometer. last fall jay leno said [to impression] -- doing impression] president obama called me, he said jay, if you like your job you can keep it. [laughter] a couple of weeks later, jay went back to the same fame -- theme. he said [doing impression] holidays are coming up, during the first thanksgiving the pilgrims said to the indians that if you like your land, you can keep it. [laughter] let me tell you something, as a result of the men and women in this room, the result of the millions of men and women standing up saying that the it up -- that obamacare is hurting americans, i am convinced that we are going to repeal every single word of obamacare. host: senator ted cruz, complete with his jay leno impersonation yesterday. by the way, you can watch the entire event on our newly redesigned website. we hope that you check it out, it is mobile friendly. from our facebook page, a couple of comments. host: on the democratic line, lynn ohio. caller: i can't believe that anyone would consider the jokes on tv by running for republicans just by classifying. president obama was right. mention god and guns and you have them in your hip pocket. these people that call from the south, you can't even understand them. we are handing out too much money? come to find out, they are the ones who are getting it all. rand paul is and i ayn rand -- he hydro -- he idolizes her. she hated social security. of course, she wound up dying on it when he -- when she needed it. he hates the jews. he discriminates against blacks. so did his father. he says he is not for defense he wants no defense. host: thank you for the call. jan has this -- meanwhile, jake sherman over the weekend posted this story online , with a photograph of the house budget committee -- the chairman of the house budget committee. paul ryan is having a speech here on his second trip to the hawkeye state since losing in 2012. he said one reason that he and mitt romney could not talk to the president was that they had to shadowbox against big government. now he says that big government is the practice. here is a portion of what all ryan said on friday evening an iowa. [video clip] the prince of -- >> the principles that made this country great are timeless. the progressives have overplayed their hand. they want us to delegate our authority to some faceless bureaucrat. we now know that that's not how it works. we had to go back and say that this is our plan to balance the budget and our plan to pay off the debt. the tax code will let you keep more of your hard-earned monday -- hard-earned money. millions of energy jobs stopping the government from the great energy boom from happening. this is how you have an american with respect. you don't just manage poverty but you go after the root cause and get people out and first place. we believe in outcomes. we have to be not just the good opposition party we have to be a great alternative party. we have to show that these ideas, these principles, which made us so great in the first place, which we swore allegiance to when we pledged, that they are as relevant today as they ever were before. host: congressman paul ryan was back in cedar rapids on friday evening. focusing on jobs and the economy, a tough couple of days on wall street, focusing on the new normal for the jobless pointing out that many of the 3.7 million people out of work for six months or longer, the long-term unemployed now at two point 7 million americans. 5.9 million americans came discouraged and dropped out of the labor force completely. those millions of people are in the shadow of the financial crisis, a grim reminder of the shock created by the worst recession in generations. meanwhile, an editorial this morning from inside "the new york times." focusing on the breakdown of the millennial's and those who are in a workforce but very underpaid, according to "the new york times." a median household income for the age group is about $51,000 from 2012, $8,000 less than 2000 , 12 years ago. the editorial is called recovery for who? john joins us from sebring florida. good morning. caller: how you doing? give me a couple of seconds. if the republican party keeps shoving these illegal aliens down our throat, i have heard that jeb bush is married to a mexican. we are going to drop out of the republican party and we are not even going to vote. we are sick of these illegal aliens stealing everything we have got. 4.3 billion of child income tax credit. coming in from mexico. jeff sessions is the only one i have heard talk about it. him and gomer from texas. this is getting ridiculous on trying to get all of these illegal aliens. there are these millions of republicans to keep trying to shove the illegals down our throat. host: also in attendance yesterday at that event in the hampshire, cq weekly, focusing on the tax crackdown. dodging the irs getting riskier. again, tuesday is the deadline to file for your federal income taxes. last thursday, focusing on the rise of legalizing pot. inside, an interview with jill biden talking that everything including her six years as second lady of the united states. jackie joins us from providence, rhode island. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. first of all, the lady from ohio made an interesting comment that rand paul hates jews. i don't know if that is true or not. that is out of the statement. the main reason i'm calling i am supporting one person for president because he is not under the control of wall street. his name is brian schweitzer. he is a brilliant guy. he is an earth scientist. i believe he is the former governor of montana, correct me if i am wrong. he is a man that believes in freedom. rand paul does, too, but i think that rand paul would be more under the thumb of wall street. big money. no matter if it is on the democrats side with mr. soros or the republican side, with the koch brothers who are libertarians. as a democrat, i happen to be a libertarian. one other i like that i do not agree with, i like senator sanders from vermont. he is highly intelligent, he is not a hater. i don't agree with him, but he is a good guy. hillary clinton is in the pocket of wall street. but the liberals will say that. lock stock, and barrel. have a good day, sir. host: jack, thank you for the call. this from richard -- the last time the republicans were in charge, to unfunded wars and the collapsed economy of 2008. they want that? from auburn, new york, alexander, good morning. caller: thank you for having me. i am 24. i have been following ron paul since i was 16. my friends are not even really political. the test of liberty movement is important to young people as we are the ones who are dealing with this very upside down economy. for a lot of the guest speakers at the freedom summit, they really don't stand for real liberty. look at their contradiction in their speeches. it is so out of place it would be the equivalent of. democrat speak. i like ron paul. i think the liberty movement is going in a great direction. hopefully the gop can, you know, capitalize on that and really push the party towards that and get away from this neocon element that has been trying to influence it. we could have a lot of great things happen to the country. the reason they have them in new hampshire, if you look at new hampshire, it is a very libertarian state. new hampshire, they have no income tax, no sales tax. it is the highest quality of life in the country. the lowest poverty rate. 4.9% unemployment. i think the rest of the country has to look to this liberty philosophy as a means of solving a lot of the problems we are having. host: thank you, you were referring to rand paul? caller: i like ron paul a lot. rand paul, i would not consider him totally libertarian. again, maybe it is just for the means of trying to get the nomination. i agree with the last caller from rhode island, who was very articulate. very smart. i would probably would vote for rand paul over hillary. i don't consider him as principled as his father. host: thank you for the call from upstate, new york alexander. lots of calls, you can join in on the conversation on our facebook page or call in. john says -- host: carl is joining us from hedge bill, west virginia. caller: i like paul ryan and ben carson for president and vice president. i watched a movie the other night called "enemies of the state." it was about this lady in texas. she and her husband have a business. she decided to farm this organization and ask for tax exemption. immediately the obama administration set the irs down there. tobacco and firearms went down there. you know, i spent six years in the marine corps. i thought i was fighting for freedom. when the federal government can observe this kind of power -- exert this kind of power over a citizen of the united states you see what is going on out there? this irs thing has got me fired up. i think everyone in the united states ought to know about it. even congressman cummings went down there to investigate this woman. this is getting ridiculous. host: thank you for the call. this point from jan -- host: by the way, congressman ron paul was the one-time libertarian presidential nominee. a look of the other headlines this sunday morning, three reasons for -- three recent credit debts three recent tragedies front and center. the stabbing that took place in murrysville, shaken and resilient is a front-page story headlined. the photograph of those who were injured on that fateful day. the suspect is set to be trialed as an adult, 16 years old. the front page of "the boston globe" is looking at the upcoming anniversary of the boston marathon bombing. the front page of "the l.a. times," focusing on the uncertainty after that fatal boat crash reports that the fedex truck was already on fire before it hit and killed a total of 10 people. next is boyd, joining us from moorestown, tennessee. talking about some potential republican presidential hopefuls. host: --good morning -- caller: good morning, sir. i like ron paul. but rand paul, i think he is not quite like his father. but i think you will be a lot better than what we have now. i think that huckabee is a pretty honest man. he will tell you the truth, whether you like it or not. there ought to be a straight tax , we should get rid of the irs. we might give hope to get back on track in this country. you know, another thing that really gets me is -- why. they blast out racist comments like they do. you know? to me that is racist. host: thank you for the call. robert is next in gray court south carolina. caller: republicans seem to be antigovernment. what would they replace our current government with? if they could answer that, i would appreciate it. host: thank you for the call. jeb bush, ushering in the return of "compassionate conservative." last weekend george herbert walker bush was honored. he said that immigrants who come to this country do so as an act of love, to put food on the table for their families. he indicated he would make a formal announcement at the end of this year as to whether or not he would run for president in 2016. more from the event over the weekend. [video clip] >> some say that we just need to dilute our message, ok? be a little more like the democrats. anyone think that is a good idea? what -- >>[crowd shouting] no. >> our problem is not that we are twofold. the problem is we are too timid. [applause] you go to washington and what passes for a vote is -- we are for revenue neutral tax reform. frankly, i don't care. if that is what you are for i will go back to kentucky to be an eye surgeon. i want nothing to do with the timidity of revenue neutral tax reform. [applause] i want nothing to do with budgets that never balance. i don't care if it is republican or democrat. i want nothing to do with budgets that never balance. [applause] now, some say -- well, we can defend the second amendment, but let's just ignore the fourth amendment. let's defend the second amendment, but that first amendment is not for conservatives. hogwash, the whole bill of rights, that's what were here for. [applause] some will say -- we don't have enough money for welfare or entitlements, but we have plenty of money to bail out and give corporate welfare. hogwash. we should not be sending one penny to rich companies. [applause] we send $20 billion in direct subsidies to companies. corporate welfare should once and for all be ended. [applause] the top 100 companies in our country average $200 million apiece. and you have got republicans in washington saying -- xm, we have to be for that. rich companies don't need your money. it is an insult to those among us who say we don't have enough money for these other programs but we have enough for our rich friends. if you want to be consistent, if you want to grow the movement we cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people, and wall street. host: senator rand paul deliver those comments yesterday. you can see the event in its entirety on our website, c-span.org. we are talking about republican presidential hopefuls. paul is on the phone. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you for c-span. i wanted to answer the democrat from south carolina's question what would republicans like to replace his government with. we would like to replace it with an efficient one. on the balances budgets, one that passes budgets. but i really do listen. i really like jeb bush. he made a great governor down here. but i agree with his mom. he is qualified, he would make a great president. but, you know? we need more than three families influencing what goes on in this country. i really like rand paul. i find it kind of ironic that the republicans who are always criticize look at the number of potential candidates, all the governors, the senators -- who do the democrats have? one person. clinton. if joe manchin were to run as a democrat, i might think about switching parties. hey, steve. you guys do great. c-span is the best ways to get unfiltered news. keep up the good work. host: thank you for the call, paul. jim has this point -- host: well, if we are a bit happier here today in "washington -- year in washington, d c, spring has finally arrived. inside "the washington post," "cherry blossoms at their peak over the weekend." the tidal basin is full of viewed -- full of visitors tried to capture the beauty during this spring weekend. there is a related story to all of this, inside "the washington post" website, a photo project dealing with autistic children and put together by an organization called "in focus." a program of community services for autistic adults. some of the photographs over the weekend, looking at those who came to the tidal basin showing their talents and artistic abilities at the sight of the cherry blossoms. you can check out the story and the project online. mike is joining us from south carolina. good morning, democratic line. caller: as a democrat i would probably vote for jeb bush, chris christie, and potentially rand paul. i would have to figure out more about where he is headed. as opposed to the other extremists in the republican party. and also as opposed to several of the democratic potential candidates, like hillary clinton and joe biden. host: thank you for the call. an anniversary as well. the anniversary of "the eiffel tower" inside of "the washington post." good morning. caller: earlier i heard a comment about passionate republicans, an idea that i completely support. if i could get a republican to drop the christianity. i hate to say it, i am a christian myself, but the gay marriage? maybe the more socialized view of republicans. less extremists, in that sense. keep the old-school goldwater republican party. on top of that, i say the joe manchin should not be underestimated. thank you very much. host: thank you. ramon joins us from front royal, virginia. good morning, republican line. are you with us? caller: i am. very interesting program. the comment that the person made about ben carson being vice president, i am disappointed that coburn is dropping out. he is such a good, good man. bernie sanders? my goodness, no. jeb bush? i like jeb bush. i am sorry about his mother's comment. i think he is very good. so much big political working against him. i don't know. but we have got to get a good republican in there. host: thank you for the call. you're the second person to make a reference to the comments made by former first lady, barbara bush, who sat down with us last year as part of our first lady series. you can check out that interview in our video library. also this morning from "the new york times close vote one of the books you might be reading this week might be "thrive," by arianna huffington. also michael lewis, with an interview in "the new york times." the newsmakers program follows "washington journal" and this week our conversation is with bob goodwin, the chair of the house judiciary committee. a lot of attention on the back and forth tween one member of that committee and the attorney general. [video clip] >> it is always wise for people to not make things personal. i think you're heard to the attorney general as the? not many people believe that he is a buddy of the attorney general. as a result, that was not well advised. but he did come and answer questions from 34 members of the committee on why issues. we have a lot of concerns on the conduct of the department of justice. we thought it was a good opportunity to raise those concerns with the attorney general and from that standpoint it was successful. host: -- >> chairman, let me ask one more question on that subject. eric holder made a speech in which he referred to unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly and divisive adversity. he specifically referred to his appearance before the house committee. what do you make of him being miffed by the way he was treated by your committee? >> first of all, we welcome the attorney general to the committee. when he left the last words he said to me was that he felt he had been treated fairly by me in the conduct of the hearing. certainly, with many controversial issues related to executive overreach, with actions by the administration in general the attorney general in particular, many people around the country, certainly many members of the committee think they are beyond the scope of what the attorney general is entitled to do. in his responsibility to uphold the laws of the country, those questions were bound to occur. i think that those kind of frank exchanges are important in the representative democracy that we have. host: you can watch the entire interview with the chairman of the house judiciary committee following "washington journal." also heard on c-span radio. meanwhile, politico is reporting that vice president joe biden will be traveling to ukraine as the situation continues to intensify. we will have more on the ukrainian situation, coming up. tracy is joining us from albany, georgia. good morning. caller: i'm a democrat, i would like to see joe biden run for president. but i feel that these presidents , like chris christie, i think they will be disenfranchised. thank you. host: thank you for the call. let's go back to that story, this is from yahoo! the vice president will be traveling to moscow. "any armed action would undermine efforts at a diplomatic solution and put land peace talks at risk. this follows the development of the white house announcing over the weekend that the vice president will be traveling to ukraine, dealing with the government in transition and that part of the world. joe, south carolina, good morning, welcome to the program. caller: i am one of those people from the south that the lady from ohio cannot understand when we call in. let me see if she can understand this. my youngest son has been looking for a job for quite a while. he is looking for a job that offers over 30 hours or week. i wonder why. because of the affordable care act. bringing small business to its knees, let me go a step further. this is the impression we are from democrats. we get the impression that democrats, without any thought drank the kool-aid. i wonder she was in the house at the time of the affordable care act was being put forward. would she have voted for the document without reading it? that is the difference between republicans and democrats. we feel like with republicans you are either in the family or you are not. when you get to washington if you do not get in with the family, your political future is dead. republicans are different. we will break ranks. we are fed up with a way that some republicans are behaving. host: do you think that a rand paul or a ted cruz could win a federal election? caller: i don't. let me go a step further, if i can. lindsey graham is from here. i don't like lindsey graham. he is entrenched. he has seniority. we have got a primary coming up. he has got six people coming up against him. he just got a big donation from her for rum and. for the heck of it i looked up their website. you can do it. they just got a big helicopter contract. let's go a step further. the mood of the show is -- we are in transit right now. until we get away from that, we are in trouble. a gentleman called and talked about being addicted wall street. i have called before, i note you probably don't remember, i am completely fed up with the two-party system. i would like someone who would except no more than 200 and adopt -- $200 from any individual. we have got to get out of this two-party mindset. the whole bunch our calls and -- causing these problems. host: thank you. he mentions the race in south carolina. "the new york times" has a piece on that this morning. eight candidates running for that challenge. kay hagan included. it is one of those vulnerable seats. it could determine the makeup and 2013. we will be covering all the states on c-span. meanwhile, "the washington post" has a look at what they have called "an unfinished presidency." it begins with something recounted, "what is the presidency held for? that is lbj going for civil rights legislation in 1964, an election year. dan ball reporting that as president obama spoke to capture the essence of the presidency, he also was hoping for something from his own presidency. that is the perception this morning from "the washington post." good morning. caller: i am a pretty strong republicans. i think the two-party system is doing is this justice instead of justice my vote for someone who is independent and is a strong leader is rand paul. he tells it like it is. i am tired of the bushes. anytime the bushes get in there the economy goes down. i would not support another bush running. host: ok. the head of the cable television association and fcc is the subject of the business section of "the washington post." it is called "the free wheeler." he oversees communications from radio, television, cable. to get his message across, he leans on candor and a megaphone. barry joins us on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i would probably choose ted cruz. i know that is off for a democrat to say that, but the chait -- the choices are so good in the republican party for running against hillary clinton it is hard to pick. ted cruz is the best example of the hardhearted nature of conservatives right now. there are 20 of other examples of the shortsighted, narrowminded views as well. i hope rick santorum gets a lot of play during the debates as well. host: if ted cruz and rand paul both run, do they balance each other out? caller: frankly, as a person who is fiscally conservative, i do kind of like rand paul's views but frankly his ideas of small government only stops so far as it applies to women. in the sense of freedom of choice, the ability to birth control, those kinds of things, i think that will hurt him when he runs against hillary clinton. host: 80 for the call. this is a tweet from michael -- host: lakeland, florida, jim, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. one person affected my obamacare, he has a small business. that's the only person affected by obamacare in my family. not me. medicare part d was worth the legislation that was brought up. when they passed medicare part the, i had a wonderful prescription program where we could keep if we liked it. well, i wanted to keep it, but the company quit offering it. i had to go to the veterans administration for the first time in my life. i am 85 years old. just to get my medicine. my wife had to get on medicare part d. she had to pay more for medicine, less a premium for discount pharmacies. host: jim, thank you for the call. senator tom coburn will be our guest tonight on q&a. we have this from one of our viewers. host: tomorrow night, prime time, by the way, a look at the operation from the nsa spying tactics, including michael hayden, among our guests at 8:00, eastern time. you can check out all of our scheduling information on our website. we are going to dig a short break and when we come back we will continue the conversation on politics and midterm elections. stephan is going to join us, -- kellyanne conway and stefan hankin are going to join us. we will give an update on the developing situation in ukraine later on with kurt volker. you are listening to "washington journal" for the sunday, april 13. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> there is no question that congress routinely and the administration routinely does not speak the truth to the american public. it is not just about the inaccuracies on affordable health care. it is the absence of speaking the truth about where we are. where are we? we are now at a standard of living the same as we had in 1988. per family, we now have unfunded obligations and data on -- around one point $1 million. that needs to be spoken so that we can build the context of the tough things coming. the biggest problem i see with congress is the denial of reality. you can still be a good person and deny reality. we all have flaws. we all deny reality's in some sense in our lives every day because we don't want to face them. the fact is that we have not have the leadership in this country in a long time. i am talking presidential and congressional. that would stand up and tell the truth to the american public about the situation we find ourselves in. i pretty well have my idea of what the problem is. >> senator coburn, on the reasons for his retirement from the senate at the end of this session, tonight at 8:00. on "q&a." >> i think we need something akin to the grace commission during the reagan administration , or the brad commission realigning during the clinton administration. an outside group with integrity, former members of congress, no current politicians coming in to do a complete audit of the government top to bottom. every agency of the government has a piece of legislation or charter that created it. it has a purpose. if it is not fulfilling the purpose or doing it within a reasonable budget, it should be cut or eliminated. head start, this came in with the highest motivation. did you know? there are now three head starts. there is early head start enhanced headstart, and regular head start. why did we have the other two? the first one wasn't working. why did we have the other one? the second one was working. >> paul thomas, on fixing a broken washington, tonight at 9:00. immediately following, a heritage party book party as he signs his book. "booktv" every weekend on c-span two. host: joining us the sunday morning, kellyanne conway and stefan hankin. thank you both for being with us. >> good to be here. >> let's begin with this piece from "abc news." this comment from jeb bush continues to get a lot of attention. first of all, a final decision on whether he will run, coming later this year, plus this comment on immigration, saying it is an act of love. his remarks could be a 2016 problem. your assessment? >> it probably will be. especially in the early primaries and caucuses. recall governor rick perry who said to me after he bowed out of the race that he didn't think is a loop some moment was as fatal as when he recused the republic -- accused the republicans of not having a hard on immigration. he said he got a lot of backlash on that comment. he was the governor of texas. it will be a problem. it also just reveals that one cannot be rusting. you have to think these issues through before you make comments like that. what i have to give jeb bush credit in one regard, which is that many of these politicians -- i know governor mike pence years ago talked about immigration policy. senator rand paul, probably running in 2016, he has said that we are way past deportation . i do think that you see a warming among some republican presidential candidates that somewhere between immediate deportation, amnesty somewhere between them needs to lie republican policy. i think that immigration is a policy issue will continue into the 2016 elections. probably very little will get done in terms of meaningful policy in the administration. but it is also going to be a difficult issue for the democrats as well. many americans are worried about their own jobs, their own livelihoods. they would absolutely laugh at anyone saying the border is secure. border security first, but americans are also very tuned into the other parts of immigration policy that affect immigrants. you know what americans want? they want fairness. fairness to the immigrants instead of lying. fairness to the people who are here. fairness to the illegal immigrants making contributions to our country but perhaps broke the law in coming here. until we have an honest recognition and conversation around that, we will probably not get much policy done. host: the republican national committee has said the changes to the immigration law are necessary. many republicans have said that you can get ion 2014, but you cannot win in 2016 unless there are changes to the nation's immigration law. yet you have criticism from some wings of the gop. guest: kelly and has to deal with this more than i do, but you have candidates like former governor bush, putting out a line that is actually much more in line with where americans are and would be much more beneficial to a candidate in the general election, but it makes them tough -- makes it tough for him to win the primary. right now they have the challenge of getting to the primary in the way it is set up right now and then be a viable general election candidate. they have to go so far right is a primary it is almost impossible to swing into the middle come the general election. we saw that with mitt romney in 2012 and it seems like we are seeing a replay of that now. guest: in 2012 you had candidates, like governor perry earlier, newt gingrich, who i worked for in 2012, talking about his famous line, ridiculous to think united states of america is going to go after her grandmother who has been here for 30 years. you see her at church, she is in your community. she is a law-abiding citizen. his point was that in america we should actually look at cases like that differently than the person who just, you know, threatened the life of a border security agent and came over illegally. i can tell you, there was a great deal of support for that. also, mitt romney was successful by coming up with this idea of self deportation, but that was rally panned. there has already been some conversation in the republican party, but the question for me is what the democrats might do in 2016. it seems to me that the argument on most of these politicians is between the hard left and the hard hard left. i am curious as to what the position would be there if president obama's eight years in office fails to reform immigration. >> in his responses he did talk about the immigration issue. here is the portion from cbs's morning this last week. [video clip] >> they broke the law, but it is not a felony. it is-- it is an act of commitment to your family. host: where else does the gop go on this issue? guest: they have to have a real conversation. the administration doesn't seem to want to do anything about it. they said the war on immigration is on women, too. if they win the majority in the senate and the presidency in 2016, it will be incumbent upon them to do something. i think a combination of what senator paul has said, we are way past the poor tatian -- past deportation and not quite what governor bush has said, that everybody needs to accept "acts of love" and you did it for your family. there are different proposals in the house. some have died in the house and senate, as most good ideas do. the idea that we can't treat every single situation the same. you have to look at specific instances. i don't know anybody who pictures us lining up buses the length of the state of california, bus after bus filling them with illegal immigrants who are currently in this country and taking them back to their home countries. that is not america and that is not what people picture. folks who disagree with that should really think about what they are saying. but i will tell you this is an issue that has changed in public opinion over time. women, particularly, do worry about the impact of illegal immigrants in their communities. they are stopped on the street by day laborers circling around their car. they worry about limited resources within the community. that has really changed over time. >>host: this is from a new gallup poll looking at americans the use of health care -- at americans' viesws of health care after kathleen sebelius steps down -- stepped down. the approval numbers are dropping. guest: when it is just a proof/disapprove, i think it doesn't quite show the full -- just approve/disapprove i think it doesn't quite show the full picture. the number that is more important is that you have 2/3 of americans who say they want the law improved. they don't want it repealed. only 30% of americans are looking for the law to be repealed. changes need to be made. the law can always be improved. americans aren't looking for a wholesale repeal, which republicans in the house keep going back to this same drumbeat. we are seeing some good numbers on the sign-up about 9 million people have insurance now that didn't at the end of 2013. it seems to be heading in the right direction. there is asterisk -- disastrous rollout. i think we will see much more favorable numbers. host: kellyanne conway, what was the story behind kathleen sebelius -- was it voluntary or was she forced out? guest: i think they provided her a dignified exit, but they weren't very good to her the five year she was there. secretary sebelius' legacy will be a mixed bag. it will always be seen through the lens of the disastrous rollout of obamacare, now over six months ago. i think they could have gotten rid of her then, but the idea was try to get that sure footing . they also had somebody to put on the hot seat for this congressional investigation. she obviously took the fall for obama. she was reading from talking points saying, this is unacceptable, i accept responsibility. this is indicative overall and we should be concerned of the political team always taking over the policy deciders. even on the sunday shows, they always trot out their people in the white house who the senate hasn't confirmed for a cabinet post. they are so afraid somebody in the cabinet might actually want to talk about the issues. "the washington post" ran a very telling article last fall that talked about even before the rollout date was fixed the health policy folks said this will never be ready, we are not ready. it is massive and huge, so be careful. the political team overtook that. you are seeing that manifest itself now. she will always be associated with the disastrous rollout of obamacare, not the 7.5 million number. she wasn't always given the latitude and the freedom that a secretary, the secretary of hhs needs when you are talking about such a massive change to our health delivery system. host: let me get your reaction to this headline from "the hill" newspaper. independent senator king saying he may flip and the side with the republicans in 2015. right now, he is aligned with democrats. does this surprise you? guest: not really. i think anyone who is surprised doesn't really know angus king very well. he never said he was going with the -- going to caucus with the democrats. i think people assumed he would. if republicans win the majority and he joins them, it will be much better for him and for the state. i don't know if we should necessarily fault him. some on the left are calling him a sellout. we will see what happens. if it comes down to a 50/50 split on election night, angus king will be a very popular man. host: stefan hankin is a democratic strategist, kellyanne conway is a republican strategist. willy from toledo, ohio, the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for letting me through. i would just like to say if it wasn't for the patient protection and affordable care act, there would be millions of people without any health care at all. i'm 78. i had both my hips replaced. and if it wasn't for medicaid and medicare, that would have never happened to me. this lady is talking about sebelius took the fall for obama, but who took the fall for ronald reagan when they had the contra debacle? answer that for me. and iw ou -- and i would take a fall for obama today. host: thanks very much for the call. kellyanne conway? guest: thanks for the call and the question. it is the first time i've heard the air and contra -- the iran contra situation compared to the aca. president reagan took the fall. he said it was a blemish on his presidency. the last couple years were nothing like the first few mainly because of a iran-contra -- because of iran contra. since today post your -- siincence you divulged your health and your age the medicare and medicaid would have existed even without the aca, even in the republican budget. you, thank god, you who got your hips replaced with medicare and medicaid would have had that with or without the aca. host: next caller, good morning. caller: i'm just amazed at the republicans. they are shooting themselves in the foot because they are so interested in a boat that is never going to go their way. hispanics are socialists -- in a vote that is not going to go their way. hispanics are socialists. the democrats are the party of divide and conquer. they always want to have special interest groups. they are certainly not the party of my father. i was a registered democrat until about four years ago in honor of my father. but i left the party many years ago. i saw where this was going. what i never here is who are the 90 million people who were eligible to vote in the last presidential election but who did not vote? if i were the republicans i would be going after them. i wouldn't worry about a hispanic vote that is never going to go their way. who are the 99 is my question? host: we will go to stefan hankin for a response. guest: i don't accept the premise of's -- of hispanics being socialists but outside of that, president obama only won 39% of the white vote, 75% of the hispanic vote, 90% of the african-american vote. if republicans can't get that number but no -- number below 60% of hispanics, they are not going to be the white house, period, end of story. they are not going to do that through white voters. lot of these voters -- a lot of these voters are in states where the presidential race is not even in question. the race comes down to, at best, 10 states, although that is generous i think in calling what are swing states. they don't even know there is a presidential race going on. they are completely ignored. a don't feel there is a good reason to turn out -- and they don't feel there is a good reason to turn out. a lot of people don't feel either party speaks for them they don't feel engaged, they don't feel it makes a difference. both parties would do themselves a favor if they could engage more with these voters, but i won't hold my breath on that. host: kellyanne conway, some comments on the upcoming primaries. "time" magazine focusing on the senate leader. the piece is called, "the humbling of the senate's master." what is your snapshot on this race? the primary is scheduled for may. guest: i think leader mcconnell will be fine in that primary. there should be concerned about running against a somewhat popular, very presentable, articulate female candidate in the general, mainly because the concocted war on women persists and metastasizes to other areas beyond which they intended which was abortion and concepts ion. women voters are smarter than to buy into that, including in kentucky. the trendlines are all republican -- are mostly republican this year heading into the fall. leader mcconnell was a very strong voice against obamacare again and again. that will continue to be a big issue. kentucky is a very special case. you have a democratic governor there who is all-in for obamacare. he may be the most all-in for obamacare governor in the country. we will take the medicaid exchange money. we want more people insured. they are not inviting president obama to do his aca talks in their state. governor patton in kentucky is different. i think that all these primaries -- this is 2014. they will look like 2010 in terms of republican strength. more small business -- pro-small business, and the crown jewel, against the aca. it is no longer something in principle. we are living it. the implementation is there. to the extent that she is for it, she will need to defend that position. you just don't see these primaries shaping up the way you did in 2010, for example, when longtime senator bob bennett in utah was overtaken in the convention situation. we now have senator mike lee there. an open see that produced senator rand paul -- open seat that produced senator rand paul, for example. i don't think that the strength of the republican party is in its primaries. i don't think we should circle the wagons around one candidate where there is an open seat -- competitive primaries where there is an open seat. if you're going to be pro-free-market and pro competition, you have to invite that in your competition in the primaries. host: this morning, ruth marcus, who obviously sides with the president, even in her piece says -- she is calling this a political stunt by democrats saying that republicans and democrats both agree in paycheck fairness and democrats are trying to "gin up" an issue. this is being turned into political football. guest: she is suggesting that politicians are doing something political? i am shocked. that never happens in washington, d.c. i think this is a legitimate issue that needs to be talked about. the democrats -- when democrats do push this narrative, republicans have been doing a pretty good job of foot in mouth disease. not all reptile buttons, but you will get some on camera that say something completely insensitive -- not all republicans, but you will get some on camera that say something completely insensitive. it is an election year. democrats and republicans are going to be doing things that are political. from the ryan budget to this. it is not to say that they are not important or legitimate issues but certainly i would expect everything from now until they go into recess in early fall to be mainly political. host: kellyanne conway, just one quick quote from the piece by ruth marcus, "sheshe says, "the level of hyperbole demagogue is revolting." guest: i love this piece by ruth marcus. everybody is for pay equity, for equal pay for equal work. that is not an issue. it has been protected by law for over 50 years. it was revealed the white house plays -- pays women less than it pays men. all of the unilateral effort by the white house to try to use pay equity as a political spear this week backfired. it backfired because you had honest journalists like ruth marcus and others saying stop mentioning the $.77 on a dollar figure. it has been discredited by nonpartisan economists. one study showed that women aged 35 to 43 who don't have children make about 8 cents more on the dollar per men. there is more equity in tech jobs among millennial's. i thought the most telling poll was the one that -- although you have to continue to make strides toward equity and fairness, they don't see in equity in their own workplaces. -- see inequity in their own workplaces. it was remarkable to me that they wanted to take this on. it was a disaster politically and public-relations wise. stop treating women like victims . i want to know when the democratic party is going to start respecting women from the waist up also. i am not a victim. i fill up my gas tank and the grocery cart every week. i don't have an abortion every week. i'm trying to get my job done and do a good job for the wage i'm earning, not worry about whether somebody who works an hour less than me got five dollars more than me. you're causing conflict. that is not what we need. host: our guest, stefan hankin, democratic strategist in washington d.c., and republican strategist, kellyanne conway, joining us from new york. from augusta georgia, the republican line, something else going on there this week, isn't there? caller: good morning. i just have a question about immigration. jeb bush said "acts of love" for illegal immigrants to come across to help their families is a misdemeanor in our country. if an american citizen commits a misdemeanor as an "act of love," does that mean nothing will be done from here on out for american citizens who disobey -- who commit misdemeanors because they love their families? guest: she is reflecting the views of many americans when you hear that kind of phraseology. it was odd phraseology. it reminded me of the time it when running for president, went to cpac and said "i'm a severe conservative." i think the phraseology itself was unusual. for many americans, offputting. i don't know that most americans and their position on immigration is going to be informed by whether or not breaking the law to be here in this country illegally is a felony or misdemeanor. people are not going to make that distinction. they're going to say we either give them amnesty the democratic position, or we give them a pathway to citizenship but not legal status, some positions of republicans, some of democrats, something close to what marco rubio was trying to do with great rebuff. or we think about serious deportation, try to come back and stand in line like other people are doing. it is interesting to me that you would focus on the phraseology. i think that is what caused that under bush some problems. host: mark stone makes this point. we hear the president talk about the pay gap but nothing about the issue -- nothing to fix the issue. we do have discrimination law. guest: this is a big problem we have in washington. we have issues i would consider very serious issues. i have two daughters. i want to make sure they are going to be treated equally. we have -- cannot have serious discussions about serious issues. everything turns into political football. that is not one party or the other. it is both. this is why we see more people checking out of the system. they are throwing their hands up, completely sick of washington. republicans favorability is somewhere at 12% to 15%. democrats are closer to 30%. these are both big f's when it comes to grading. we are not getting reaction to serious issues. on the republican side i find it disheartening that marco rubio can come out with a serious position on immigration reform and get completely rebuffed. congressman camp can come out with a serious tax reform proposal, not that i agree with it, but i think it was a good start that there ultimately could have been agreement with. but the second it comes out, he is completely smacked down. we are not addressing any of our problems in a serious way. everything is political football because everybody just cares about the next election and nothing else. guest: at least the republicans are introducing legislation. the two examples you just gave were republicans even though they only control the house of representatives. i guess i would ask if you don't like those pieces of legislation and you don't like the way the sponsors of them were treated, where are the democratic lands? i think that is what many americans are asking heading into this fall. your answer to everything cannot be republican this, republican that. i think i will be a big issue into november. host: i guest: i am saying this is a problem on both sides. i'm not giving full accolades to democrats on every issue. i think the american people realize that that both parties are not really being very serious. as a democrat, i feel the positions of the democrats -- i am much more in line with that than the republican side. but very few people are actually standing up and saying, let's have a serious conversation about this. even if you look at the ryan budget there are no more specifics in this plan. i didn't agree with his position or view on finances, but i think it was tough to argue for or five years ago that his budgets weren't serious in his thinking -- to argue four or five years ago that his budgets weren't serious in his thinking. we are not having actual discussions about anything. that is coming from both sides. host: i want to get your reaction to congressman paul ryan, who was in iowa over the weekend. he made remarks in cedar rapids. he pointed out to a very divisive republican party in the state of iowa, going back to my earlier point about the primary challenge in kentucky. there are eight candidates for a senate bid in north carolina. his message was for the iowa gop to unify, unify, unify, adding that he is catholic, and he wants to make sure that some republicans give something up during the lenten season. the story is available online. how divided our some of these republican primaries? -- how divided are some of these republican primaries? guest: they are very divided. it is the open tom harkin seat. a retiring senator of many years. the democrats only came up with one person, congressman bruce braley, who is in his own hot pot of water for insulting farmers. many iowans have that profession. he was at a fundraiser in texas with trial lawyers making fun of senior senator chuck grassley to saying at least if you elect me, you will elect a lawyer. crazy stuff. the fact that you only have one democratic candidate on that side in their primary has put the party in a box. they need to protect this guy and defend indefensible comments. if that happened on the republican side, i assure you that person's status would be diminished. you are not going to elect you. there is strength in -- you are talking crazy. we are not going to elect you. there is strength in numbers. i don't agree that unify means to rally behind one candidate. we do that in a presidential race constantly and we produce losing candidates. i think the republican party has been paying it forward since the last time he was the nominee. let's get rid of this focus on electability. you can't win, she can win who knows that? it robs voters of the right to decide who their nominee's are -- who their nominees are. let them win on their merits. host: good morning, democrats line. caller: good morning. i guess my first question would be to you, but please don't answer. am i supposed to be calling to try and help inform the public or to ask a question? if i just ask a question, they will talk past each other and not really have any real response. what i would like to point out kellyanne was just talking about worrying about voters being able to decide. let's remember the republican party is doing everything possible to prevent as many people from voting if they happen to be democrats. the guy who called in about what happened to the 90 million who didn't vote -- a lot of them are kellyanne's friends in texas who might be poor women who can't afford to take off the day to try and figure out where to get an abortion because the nearest location is so far from them. host: will get a response. thanks for the call. guest: so much to unpack there. i did hear president obama make similar comments this weekend. out is what somebody who hasn't won -- that is what somebody who hasn't won the presidency twice would say. the idea that he would accuse an entire political party or agrees with that party or calls himself a republican of trying to deny people the vote is overbroad and does not apply to most people. it certainly doesn't apply to me. this idea that it is such a burden for people to show an id to vote, as opposed to getting on an airplane or walking in this building today i had to do it, 30 minutes ago -- you show your id everywhere. all the nonpartisan polls show americans overwhelmingly favor having to show an id to vote. the idea that a poor woman in texas would need to go very far to have an abortion -- with all due respect, planned parenthood has a campus, an entire campus, one of its largest, taxpayer-funded campuses in the entire country in texas. it is beautiful, gorgeous, lush, a taj mahal. so, that woman, all she would need to do, is go there or go to a local clinic called "health clinic. -- "health clinic," it would not have the word "abortion," she would need to know that. it is becoming easier to vote not more difficult for people who actually want to vote. the idea that the 90 million people who didn't vote could not figure out how to war that somebody was standing in their way is not true -- how to or that somebody was standing in their way is not true. it was people who, for whatever reason, decided they don't want to vote. for the president to dismiss willy-nilly any instances of voter fraud, where you have -- i think it was very dishonest. host: this is carried live on c-span radio. we welcome our listeners. stefan hankin is a democratic strategist. kellyanne conway is a republican strategist. i want to turn to democratic party politics. wmur's webpage an event that we covered, is airing tonight on c-span television. bernie sanders made an appearance at the new hampshire institute of politics and says yes, he is seriously thinking about running for president. guest: it is a democracy. he has every right to run. bernie sanders represents a viewpoint that should be heard. i think every viewpoint should be heard. if he wants to run, he should go ahead and do it. i don't think he will be a serious contender by any stretch of the imagination, but he represents a voice that is in the democratic party. if he feels like he needs to run to get that voice out, that is his choice. i don't think it is in the republicans' best interest to shut down the tea party view or the far right view. it is a view that should be heard, but what kind of effect is a going to have on the party in the general election? the tea party has been very helpful to the republicans. detrimental in the senate. and it hasn't helped in the presidential race here for the democrats, having a bernie sanders out there 0---- in the presidential race. for the democrats, having a bernie sanders out there is different than having him be election noble -- electionable. host: "schweitzer -- "swieitzer is running. why are the democrats ignoring him?" guest: it hilly -- if hillary clinton decides not to run, it becomes very interesting and we will see what happens. clearly, governor o'malley from maryland is interesting. i'm sure we will have a few other people throw their hat in the ring. many more people involved if she decides not to run. host: kellyanne conway, you made reference to the president, who spoke thursday at austin, texas, at the lbj library. and here is a portion of what the president said friday. >>[video clip] >> the right to vote is threatened today in a way that it has not been since the voting rights act became law nearly five decades ago. across the country, republicans have led others to pass laws making it harder, not easier for people to vote. in some places, women could be turned away from polls just because they are registered under their maiden name but their driver's license has their married name. senior citizens who have been voting for decades may suddenly be told they can no longer vote until they can come up with the right id. in other places, folks may learn that, without a document like a passport or a birth certificate, they cannot register. about 60% of americans don't have a passport. just because you don't have the money to travel abroad doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to vote here at home. [applause] and just to be clear, i know where my birth certificate is but a lot of people don't. [laughter] host: kellyanne conway, the president friday in new york city. your reaction? guest: incredibly disappointing. i can't blame him for wanting to talk about that. when easy actually going to say -- what is he actually going to say, that the aca has worked for you, that the economy is really humming along? i find it disappointing where the president would take any opportunity where they could lift us up and talk about the five years he has been president and all of the great accomplishments, and instead it was all about republicans. even when you are asking about democratic presidential politics, we hear a response about the republicans. i find it incredibly disappointing. i also -- i think a way to say to people some people's access to voting is being threatened, make sure you tell people when election day is, offer to drive them to the polls, offer to do the paperwork with them. i didn't hear a solution. i heard the usual chiding and judgment. host: let me share this essay available online. it is called "obama begins to say goodbye." he says, "constrained by crises over which he has little power to impact, then hemmed in by a divided congress more interested in scoring points with congress than in legislating -- with voters than in legislating the president may be receding into history for quickly than either he or his aides ever anticipated." guest: makes a solid point. when you look at the likely outcome of the upcoming election -- the republicans will hold the house. the senate is very much a coin flip. regardless of whether it is democrats or republicans in charge, it is going to be a close split. host: you sound like a democrat who things the democrats are going to lose the senate. guest: i'm saying it's going to be close. i think we are certainly going to lose a couple of seats. if the election were held today we would lose a couple of seats. there are a lot that are in the tossup range. it could really go either way right now. but either way, whether it is republicans or democrats in charge of the senate, we are not going to be looking at major legislation pieces coming out in the last couple of years, which is somewhat typical for presidents when they are not going to be running for reelection. there is very little interest in actually legislating on both sides. it is just making political points. the second the 2014 election is over, the day after we will start seeing ads for the 2015 -- 2016 candidates. this will keep going for a while. until something dramatic changes in washington. host: on the independent line. caller: thank god for senator sanders. i was a republican for 20 years. i know what a real republican was back before 1980. i see that ernie sanders is the best chance for getting a progressive voice in front of the public -- the bernie sanders is the best choice for getting -- best chance for getting a progressive voice in front of the public. if we could have senator sanders and senator elizabeth warren running for president, then you would get a chance to hear the progressive viewpoint. the point is that the united states is one country in the whole world and we have fallen in many cases, down to the 40th in terms of comparisons between other countries and the united states. we are on our way to becoming a third class country in the world. and i don't hear republicans or democrats facing up to that. and the progressives would, but progressives are locked out of the conversation in the media. if we had sanders and elizabeth warren running for president, at least the cameras would have to stay on while they explain the situation that we are really in and some of the solutions that would help get us out of it. host: more of a comment, not a question, but if you want to respond? guest: as i said before, i think all viewpoints should be heard. that is what a democracy is. when you look at the political spectrum what kind of effect will it have on the overall outcome? yes, there are far left liberals in this country and far right conservatives in this country but the vast majority of people live in the middle and swing to the left on some issues and swing a little to the right on other issues. if the party the -- if the parties become too extreme, that is where it becomes a problem. in 2010 and 2012, they had some candidates putting out some pretty interesting ideas. in 2010, there was a problem for democrats in the house in that they were viewed as way too liberal for a lot of voters. yes, voices should be heard. what kind of effect does it have on the overall party? at the end of the day elections are won by the folks in the middle. host: kellyanne conway, i realize you don't have any say in where the republicans will hold their convention, but a lot of speculation on las vegas. mother jones has a piece titled "relgigious right fears the gop can't handle a national convention in las vegas," saying they are urging republicans to boycott las vegas as the location. there is a conservative blogger who says, "good, christian delegates getting drunk, gambling stuffing dollar bills in strippers' g-strings etc., will be the front page of 'the huffington post' and more." he says, "not to mention the senator might wake up with a tiger in his bathroom." i'm not sure what he is referring to. guest: some movie we haven't seen. i've got to conservative conferences. there has always been a little bit of scuttlebutt but i disagree with the premise that because a christian conservative gets transported into las vegas for a convention that they need to invite in the stereotypical behaviors of las vegas. there are plenty of wholesome things to do in las vegas as well -- to imbibe in the stereotypical behaviors of las vegas. there are plenty of wholesome things to do in las vegas as well. they lost minnesota after they had the convention in st. paul. they had the convention in new york city in 2004 and did not have a shot of winning new york. i would look at the jinx that way as well. i loved the woman who called. she is saying that she doesn't -- she wants the two liberal viewpoints more exposed. i think people like her talking about elizabeth warren and bernie sanders and not hillary clinton is part of why mrs. clinton probably won't run in the end. there are many reasons, frankly. i don't think people like senator sanders and governor sweitzer -- i think that people like senator sanders and governor sweitzer are seeing the blood in the water. i think the bigger battle will be on the democratic side in 2016. host: "can't wait for hillary to run. outside of buying her book him a , $40, maybe she can tell us why she is the greatest secretary of state in history." we will go to hamilton ohio, good morning. caller: i have one comment and one question. my comment is about the paycheck fairness. i believe that it is a political stunt by president obama and the white house. it comes out as a narrative. i think he is just crowd sourcing. i did research here locally with 50 women who work in a factory. they believe he is talking to them. their paychecks are equal to the men simply because they work in a factory environment. they may get a raise according to what position they get but if they work the same as a man they would get the same pay. but they actually believe president obama is speaking directly to them. secondly i have a question about the aca mandate. i was wondering why the republican party is in focusing on the fact that it is unconstitutional, because it is a mandate. when i look at my paycheck and i see the social security tax, the medicare tax, all the other taxes, and then that other tax at the bottom, which is a mandate, and has a penalty attached to it, i was just wondering why the republican party is not focusing on that part. thank you. host: kellyanne conway? guest: thank you, sir. the republicans focused mainly on that all the way up until the supreme court case in 2012. just as a refresher that case said the aca is constitutional under congress' taxing power. they did not say it was constitutional because it is a mandate or not a mandate -- because a mandate is constitutional or not constitutional. if you go back and look at the briefs that were submitted to the supreme court that was a very small point of everybody's brief in the oral argument. i think you've got something. folks are already so sick -- so suspicious of an exhausted with the aca. many people -- married women in particular are so do truly -- married women in particular. it doesn't surprise me they are against it. i think your advice is very good , and the republicans ought to follow it. whether or not the supreme court found the aca to be constitutional entirely separate ground, folks don't like to be told by the government what to do. it is pretty remarkable we would be forced to buy a product or pay a fine for the first time in american history. anytime people picture the government between the patient and the doctor, between themselves and the school-aged child, between the employer and employee with some of these other regulations, that is where americans put their backs up and say enough. they see the government more as an impediment than and in april -- than an enabler. host: they also can't run against it because it is a republican idea. the mandate came out of heritage foundation back in 1994. the idea is that you can't have freeloaders in the system. that is anti-conservative to think that people can just not pay for something and get all the services in the end. you cannot run again something that is your own idea. host: this tweet," "voting is a constitutional right and i'll be damned if i'm going to let republicans take it away!" former governor mike huckabee of arkansas says is thinking about running in 2016. [video clip] >> this idea that nine black-robed justices are the ultimate authority in america is not a truly constitutional american thought. [applause] the judges and the justices are not the final authority. folks, let's remember something from basic american history. the final authority in this country is not the judicial branch, it is the people of america. the authority and the power of america alternately lies with we the people, not the executive, legislative, or the judicial branch. and the tyranny of judiciary supremacy is something that must be challenged or else we will lose this country because we will be governed not by our elected representatives, not by an elected president and the executive branch, but by unelected, rogue justices who believe somehow they have singularly more power than all the people and those they sent to represent and lead them. host: mike huckabee, one of a number of speakers over the weekend. the entire event is on our website, as we continue our conversation with kellyanne conway and stefan hankin. let me share with you one other moment, one other speaker, donald trump. [video clip] and then yesterday -- >> and then yesterday, to me, they sort of skipped over it, but i think it is going to be one of the great, classic lines in the history of politics and incompetence and that was when secretary sebelius -- [laughter] on the podium like this, with the president here -- he must have been just going wild. can you imagine what this guy was thinking? she said, "unfortunately, a page is missing." [laughter] and that is emblematic of obamacare. a page is missing. the whole thing is missing. as a very conservative person and as somebody that is a republican and proud to be, we don't get treated the same way. if that were done by some republican they would make that person into the dumbest, most incompetent human being that anybody has ever seen. with her they said oh, isn't that cute, she lost the page. i couldn't believe it. they were trying to make it like it was a wonderful thing. host: concluding comments, first with stefan hankin here in washington, democratic strategist. guest: i hope donald trump gets out and runs. i think it is great that he is out talking. it is good not only for late-night comics, but for the democratic party. it will be interesting to see what happens with both parties in 2016. less interesting if hillary decides to run. if she doesn't, we are going to see a lot of candidates on both sides and i think it will be a lot of fun to watch. host: kellyanne conway, we give you the last word. guest: thank you very much to both of you gentlemen and the callers. i think those are two issues that get the juices of the base flowing in the republican primary and caucuses, the runaway, elected judiciary -- unelected judiciary. five of four justices vote more "conservative," we are told. and his comments about mainstream media is something else grassroots talk about. 2016 looks like every other presidential race following a two-term president of the same party. the question for the voters is simple, do you want something totally different, or do you want year nine to start today? for hillary clinton to answer the question of running for the third term of president obama would be odd. host: kellyanne conway joining us from new york, republican pollster and strategist. stefan hankin, democratic pollster and strategist. thanks for being here. we will take a short break. when we come back, we will turn our attention to the situation in ukraine. the white house announcing the vice president biden will be there in a week and a half, just weeks ahead of that country's first presidential election. and the conflict in the east of ukraine. kurt volker will be joining us. leader, just how much should a member of congress earn -- later, just how much should a member of congress earn? kellie lunney will be joining us to talk about what members earn and get your calls and comments as "the washington journal" continues. back in a moment. ♪ >> collecting each year $100 billion or more in federal taxes, the internal revenue service probably has continuing contact with more citizens of the united states than any other agency of the federal government. internal revenue's most dramatic operation perhaps is that alcohol and tobacco tax division which regulates, for tax purposes, the liquor and tobacco industries and works strenuously to restrain the manufacture of the listed alcohol products -- of illicit alcohol products. the billions of cigarettes and cigars smoked annually in this country gives yet another basis of tax relationship between citizens and the revenue service. all this variety of effort and activity is what keeps those 60,000 employees busy, not just during the filing period but every day the year-round. >> from 1969, the history and functions of the treasury department today on american history tv's "reel america" at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> for over 35 years c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable industry 35 years ago and brought to you a local service by your cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal continues -- washington journal" continues . host: we have kurt volker. guest: thanks for having me. host: developments over the weekend -- continued unrest in eastern ukraine. russia -- headlines indicate that russia is behind this. what is going on? guest: this is like what we saw in crimea a few weeks ago. the testers in eastern ukraine taking over government buildings -- protesters any string ukraine taking over government buildings, asserting they have the right to be independent or to be part of russia. they were very well armed. the intention of russia is to take these provinces back to the russian federation. host: this is a quote from the "l.a. times" article. guest: ukrainians having seen what happened in crimea, are now prepared to respond more forcefully to try to take back these buildings. there is an antiterrorist operation to reassert control. washington is warning them off taking those kinds of steps to assert control. host: what is next? guest: russia has 40,000 plus troops on the other side of the border inside russia on the ukrainian border. i think you will see an escalation on the russian side fighting back against these antiterrorist operations. it will create an image of chaos. ukraine can't control its own territory -- which russia will use as justification to put in some of those troops to maintain order and protect russian citizens, they may say. host: on april 22, about a week and a half, vice president biden will be in ukraine. this is in advance of the elections in that country. what can he do? guest: this is a critical thing. we have both biden's visit and john kerry's phone call with foreign minister lavrov yesterday where he said there will be consequences. we need to start putting these consequences on the table so they are real, not just talk about them. just showing up isn't enough. there have to be some strong actions now or russia is going to keep going. host: we will hear a moment what he had to say -- in a moment what he had to say. i want to get your reactions to senator john mccain, who said this to his onetime senate friend john kerry. >>[video clip] >> on the issue of ukraine, my hero, teddy roosevelt, used to say talk softly but carry a big stick. what you're doing is talking softly and carrying a very small stick, in fact, a twig. what has been done so far as a result of the russian dismemberment of ukraine in violation of the treaty that they signed in returned for the nuclear inventory of ukraine which was then the third largest nuclear power some individual sanctions, some diplomatic sanctions, suspension, not removal from the g-8, and now more threats to come. i predicted that putin would go into crimea, because he couldn't bear to give up sevastopol, because he is what he is. and i am now very concerned because of our lack of response, whether he will foment discontent in the manner which he is now which will then demand autonomy for parts of eastern ukraine. host: kurt volker, as former u.s. ambassador to nato and now the executive director of the mccain institute for international leadership, your assessment of senator mccain's comments. guest: i cannot comment on his comments. he speaks for himself. i think he accurately describes the situation we are seeing in ukraine. my view is similar. we have threatened unspecified consequences thus far for these next steps. we said that if russia goes further, we will then escalate a sanctions response to go further. the thing we haven't done is put enough on the table right now that russia feels that it needs to negotiate a way out. it doesn't feel that way right now. it also believes, second, that military force trumps sanctions. if all we are willing to do is put sanctions on the table, then it is going to use the forces on the ground that are there, whether special forces and protesters or real troops, to take the territory that it wants to take. host: his comments, carrying a big stick and saying that our policy is only a twig -- our policy is intertwined with europe. are we hamstrung by europe's need for russian energy resources? guest: there is an issue of european dependence on russian natural gas and european economic interests in russia, but the combination of american leadership and german leadership in europe, which both sides are quite rightly outraged over what russia is doing, can take this further and put more pressure on russia. there is a preparedness to do that, but it is going to take leadership from those two countries in particular. host: here is what secretary of state john kerry had to say before the senate foreign relations committee this past week. [video clip] >> equally as clear must be the reality that our united states and allies must -- will not hesitate to use 21st century tools to hold russia accountable for 19th-century behavior. we stated again and again that our preference and the preference of our friends and allies is de-escalation and a diplomatic solution. but russia should not, for a single solitary second, mistake the expression of that preference as an unwillingness to do what is necessary to stop any violation of the international order. at nato last week and in all of my conversations of the past weeks, it is clear that the united states and our closest partners are united in this effort, despite the costs, willing to put in tough, new sanctions on those orchestrating this action and on key sectors of the russian economy in energy, banking, mining. they are all on the table. and president obama has already signed an executive order to implement these sanctions if russia does not end its pressure and aggression on ukraine. host: kurt volker, your reaction to what secretary of state kerry had to say. guest: i know the administration has put together a strong list of sanctions. russia has already continued its aggression against ukraine. these things need to be applied to russia so that russia feels the need to negotiate a way out of this. host: what is a 20th-century tool? what is a 21st-century tool? guest: he is referring to military being 19th-century, versus sanctions on sectors of the economy, travel sanctions access to markets being 21st century. i think both apply in this case. forces on the ground willing to kill people will take territory. at the same time, there can be pressure on russia through these sorts of financial and other sanctions. we should be using both the financial instruments at our disposal and putting in place a few more resources such as arming the ukrainian military, putting defense dividers in the ministry of defense, saying that nato has an interest in continued stability and territorial integrity, and then the baltic states, poland, or romania. there's a lot we can do to show we are willing to use a little muscle to back up sanctions and diplomacy. host: bottom line as developments unfold ukraine, we see what is happening in russia, how is this going to be resolved? guest: my expectation is that unless something changes if you look from today forward, russia is going to cement unrest in these provinces in ukraine. there will be a chaotic situation, and by supplying additional materials to the protesters, or perhaps even direct troop intervention, russia will take the territory. neither the u.s. or europe will want to go to war with russia over this and russia will take the territory. host: our guest is kurt volker and the entire testimony of the senate relations committee is available on her website at c-span.org. sue is joining us from takoma park, maryland. good morning and welcome to the conversation. caller: hello, mr. volker. my question is how will the u.s. government still be able to posture itself as a moral voice in the world if telling the truth was suddenly more profitable than selling agendas and more people in our government and media openly spoke out about the evidence that building seven on 9/11 was brought down by explosives -- host: this is a different topic and we have addressed that issue in the past. guest: i am not even sure i understood the question. host: we have this from jan -- do you see a sending troops? guest: i do not see the u.s. in providing troops to the ukraine. ukraine is a large country, it has its own military. it is fully equipped after many years of diluted support from the yanukovych government. what we need to do is create a enough pain from russia from the invasion of ukraine that it is not worth it to pursue. that does not require american troops to do that, but it may require additional equipment from ukraine and advisers. host: we go to peter in lakeland, florida. good morning. good morningcaller: good morning, guys. this reminds me of the iraq he wore where the u.s. media is not covering it too much, but they bring in people from the government to tell one side of the story. i really wish we would have a broader media. my question to the guest is -- wooten is not going to let nato go on the ukraine border and put up missiles and everything else. the first rule of warfare is you'd never have a war on your own territory. what would we do with all the sudden rush of the sites they were going to put more short-range missiles into cuba? we would be going as ballistic as -- we would be doing the same thing that putin is doing. a lot of factors with a lot of people all over europe say this is not a good idea and it is the oligarchs that will be fighting over the natural gas. host: peter, to i for the call. guest: i want to mention a couple of things relevant to the call. our team use a wholly government organ, and c-span is a public media and i am not a government employee. there are no nato missiles going into territory in ukraine or near russia at this point. if you remember, the obama administration actually scrapped the bush administration's missile-defense plans in order to reorient the way we were going to defend against rogue missiles from -- there's nothing with respect to ukraine, what we're seeing is a russian direct intervention to take over territory. the situation does not remind me of the war in iraq as it does the 1930's, when we saw germany saying it had a right to provide protection for german-speaking citizens and the territory where german-speaking citizens lived to be a part of germany, and then just to expect one by one to sort of acquire new territory. once the military is out of the box, which it is in this case russia is using its military to take territory, it is a volatile, dangerous situation. we have to be strong and careful when responding. host: the president gets back from his weeklong trip that included brussels, the netherlands, and italy. the cover of the "weekly standard" is by christopher caldwell, and i mention that because i want to see how your views of u.s. relations and service president. guest: it is a complicated picture. president obama was welcomed with open arms in europe. they saw him as a tremendous relief from the bush administration they really did not like. over the period of the last five years, europeans have become disenchanted with the obama administration. they think the drawdowns of the u.s. presence, lack of engagement in europe has sort of an offputting, especially in central and eastern europe, but even in western europe. and you have the europeans themselves slashing their defense budgets, not white to take on these big challenges, and so you have both a disappointment that the u.s. is not as deeply engaged and that the europeans themselves are not willing to take talent is on. that leads to a vacuum which creates a lot of nervousness. host: how damaging was the nsa revelations and listening to phone conversations including termination german chancellor angela merkel's. guest: very damaging. and also that the u.s. did not respond sufficiently when called out on this. that sure there was a program that existed sure there is a lot of surveillance, but once this became a public matter they were wanting more than an apology from the u.s. and a commitment not to do that. that is lacking from the u.s. as well. it has damaged the atmosphere. that being said, i think the assessment between the u.s. and europe of what russia is doing right now are as closely aligned as at any time in the last 15 years going back over all of the bush administration and the obama administration. we now have an alignment of views. what we don't have is an alignment on next steps of action to take. if we're going to have a stronger reaction to stop wooten, it will take a lot more work from both sides to bring that together. host: if you are joining us on c-span rio, our guest is heard in poker, he served as the u.s. ambassador to nato between 2008 and 2009. he is the director of the mccain institute for international leadership, and he serves at the senior adviser, he has studied at george washington university, and mike is joining us from fond du lac, washington. good morning and welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning to antiwhite for taking my call. i think putin was very smart about how he went about this. he got everybody patriotic after the olympics and then he turned one on the united states for the use of the democratic process to get what he wants, and so my question really is -- wasn't it a mistake that we stopped the cold war? thank you for taking my question. guest: interesting question. i think your points are exactly right. putin has been every smart about the way he has gone about the invasion of ukraine. if you compare it to 2008 in georgia, the 2008 invasion of georgia by russia looks clumsy by comparison. they moved under heavy military forces directly, looked like an invasion, smelled like an invasion, they went beyond the parts they were taking interest with her -- and drew a swifter response from the international community. they're calling for democratic referenda saying these people want to join russia. using the excuse of protecting russian citizens to justify russia's interventions. this is much smarter. the nearly gallantly, near legitimacy is working to his advantage. on the cold war thing, i cannot agree it was a bad idea to stop the cold war. the cold war was a horrible thing and that we were living with the threat of nuclear annihilation for all of my childhood. to have that gone is a tremendous gain for the world. the problem is that in that post cold war world, russia has played the role of an aggrieved power. putin wants to restore russian power over these territories, but if you look at lithuania latvia poland, romania bulgaria, czech republic slovakia, theese are countries that are free. they're not worried about their future generations. these are 100 million people living in a better society than ever possible before the cold war. we cannot forget that. host: our next call is terry from beaumont, texas. good morning. caller: good morning, mr. volker. host: can you do me a favor and turn the volume down on your television set and we can hear you much better? thank you. go ahead. caller: is that better? host: much better. thank you. caller: ok, thank you. i have two items. one is a comment. i was in the military here in the united states for 23 years and played a lot of cold war games in the submarines. i don't think cold war was what people think because there were a lot of things going on in cold war that were not too cold, and i believe that if we ever get into that again, that it is very likely that it could slip into that pretty easily, into a very precarious situation. people are showing their egos now, excuse me, and neither one wants to back down. host: we will get a response. thank you, terry. guest: i agree with you on the cold war. this is a dangerous time, something we do not want to be in. the same time, if you have one site today want to use force to accomplish objectives that we find unacceptable, if we do not push back on this, then we aceto to those -- cede to those objectives. we have to ask ourselves -- is that something that is ok? is that something that will stop there, or will we see something else like the next step is moldova, latvia, georgia increased influence in the middle east again as we saw with the bashar al-assad and syria? i agree with you that we do not want to get into the day to day high escalation really risky military environment. i also don't feel that we can be content with sitting back while russia is acting so aggressively, taking the territory am a basically imposing its will on millions of people surrounding russia who don't want to be a part of russia, all the ukrainian citizens in eastern ukraine were not ethnic russian, many of the ethnic russians themselves do not want to be part of russia, the touchatars and so on. our inaction will be encouraging putin and leading to further consequences down the road unless we show it now. host: our next call is mike from california with kurt volker, former u.s. ambassador to nato. caller: good morning, mr. ambassador. i used to be in the air force retired air force. in the 1980's, i was stationed in spain and in england. i've seen u.s. air force drawdown in england right now about three or four spaces where there used to be 7, 8. in germany, there are probably two or three air force, because of the russia's -- is it time to reopen a lot of the air force bases and army bases that we closed in europe? guest: that is a great question. the drawdown that has taken place in europe since 1989 was really based on the perception that there was no russian military threat to europe and that therefore you did not need a heavy presence of american forces in order to counter potential russian aggressions. there was also a sense that desiccation is that a forward deployment platform will get them to other parts of the world like the middle east or afghanistan, you could just as well do that from the u.s. as well. they wanted to bring people home. i do not want to make a judgment about the number of bases needed, but i do think that what we are seeing russia do today calls for a new look at the strategy. all the assumptions that we have made about the last 27 years about russia's intentions and capabilities correct, and if they are not correct, if russia is investing, and it is, hundreds of billions of dollars in its military over the next decade and using that military to acquire territory -- maybe the assumptions ought to be that russia is a little more of a threat than we had foreseen, and we have to think about what is necessary on our side to meet that threat. we have not done the kind of assessment yet, but i think it is time. host: the comments on victoria nuland, i will not repeat what she said, but the "guardian" is writing about it. is that implemented -- to the larger european community? guest: i say what you are saying, and i do not put any seriousness and i being a chris is a more diverse is it between the u.s. and european union. these are people who are working very hard, diplomats try to get their jobs done, an effort by the u.s. to bring the u.n. in, and in a presumably private conversation, saying come on, we have to do this anyway, who in their right mind thinks that european diplomats don't say that about the u.s. when they are talking to each other? and who really cares? host: let's go to carol joining us from a san rafael, california with her kurt volker. caller: hi. setting aside russia's contentions, i want to look at the u.s. intentions through president obama. he went to europe with an agenda , i believe, just to resurrect his international standing and even his standing at home, and he was greeted by europe, which is very involved in their own certain problems in europe, and especially germany very hesitant to greet him into the sla, partly as he pointed out because of the nsa business. also germany does enormous business with russia. i heard the number $40 billion a year. all of the automobiles and russia are german. in fact, volkswagen has a plant in germany. there are other businesses that have plants in germany. siemens, one of the biggest corporations in the world, has been doing business in russia for years. maybe the gas that russia supplies germany with and all of europe with, partially cancels out some of that cost, but germany is not going to be willing to give up all of this business, and in fact a lot of european companies benefit from these russian oligarchs. i listen to english language foreign tvs, a channel that has french tv, chinese tv, russia tv eu tv, all of these tv's are saying that the oligarchs spend billions in austria and that other european countries. they spread their money all over europe, and all of these countries are not so willing to give up their business with russia. host: thank you for the call. we will get a response. guest: first off, i think you are accurate in the way you describe the economic relationships over there both in terms of the business interests and the oligarch money that is spread around europe and that does create a question in the minds of western government -- how far do we go? what do we potentially lose? at the same time, what is also in the mind of western government is maybe we are going to lose some of this anyway. look at the news today about russia threatening to shut off the supplies through ukraine. ukraine owes $2 billion in gas previously delivered but not pay for, owes that to russia because russia has a stranglehold on ukrainian gas. and if they shut this off, ukraine in the past has siphoned off asked for europe to use domestic way. russia could shut off, too and it could result in an energy shut up to germany. that is a problem. host: why is it so important to president putin, why does he want ukraine or at least half of it? guest: one of the issues is a sense of restoring an image of russia as a great power in the world, an imperial power. that helps them domestically home justify the authoritarian rule that he has created. host: but at what price? if you become isolated on the world stage, you are no longer part of the gathering of the g-8 summit, and i could ultimately hinder trade down the road. what does he get out of it? guest: we are overestimating the degree of the penalty. what it does is it reinforces the encirclement, isolation that he could use to strengthen russian nationalism, which then supports a strong leader in russia, which is what he organizes himself to be, so i think actually this isolation is what he is cultivating. host: if the russian military takes over the eastern part of the ukraine, what else can we do? are there any other sanctions barring military force, which the white house has said and you had said earlier will not happen, what are the options? guest: there is a package of sanctions right now that the administration has prepared and not deployed. this would attack energy sector in russia, it would go after the banking sector, it would go after all of the oligarchs as individuals who are supporting the regime and force them to choose. are we going to now go with our money to the west and stay there, which is where they park their money and family in the west because they are afraid of what is happening in russia, or are there going to be forced to side with russia? this is financial, energy, and other sanctions would hurt russia, could cause the government there to turn around. one more point on this, putin believes that even if we do that, we do not have staying power, that the taking of territory by force is permanent sanctions are temporary. that we really have to put this all on the table and implement it in order to see -- to show that we are preparing to do this and stick with it. host: i want to go back to what you'd said earlier, a reference to the olympics in sochi because they lead up to the olympics, the warning by the state department about americans traveling over there many who felt that the president did not sendan a list -- send an a-list group over there, getting the might of vladimir putin -- guest: he is creating all of these conditions which give them an opening in which to act. take it one of the sochi olympics. he has fermented russian nationalism, including basined in part on the russian orthodox church with a pf support an anti-gay movement in russia in order to rally popular opinion against gays, which is toward the church and strong national leadership. that did draw the u.s. and others to send lower ranking delegation because they did not want to support that, but this plays to a russian narrative of they do not like us, they do not respect us, we are superior, we are better, but we need to prove ourselves, and i think this gets in the opening to continue that sort of nationalist rallying cry as he looks at territories to acquire russian speaking citizens of other countries. host: so a response playing into his clinical games? guest: i am not sure we can judge ourselves as far as influencing those games. we should not be reacting to putin. we should be proactively identifying what we believe in and support in the world and then take the actions necessary to support that. we believe in human rights, we believe in democracy, we believe in security, we believe in sovereignty of states and territorial integrity. we need to be taking steps to show that and do that so that people can draw their own conclusions inside russia. do i like this nationalistic message from putin or am i somewhat attracted to what i am seeing on the other side of the wall here where that is actually appealing to see that there is a community standing up for those kind of human values? host: the president called russia a regional power, not a superpower. what was behind that? guest: he was trying to make a gentle criticism of russia saying look, we are a superpower the united states we have interest and capabilities all over the world. russia is smaller, weaker, a can only really act regionally. frankly, if you're in russia's neighborhood, so what, russian is willing to act as a result power, and if no one else is, they went. host: russia is not a threat or al qaeda is not dead, that would mean mitt was right. caller: good morning, both of you. look at the putin stay in 2005. he stated the greatest mistake was that russia broke apart. he is reclaiming the russian empire. he is going to take all of ukraine. he is going to use moldova lithuania, estonia latvia, as the cold war is over, we are heading to a new phase. this is the anniversary of world war i, august 1. we are heading into a nuclear winter. he sent a message to germany and president obama weak commander in chief creampuff. his weakness that she is living in a fantasy world. it is not a cold war. we are heading to world war iii. people are living in a fantasy world, we have yet to face reality. this is real. it depends on who has the superior will. we do not have the superior will. host: larry on the republican line. let's hear from a democrat. caller: i keep going back to the conflict, we've had many over the last few years. i'm just wondering about iraq. if we had anything since we attacked iraq, we sent missiles in and killed thousands of people. we did not seem to suffer from at all. host: we will get responsible front. kurt volker. guest: the first about reestablishing been soviet union, he did say this was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the 20 -- of the soviet union. he is a shrewd tactician. i think he has three things in mind. those areas where there are russian citizens and territories that he believes should be part of russia itself and the russian federation, that he is focused on right now. the second thing is that those other nationalities that surround russia, and you mentioned many of them such as ukraine, moldovans georgians etc., i think he wants determinate influence over those countries whether they are part of pressure or not. i think he can live with them being outside, but he wants his people or his influence decisive in those places. and in the third thing is russian influence in the world whether it is dealing with iran or in the middle east, syria and so on. so expanding in all of these three directions but he will do it where he is able. where there is pushback, resistance the costs are too high that he can calibrate. so i would not say that we will see a soviet union fully reconstituted, but he will be probing in these areas to see what the worldwide allow him. i want to make a special point about estonia, latvia, and lithuania. these are countries that we never recognize as being incorporated into the soviet union for a 50-year period and they became independent again in the early 1990's. their members of nato, members of the european union. we are obligated to defend them through a treaty and i think putin believes that, and therefore he will not really touched those three countries in terms of taking territory and invading them. everything else is fair game, as you say. host: is there any point at which the u.s. and nato must respond with regard to ukraine? guest: no. let's take that very specifically. the nato treaty gives us an obligation to come to the defense of allied countries that are -- their territorial integrity is attacked or threatened. ukraine is not this point an ally of the u.s.. they said we never joined nato, we never ratified this, so in the case of poland, romania baltic states, yes, we have that authorization. in the case of the ukraine, we do not have that obligation. however, we should have an interest he does what we are seeing is a regional power as present obama said, and changing borders by force in his neighborhood, in georgia ukraine, potentially moldova. that is something that ought to concern all of us who have these defense obligations in europe because it creates a much riskier environment and raises the threat that maybe there would be a challenge to our nato territory as well, so we should be addressing this now. host: we have been quick to say that ukraine will not be part of nato in the near future. why is that a mistake? guest: nato's policy from 2008, we had a nato summit in bucharest, was to state that ukraine will eventually be a part of the nato. of course ukraine is not today ready to join nato. remember the context here. nato exists, countries nearby want to join nato because it provides security for them. nato's reaction has always been clean up your act, democracy on the economy, civilian control of the military. do that, and then you qualify and you can come into nato. ukraine is not there yet, but we should not be sending a signal that draws the line with them on the other side, pushes them away. we should be sending bethe signal that we believe in you and your people, we want you to be democratic, secure. you have a lot of work to do on a, we will help you do that work. at the end of the day, we would love to see you as a member of nato, a member of the european union. we cannot get there today, but let's work through that. host: kurt volker with the mccain institute former ambassador to nato. thank you so much for stopping by. guest: my pleasure. thank you. host: we will take a short break, and when we come back, how much should members of congress are earned? earn? the debate is front and center. coming up front and center, kellie lunney will be joining us from "government executive magazine," but first, let's check in with nancy calo and a look at sunday morning programs that can be heard on c-span radio. the morning, nancy. >> the morning, steve. some topics include the first anniversary of the boston marathon bombing, the retirement of health and human services secretary kathleen civilians and you can hear rebroadcasts of the program on c-span radio beginning at noon eastern time with nbc "meet the press." today's guest include ed markey maryland democrat, someone donna edwards, and former boston police commissioner edward davis. at 1:00 p.m., here abc's "this week" with rand paul, deval patrick, and u.s. ambassador to the united nations samantha power. at 2:00 p.m. it is fox news sunday, guests include republican senator tim scott of south carolina, democratic senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island, and ways and means committee ranking democratic member sander levin. also republican congressman charles of louisiana. cnn "state of the union" follows at 3:00 p.m. eastern with the chairman of the campaign committee, and the chairman of the national public republican congressional committee. and then hear "face the nation" with congresswoman marsha blackburn and the ranking member of the house oversight and government reform committee, congressman elijah cummings of maryland. these are brought to you as a public service by the networks and c-span. the rebroadcast of the shows again began at noon eastern with nbc "meet the press," 1:00 abc "this week," at 2:00 p.m. fox news sunday at 3:00 cnn's "state of the union," and finally "face the nation" on c-span radio at 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c. area, nationwide on serious channel 120 -- sirius radio channel 120. >> the first thing i would do is not let the largest cable tv company buy the second largest cable tv company. that is where i would start. my job here on the judiciary committee is to -- at these hearings is to raise my concerns and mr. cohen seemed like a really smart guy, a really great guy, i am sure, and i can tell you about him. he earned his way, you know, sort of -- but my job was to ask tough questions. they have 107 lobbyists on capitol hill. they are swarming capitol hill the lobbyists. but i've got 100,000 people, more than 100,000 people write me their objections. the first thing i would do is stop this deal. i would not let this go through. it is not up to me, it is up to the fcc and doj. >> senator franken monday on the "communicators" on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome kellie lunney, senior correspondent for "government executive magazine," as we focus on the salary and benefits of members of congress. thank you for being with us. if you are the speaker of the house, currently john boehner, his salary is $223,500 a year. the house republicans leader earns $193,400 a year. the house democratic leader, the same $193,400, and a member of congress earns $174,000. that is the same for the members of the u.s. senate and democratic leaders. is that enough? guest: i think it depends on who you are asking. there was a recent analysis of financial disclosure forms that showed more than 50% of members are millionaires, so obviously there are many wealthy people in congress, but there are a lot of average citizens that are serving in congress. washington is an expensive place to live and most of them in their home districts have a primary residence they have to take care of, they are married with children, they have education costs, a lot of similar cost that a other americans have. some people feel it is not enough, for others it is, and i think that for most americans when they see $174,000 a year as a salary, that is a lot of money. host: mark lubavitch write about this in the "new york times" -- did anyone wash dishes in his family a generation of rich, connected politicians face their greatest threat. they are narrative talents. congressman jim moran is stepping down but he says numbers of congress need a pay raise. more of what he told roll call. [video clip] >> i think that the american people should know that the members of congress are underpaid, and i understand that it is widely felt that they underperform but the fact is that this is the board of directors for the largest economic entity in the world and a lot of members cannot even afford to live decently when they are at their job in washington. >> are you referring to the ones -- >> that is some of them, and others of the -- host: a portion of his interview, and his comments getting a lot of attention. even before the house appropriations committee, and i was voted down, but he says he will continue to fight this battle. as we look at roll call, looking at some of the wealthy members of congress, leading the list is congressman darrell issa. his net worth is 300 cc 5 million dollars, followed by cumbersome and mike mccullough worth $113 million, and senator mike warner, -- senator mark warner his net worth is 96 million dollars. >> the average american is astounded by those numbers and it does make it seem like the majority of lawmakers are independently wealthy. i think in terms of the intent behind representative moran's amendment, which was not a pay raise for say but was a $25 a day housing stipend for certain members of congress, those who maintain a primary residence at least 50 miles outside of washington, the intent behind it as he stated what that there are a lot of members who cannot afford to live in washington some of them do live in washington or in homes or apartment with other members and other time, if the pay freeze they impose on themselves in 2010 continues, that could result in fewer members of congress from average economic backgrounds, in other words a congress that does not reflect america. host: this is again according to roll call a look at members of congress will stop leading the list is david, $4 million. the second is hastings of florida, who has a net of 2.2 $3 million. debbie wasserman schultz had $53 million in credit card debt. buck mckeon with $900,000. guest: when you look at the assets and liabilities of members of congress, you to see a pattern that in some ways reflects the challenges that average americans are experiencing when you see the credit card debt or loans taken out to sustain a business or housing costs, mortgages, things like that, but again, we tend to focus in the media on these sensational aspects of the story, and that is that a lot of them have a lot of money. host: kellie lunney, senior correspondent for "government executive magazine." our phone lines are open. how much to do you think members of congress should earn, and do they deserve a pay raise? (202) 585-3881 is our line for republicans. (202) 585-3880 for democrats. you can send us a tweet @cspanwj or join us on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. let's break down the numbers. you said $174,000 does seem like a lot of money. it is a lot of money, but what are the requirements for memories of congress? what does he or she need to do to work in washington and represent their congressional district? guest: caller: they have to spend the time that congress is in session in washington so that means they have to maintain some sort of residence here. that is a housing costs obviously. they get allowances for office expenses, for paying their personnel, that is a budget expense that is for their official job purposes, but they do not receive any living expenses or housing stipend or anything of that nature. host: when they travel back to their district, who pays for that? guest: part of the budget is allotted for oversoul shall travel, but they cannot use that for personal reasons. host: often when you work for a firm, you have to put money aside such as 401(k) for retirement. do members of congress do that, or as that provided to them outside of their income? guest: they receive retirement benefits like all federal employees. they are in one of two retirement systems. the most members are under a system known as the federal employees retirement system. they receive a pension, and they receive -- they have to pay the social security, and they also have a 401(k)-type account which is known as the thrift savings plan. host: a lot of attention and one special election was really a swing district in florida, the routine congressional district and in the race, $13 million spent between the two candidates and outside interest groups. i mention that because the amount of money that you have to raise to run for office, to get elected, and to be reelected -- does that also feed into what members of congress have to deal with in terms of running for office raising the money, and also doing so at a salary that some say is not enough money? guest: absolutely. it is very extensive to run for congress in many places, and fundraising is a big part of their job. they spend a lot of time doing it, particularly those who serve in the house because their terms are only two years, so they are sort of only running for office. and it is much easier for people of means to be able to do what they need to do to be successful , and success defined as winning an election. host: members is to be able to deliver speeches and raise additional income outside the workplace. that changed in 1989. why? guest: the 1989 ethics reform act, which also included the formula for determining members' pay basically said they could not receive money for giving speeches or having any affiliation with a fiduciary establishment, and they cannot receive what is known as honoraria, which is a fee for your appearance or speaking engagement. host: laurie mason is when a twitter -- congressman moran can now get rich as a lobbyist, and clearly if you leave congress and work on k street, you can certainly make more money. guest: that is absolutely right and many members do that because of the fact that they know the legislative rants, they know the members, they have that valuable relationship that lobbyists really want, and so a lot of them do that revolving door. host: bottom line --$174,000 for a senator or member of congress what else comes in a package? guest: as i mentioned, they have the retirement package, they also have health benefits. it used to be under the system that all of federal workers are under. that changed with the 2010 affordable care act, so they are now enrolled in obamacare, so they lost that health system. in terms of other benefits, retirement health, and their pay. host: is there concern that congress is only for the rich, as you look at what they have to pay to become a member, to raise money, and then to get elected and then to live in this town? guest: absolutely there is a concern, and i was part of the reason why representative moran brought this to discussion because their pay has been frozen since 2010, and over the last two decades, congressional pay has declined about 20%, and there is a fear that going for the long-term impact of that is that only people who are very, very wealthy will be able to afford to run for congress to have a long career in congress. it is definitely something that is worthy of discussion. host: tweet from senator david vader, who by the way he running for governor of louisiana next year -- any number of congress who wants a pay raise would have to publicly explain it to their constituents and then vote on it. host: i think that is a fair point. i don't expect that many members of congress will support anytime soon a pay increase given the politics of that, and this is an election year, and interestingly during mr. moran's remarks before the committee, he did not ask his colleagues to do a roll call votes, which would have put them on the record for voting for or against the amendment which i'm sure many of them appreciated. host: let's go to your phone calls. jo from new bern, north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you very much for having me. our senators and congressmen are some of the most corrupt people in this nation, and their salaries of $174,000 is just the beginning. the lobbyists give them money and gifts. they go on vacation without having to pay for anything. why don't these members give some of the money back to the community and give it to the government, with our deficit being so incredibly high? host: thank you joe, we will get a response. kellie lunney. guest: many members of congress do deliver a portion of their salaries to charity like many americans do. as far as the remarks about lobbyist are concerned, there are rules that prevent members of congress from profiting from those relationships, and there have been reforms particularly over the last few years to stop that quid pro quo type of relationship. congress is in many ways like a lot of industries in america. there are corrupt folks and there are folks that are very hard-working and are committed to public service, so i think like anyplace in america, like any industry, you can find good eggs and bad eggs. host: from roll call, here are other members of congress senator richard blumenthal, net worth estimated at $85 million. democratic senator from connecticut. followed by senator jay rockefeller, who is stepping down at the end of this year. his net worth is just below $83 million. congressman john delaney who is worth nearly $70 million. he is a democrat from maryland. jared polis, democrat from colorado, scott peters from california, worth about 44 money dollars, and senator dianne feinstein from california, her net worth is just over $41 million. rocky from tampa, good morning. caller: good morning. i just heard it go further down the list, but the top three wealthiest, i recognized issa of course, are they all republicans, and the least wealthy, are all three of them democrats? host: number three on the list a senator mark warner, and he is a democrat. your other question about the fourth members -- the poorest members of congress? number one is a rebuttal again, followed by a democrat in another democrat. caller: right, i recognize the bottom to being from florida. has anybody ever average them out? the average salaries for democrats versus republicans? guest: i am not aware of that but i am sure somebody has done that analysis. as steve mentioned, the list of the poorest and richest members is diverse in terms of party affiliation. certainly not one party that dominates over another. it would be definitely interesting to see if one party has an edge over another, but if there is an edge, it is probably pretty small. host: number six on the poorest members of congress, he has a net liability of $795,000. joseph crowley from new york is number eight, you can check out the entire list at rollcal l.com. next is joseph from portland new york outside of new york city. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i was just listening about this. people have so many millions of dollars, why do they have -- need people to go out there fundraising for them to run for office? if you want to run for office, spend your money. if you make the office, that is good, but why should we pay for their advertisement, everything else? another question is about -- i am retired military and disability and i served my country over 20 something years from 1971 to 1996. we get our disability, and on top of that, we are supposed to get our regular retirement. about five years ago, they passé and it never happened yet congress and all of the federal employees when they retire, they get their regular pay, plus whatever from their medical problems that they had issues. so i am just looking at the difference how that works for military and congress, yet they can make their own pay every time they need something. thank you. host: joseph, thank you for the call. kellie lunney, can you respond? guest: in terms of federal workers and members of congress when they retire, they do not get a pension that equals their pay. it is based on a formula that is based on four members of congress years of service and also the three highest years of salary that they serve, and for federal workers, is based on how long they were in the government and also the three highest years of salary for them, so it is a percentage of that formula. and in terms of the actual pension federal workers in 2012, the average pension was about $14,000 a year. four members of congress, it was about $40,000 a year so obviously that is a good amount of money and it is pension but it is certainly not equal to your salary for those two groups of people. host: congressman jim ryan lives in virginia. he only needs one home. he commutes to washington, d.c.. if you live outside of the d c area, you need to home. why is he pushing this issue? guest: he is retiring, so they give him freedom to speak is mind on this. he is also concerned that without some sort of living expense, some sort of incentive for people to be able to afford the two homes that they have, that congress will be, a group of independently wealthy people who won't reflect income levels, different income levels across america, and it will become less diverse. host: a tweet -- who is the poorest member of congress? in case you missed it, david valadao, a republican from california. he has got a net liability in excess of $4 million. let's go to jonathan he is from hampton, georgia, good morning. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the whole idea of public services based on the idea of sacrifice, that you really serve the public for the greater good. we expect a teacher to move to washington, d.c. and survive off of about $50,000. those congressmen who have to come in from other parts of the country to serve in d.c. don't have to own a home in d.c. there are plenty of laces that can be rented for $2500 a month. my question is if they cannot manage a budget that includes that type of expense, how in the world can we expect them to manage a budget of the united states government? host: thank you jonathan. guest: you make a fair point. i would say that washington is a very expensive city to rent or own. many members of congress want to live on capitol hill because of his close to work in close to the capital, and that is a neighborhood in washington that is particularly expensive to live in. having said that, you make a good point. if they can't manage their own finances and are not able to budget for what they need to do, which is find a place to live when they live here, then perhaps they should rethink it but again, we want to have public servants who reflect all income levels, all races, ethnicities, genders, so when you start just attracting really wealthy members of congress, you were not going to get people that can give a voice to others who don't. host: one of our viewers, roger green, has this to say. you can join in on the conversation on our twitter page, journal@c-span.org congressional pay is not the issue. doing nothing for the country is. nuvasive, new ideas, and producing result is what we want. greg from texas, good morning. caller: good morning. i do not believe a congressman needs any kind of pay raise. if they cannot budget what they got, they sure can't budget our money at the congress up there. and if they can do that, if they can budget their -- if they can't manage their budget on they cannot manage the budget washington, d.c. guest: as limited, they have frozen their pays cents 2010, it will be frozen until 2015 because that bill will pass that is several years without a pay raise, and they actually have frozen their own pay i think about a dozen times since 1992, so while $174,000 a year is a lot of money, it has not kept up with the pace of inflation, and i expect that they probably will not give themselves a pay raise any time soon given the politics of it. host: this is from one of our viewers a living in d.c. with kids includes the cost of private schools as the d.c. school district funded by congress is the worst in the nation. do you know, you look at the makeup of percentagewise how many have families here and how many have families back in their state or district? guest: i don't know that for certain. they are here on their own in and most likely renting. a number have bought homes here. again, they are maintaining two residences their children, if they happen, are in schools back in her home state, and of course that is a cost across the board the matter where you live. host: and his question from a viewer -- how many years as a member of congress or senator have to serve to be eligible for pension and to accept he after leaving office? guest: they have to serve at least five years before they can get a pension, and did they can get a pension if they have served at least five years. if they have served at least 20 years, they can receive a pension at age 50. if they have served by peers they can get a pension any years -- if they have served 25 years they can get a pension at any year. it depends on what retirement system you're in. for those in the retirement system asserted after 1984, it works out to an average of about $40,000 a year for members of congress under the old retirement system, which predates 1984, it is higher, about between 70 and $70,000 and $78,000. host: our next call is from georgia, independent line. caller: i am a vietnam veteran. originally from louisiana, been living in georgia for about 40 years. i am a vietnam veteran. with all of these millions, these politicians have, these congressmen and senators, a fellow by the name of james barnes an afghanistan veterans that lawsost both of his legs couldn't one of these cumbersome and or senator afford $1500 to get him a chair? because bill o'reilly and the american people had to get this chair for this veteran, so these congressmen and senators have all these millions of dollars just like myself, i had my compensating coming in from the v.a., and i got totally screwed on my compensation, but you can get a hold of any senator or congressman or anybody else because they never answer their phones. the one thing i got to sit at, and i cannot speak for all veterans, vietnam veterans, i refuse to even salute the american flag anymore, and that is sad. and i will let you answer. host: ok, we will get a response. guest: first of all, thank you for your service, and i can sympathize with the frustration and the money that members of congress make and what is many times some subpar performance, to put it diplomatically. veterans and federal employees who have retired have very difficult time obtaining disability compensation or pension in many circumstances for instance there is a backlog of retirement plans for federal workers, and some people wait a year, 18 months, to receive their pension, and that is frustrating and scary for people who rely on those types of income. i think that the caller makes a good point that in many circumstances, members of congress seem to have it much easier than people who have been in the military, veterans, other people who have been in other types of public service in terms of obtaining the benefits and the compensation that has been promised to them. host: one example about purchasing a home urine washington, d.c., this is from the "washington post," senator max baucus' home is a townhouse, on the market, $1.2 million. guest: that sounds about right for the area. yeah, a lot of them make a lot of money, and if they own property they have even greater asset, particularly if they own property in washington, d.c. host: kellie lunney of "government executive magazine," thank you very much for being with us. we appreciate it. guest: thank you for having me. host: more mothers are working outside the home, a new study by pew research, and d'vera cohn will be joining us looking at those mothers in the workplace and those mothers outside the workplace and what it means, the latest numbers from 2012. jason millman will be joining us from the "washington post," as we continue our focus every monday on the affordable care act. and the u.n. cured bureau chief of reuters, lewis charbonneau will be with us tomorrow morning. thank you for joining us for the sunday edition of the "washington journal." i hope you enjoyed the rest of your weekend and have a great week ahead. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪ >> coming up next, "newsmakers" with him bob goodlatte. after that, the

Related Keywords

Arkansas , United States , Vietnam , Republic Of , Latvia , Montana , Moldova , Cedar Rapids , Iowa , Syria , Connecticut , West Virginia , Mexico , Netherlands , Lakeland , Florida , Massachusetts , Hampshire , New York , Poland , Spain , Moscow , Moskva , Russia , Germany , Afghanistan , Virginia , Georgia , Brussels , Bruxelles Capitale , Belgium , Hampton , Iraq , George Washington , Villa Clara , Cuba , Sochi , Krasnodarskiy Kray , Maryland , Lithuania , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , France , Louisiana , Vermont , Russian Orthodox Church , Minnesota , China , California , Bern , Switzerland , Austria , Washington , Ukraine , South Carolina , New Hampshire , Tampa , Nuland , Noord Brabant , North Carolina , Iran , Texas , Kentucky , Rhode Island , Boston , New Territory , Estonia , Tennessee , Las Vegas , Nevada , Colorado , Ohio , Bucharest , Bucuresti , Romania , Italy , Crimea , Utah , Americans , America , Ukrainians , Mexican , French , Russian Federation , Russians , American , Iowans , Chinese , Russian , Ukrainian , Soviet , German , Deval Patrick , Hillary , Kathleen Sebelius , Paul Thomas , Scott Peters , Joe Biden , Ronald Reagan , Jason Millman , Edward Davis , Vladimir Putin , Arianna Huffington , Kurt Volker , Hillary Rodham Clinton , George Herbert Walker Bush , John Kerry , John Delaney , Baltic States , Angus King , Al Qaeda , Tom Harkin , Jeanne Shaheen , John Boehner , Jay Rockefeller , Donna Edwards , Jay Leno , Paul Ryan , Barbara Bush , Mike Lee , Debbie Wasserman Schultz , Bob Goodlatte , Ronnie Reagan , Bob Smith , Sheldon Whitehouse , Bashar Al Assad , Jill Biden , Bob Bennett , Lindsey Graham , Taj Mahal , Richard Blumenthal , Kay Hagan , Hillary Clinton , Sander Levin , Marco Rubio , Ben Carson , Elizabeth Warren , Ron Paul , Dianne Feinstein , Rick Perry , Michael Hayden , Bruce Braley , Chris Christie , A Ted Cruz , Chuck Grassley , Rick Santorum , Stefan Hankin , Jake Sherman , Mike Mccullough , Bob Goodwin , Newt Gingrich , Mike Warner , John Mccain , Bernie Sanders , Tim Scott , Angela Merkel , Darrell Issa , Jim Moran , David Valadao , Marsha Blackburn , Scott Brown , Jeb Bush , Kellie Lunney , Jim Ryan , Joe Manchin , Brian Schweitzer , Tom Coburn , Ruth Marcus , Mike Huckabee , Joseph Crowley , Christopher Caldwell , Elijah Cummings , Ted Cruz , Laurie Mason ,