tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 29, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EST
the landscape for senators up for reelection. host: with super tuesday coming up, the candidates are in the states. marco rubio and donald trump are in georgia. hillary clinton is in virginia today. you can see those events on c-span. you can go to our website www.c-span.org for more information. we have several stories in the papers. this is looking at the tone of the campaign between the candidates. over the weekend, rubio and donald trump were going at each other. fromceived an endorsement
david duke. leading up to our question about your thoughts on the tone of the campaign, what do you think about it so far? perhaps it's a pacific topic and endorsement -- specific topic and endorsement. republicans, you can dial in. you can post on our twitter page and our facebook page as well. the lead story in "the washington post" is about donald trump. some of theturing tone of the campaign a season so far. racial overtones
you can call and post on our twitter page as well. somell give you a sense of of the rhetoric that was exchanged. let's start with donald trump talking about marco rubio. >> he is a desperate guy. i've been watching him. he is not presidential material and he does not have the demeanor. he is a nervous nelly. i watch him backstage, he is a mess. recently, can you imagine vladimir putin waiting marco rubiog and walking in totally drenched. i've never seen a human being a sweat like this. i don't think he has the demeanor. i don't think he is going to do very well and he is a mess. host: that leads up to super
tuesday. that was donald trump talking about marco rubio. here's the headline from "the new york times" this morning. again it, to give you an illustration of what's going on it, this is marco rubio. >> this is true. a talker atis he is once. i guess what he meant to say was choker. he called me mr. meltdown. during one of the brakes, he went backstage.
he had this little makeup thing applying makeup around his mustache. then he asked for a full-length mirror. he wanted a full-length mirror. maybe to make sure his cats aren't wet, i don't know. then i see him pacing back and forth. he is waving his arms up and down. up to and is trying to call him down. host: these are just a couple of examples. your thoughts on the tone of the campaign. the phone lines are open. let's start with floyd in virginia. good morning.
what do you think about the tone of so far? caller: i think it's been pretty bad myself. where trump said he didn't know what the ku klux klan was. trump has the money. of matthew chapter seven of good it says to beware of false prophets. about donald trump. marco rubio like up on a string. john kasich is a democrat. ted cruz would make us the best one. he has the right message. my support is for ted cruz.
host: how does the tone compare with other campaigns? it'sr: it just seems like awful ugly. they are just cutting each other down. i can't believe the governor out of new york is supporting donald trump. i think it's a bad way to go. it's a bad example for other people, other nations looking at us. in florida. is up good morning. how are you doing it? is when baracke obama was first elected. hood offlly pulled the the republican party. host: what do you mean by that?
caller: donald trump said what it was. he supports david duke because in the south they know taking , theyhe confederate flags will do it in broad open daylight. they first elected over,, the senate said they would block anything he wanted to upgrade is that america working together? the senate leader should be charged with treason. i'm a veteran. i would been charged with treason. host: this is teresa in new jersey. disappointedery this year. i am 81 years of age. they are disgraceful and i hope
they both lose. have us in awill war in one week. host: what do you mean? caller: they don't even sound like presidential material. they are not decent people. i don't want them running our country. int: john is up next virginia. that is where hillary will be today. go ahead. you are on. caller: i think it has deteriorated and everybody forgot about reagan's rule. they all claim they are for reagan. i decided on john kasich. therek he is the only one
that has a chance to play the role of an executive and act responsibly. think rubio is a jerk and trump says stuff that isn't true. duke, i'mover david sure trump is not that kind of racist. he should straighten it out weekly. i think john kasich is the only one who looks presidential bid -- presidential. host: were you surprised by some of the rhetoric? caller: somebody picked that up as a talking point. rubio just doesn't do it well. cap has been in practice for that type of stuff. he knows how to do it the right way.
for the most, he has made some mistakes. rubio just looks ridiculous trying to do it. host: virginia is one of those super tuesday states. that is where hillary clinton will be, in fairfax. at 4:30 p.m.hat this afternoon. there are several events taking place today. you can catch the scope of what is going on. you can go to www.c-span.org. we are getting your thoughts on the tone of the campaign. good morning. how are you? this campaign is unique. i find it amusing and surprising. dnc is doing ahe
serious description of what they will do if they gain the presidency. what is happening at the rnc is surprising. politics as a spectator's prepared it has really turned into a spectator sport for the republicans. mr. trump has surprised me. i don't know who i am going to vote for. i will probably vote with the democrats. the replicants don't seem to have any viable candidates. that surprises me. see ted cruz as presidential. spoutingnot sparred -- party language. host: you said that donald trump surprised you. how so? caller: i admire mr. trump.
he has been a presence in new york for years and years and years. i got to meet him. he is learning fast. i believe he is trying to fill in all the point spots that marco rubio and ted cruz leave point. it's fascinating. each otherlling names, that is really amazing. trumpets making progress. all of the public points he is spouting, besides calling them names, which is amusing. york, atng from new this point you would not vote for him? caller: i would think about it. , which one,n if
hillary or bernie sanders gets nominated. then it would be a tossup. trumpd like to see donald to the hillary clinton. that i would like to see. host: she is talking about the tone of the campaign. that's what we are asking you to comment on in the remaining time we have in this segment. we are talking about donald trump and the recent endorsement he received from david duke. this is joe scarborough weighing in. he says they were not hard question to answer. a simple yes what have worked.
donald trump was on cnn yesterday. this is his response. >> i don't know anything about david duke. i don't know what you are talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. did he endorse me? i know nothing about david did. i know nothing about whites mrs.. you're asking me a question. is even if you don't know about the endorsement, there are groups endorsing you. would you say you condemn them
and don't want their support? >> i have to look at the group. i don't know which group you are talking about. you would not want me to condemn a group i know nothing about. if you send me a list i will do research and disavow if i thought there was something wrong. to give be very unfair me a list and i will let you know. >> i am just talking about david duke and the ku klux klan. >> i don't know david did. i'd have never met him. host: that was on cnn. tone of thes on the campaign. good morning. caller: good morning. i am german. i emigrated with my family to the united states. i've always wondered why the byman people elected hitler
ordinary voting. there was a lot of confusion with different parties. that cause the splintering of several parties. it caused this to happen, to elect hitler. me. it's really scary to the republicans are coming up with these candidates who are not qualified. there must be more people in this country. i always get very involved in politics because of the hitler thing. i worked for governor o'malley. i enjoyed working with him and then they had to quit because he ran out of money. he had already taken out a huge personal loan. jeb bush had millions of dollars and could not get any votes.
governor o'malley quit because of the money. i think that was too bad. host: david is in tennessee. hi there. caller: good morning. you are talking about the ku klux klan. i am 75 years old. i don't believe in the ku klux klan. we are talking overall about the tone of the campaign. go ahead. caller: this is it. it's an election. is and this goes with if you look at , that other man that was
supposed to be the preacher of like they areok as a just as the ku klux klan and. -- clan. look at all of it. , i am notk at hillary prejudiced against anybody. from fred inear huntsville alabama. caller: good morning c-span. the tone has been the most challenged i've ever seen. to vote for any of these people. -- clinton has gotten sloppy. she was sloppy when she said she was shot at. is she getting senile or what?
dr. ben carson never stood a chance. would never a black man or woman in the white house. i am going to vote for nobody. you people that vote republicans, look at john kasich. he is the best one you've got. he could wind up with a megalomaniac, a canadian stake in the grass, or a man who hasn't grown up yet. please take a look at john kasich so i can sleep tonight. hillary clinton may have already blown this thing. alabama, whatom do you think about jeff sessions endorsing donald trump? sessions like jeff because of his immigration stance. donald trump in the white house
is one of the hummus things. i have been all over the world. this would be one of the dumbest thing america has ever done. have a nice day. host: jeff sessions endorsed donald trump. here is part of it. from doesn't take money political groups and lobbyists. he is committed to leading this country in an effective way. nobody is perfect. we can't have everything. thing, in myou one , weion and my best judgment need to make america great again.
thank you all. i am pleased to endorse donald trump for the presidency of the united states. if you want to see more of that endorsement, go to www.c-span.org. this is john. we're asking you to describe the tone of the campaign. good morning. caller: thank you for your show. the campaignone of , it's saying we are fed up. the greatest nation in the world. the citizens are not being treated like the greatest nation in the world. how can the greatest nation in the world be the largest debtor
in the world. we don't need another politician in washington where you are going to have the same thing. are trying to get away from these politicians. democrat, i am putting my support under somebody who is not a politician and that is donald trump. host: francis is in tennessee. you are up next. caller: good morning. i want to say this election is typical. jefferson,and thomas adams called him a drunkard and an atheist. they called him a womanizer. all the names that andrew jackson and john adams called names that all the
abraham lincoln was called. people called him a guerrilla. they called him stupid. said was a president who in 1920, the president was accused of fathering an illegitimate child. this is not new. if the news media does not want it, all they have to do is stop covering it. just ask policy questions. don't ask these questions about you said about the other candidate. stick the policy. just cover that. instead of this other nonsense that is being thrown at us. here's paul from new york
on the end line. good morning. caller: thanks for having me. shouldt that all people money talks. , you wille candidates see disgraceful language. by legionnaires and lobbyists. obviously, america needs a real who talks about the people and their problems. trump, there is no third party candidate. it's extremely undemocratic to me. betweenng to be a race
hillary or mr. trump. they have their own agenda to take over the country more than ever. it's desperate. there is no right future for this country. it's corrupt. host: that was paul in new york. mason is in maryland. caller: thank you for taking me. you see these republican candidates. none of these people are worthy
of being president of the united states of america. you can tell from my accent that i am a migrant. politics youind of would see in third world countries. they do not speak to substance or policy. about personality. stage, you take a bottle of water and throw it. are these people the ones who are going to read -- lead the world? the mostrepresenting civilized country in the world? are these people the world
should look up to? people come to america. we look to america as the enemy of civilization. mason is talking about the tone of the campaign. people on twitter are expressing their thoughts as well. you can put your thoughts on twitter. we also have a facebook page as well. heidi is in connecticut. caller: good morning.
i just want to say i am calling from connecticut. -- 45 years-old old. i've been voting since i was 18 from it and dependent all the way to a democrat. now.a republican believe itably can't that i am on here right now. all lives matter. all people have a god-given right to have food. my neighborhood where i grew up my whole life is almost empty the cousin the big bank bailout. , i neverook that money
heard 70 talk so stupid as rubio. the bottom line is my neighborhood is empty. it's epidemic in my city. my state is one of the worst states. they took the money they put behind the people, trump made his business. everybody is human. everybody makes mistakes. host: rod run, virginia independent line. its lack ofnk information and misinformation to the extreme. i think most americans are too busy for details. most americans don't know much about politics or what's in their best interest politically and they are not willing to invest the time or energy to find out what's important. it easy for someone like donald
trump to get on stage and blurt out some really vague nondescript ideas that might touch base on your concerns. but really, no solution. hillary clinton is not giving any information. she is saying i'm going to do what obama has done and tweak a little bit. and you have john kasich and bernie sanders and they give details about real issues and policies. it just blows the average american's mind. they don't understand it. who is going to a vote -- to vote for a guy who's talking a language you don't understand? i expect americans will step up and invest themselves into politics more. host: he mentioned bernie sanders. a story new york times" - about senators supporting bernie sanders for the lack of senators not supporting him.
says 40 senate democrats have lined up behind hillary clinton's campaign. not one has come forward for mr. sanders. hillary clinton, they senator sanders was on cbs yesterday talking about his loss in south carolina. his expectations for tomorrow's super tuesday, this is what he had to say. [video clip] guest: >> i think we have a path to victory and i won't tell you that we did not get beaten badly. yesterday in south carolina. i congratulate secretary clinton
on her victory. for us, that is about as bad as it's going to get. >> when you look at the progress you have made which surpasses all analysts who looked as your campaign from the beginning, even given the progress you have made, is there enough time left? you mentioned places where you have done well but isn't time running out? >> i don't think so. on tuesday, we will have over 800 delegates being selected and i think we will win a very good share of those delegates. we have major states coming up. of campaign 2016, loganville, georgia, democrats line, what do you think? caller: good morning i think this is very bad. my concern really is young 12ple who are looking on and and the politics. it is so disgraceful. that then is
republicans have set the tone ever since this president came in. one gentle man calling him a liar before the world question mark one republican from montana saying the president's mother had sex with a dog? one says he was 10 feet away from the president and he could not stand it. he did not say the president, i was standing 10 feet away from him and i could not stand there. can you imagine? they called him a subhuman mongrel. when john boehner was asked about this, he said he could not tell people what to say. they call him all sorts of names. they have set the tone.
it has reached the bottom. it is a sad situation that these people are doing that. the republicans need to come to grips with the situation. that is how i feel. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] from let's hear next culver city, california, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think marco rubio took it too far. debate, ite at the was a spontaneous thing. they talked about the main things and call each other names. i did not have a problem with that but when he took it on the campaign trail, people want to hear some substance. i think ted cruz a marco rubio need to come together and they need to attack trump from both sides. donald trump has no substance. he says he is the greatest at everything. anything he mentions, he has done it well and done it already and he knows everybody. attack him on substance.
what kind of health care plan? notany details any does bring them out, he says he will do it and then he attacks the substance and they are not doing that. they need to beat him together. i am surprised jeff sessions supported him and endorsed him. that caught me off guard. i can understand some of the others but jeff sessions, i was surprised. that's basically it. i think they need to attack him from both sides and go at him on substance and make him explain how he's going to do these things. i don't think donald trump knows how he will do it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] senatorsmentioned rubio and crews and both of them put out information about their financial situation, their tax returns and summaries. there is a summary of that in "the wall street journal" saying ted cruz and his wife made at
least $1 million in three of the foremost recent years, much of the income came from wages and other ordinary income. as a result, they paid a relatively high tax rate. rate lasta 36.7% tax year. by contrast, marco rubio's taxes show something different. most of that came from business income. the couples income came from his senate salary and book deals and legal work and his teaching at lord international university and her business. new york, on our independent
line, hi there. at the end of the day -- [indiscernible] host: let me put you on hold because the connection is not great so i will give you another chance. we will get back to you. let here from california, democrats line. caller: good morning. all, i would like to say to the blacks, hispanics, and native american indians who are the real jews of america that this is the last days as an the bible. babylon,s the land of as you can see with these different languages coming across. babylon is falling. america will be destroyed. donald trump is the white supremacist grand wizard. he is being put up by the white
folks and that's why they are crazy about him because he is talking on their behalf. he is the grand wizard of white supremacy. don, let's try alberto again from new york on our independent line. are you there? [inaudible] apologize, weo tried to get a better connection but could not make that happen. hawaii, good morning. caller: right now, i don't know what the heck -- who the heck i'm going to vote for. all i see now is a three ring circus. side, you'veatic who acts likeders the abominable snowman.
you've got hillary who will say anything to get a vote and she's got some of agate, she needs a u-haul truck to haul her baggage around. you've got donald trump who is talking about how he wants to make mexico build a wall but has no idea and won't tell anybody how he will do that. , crewsgot to senators and rubio, who want to be president of the united states. they have not done anything when they were senators. right now, i am so baffled, i don't know who i will vote for. i will say this -- i will vote for whomever the gop nominates. i do not want hillary or sanders to be president. host: john from hawaii. the democratic representative of hawaii i announced yesterday
she is resigning from her democratic national committee post in order to endorse senator bernie sanders for the presidential nomination. rick is up next from louisville, ohio, independent line. go back to the constitution and the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. today in allto these callers are looking for an answer. the answer is that there are five states in this country that
control five monopolies and those five states are from the south and the east coast. warsouth is where you have and illegal immigration. georgia, that's clear channel radio and disney. when you get to the east coast, the media there is msnbc, that's new york and disney is in connecticut with espn. all of these people that are calling in and going that can forthwith democrat versus republican -- what you have in of theuntry and the job media is first of all to redistribute wealth. 50 years ago when the media was regulated, 1% had no percent of the wealth and now they have 75% of the wealth. host: learn it is up next from michigan, democrats line. hi, i am surprised i got
in because sometimes i call and the line is busy continuously. i think the tone has been set by republicans. they are full of hatred and obstruction. as soon as obama became president, they decided they were going to obstruct his agenda. of the unionate speeches, one of them cried out you lie. somehow, their base is fine with this kind of language with hatred and calling obama a kenyan. i voted for bernie sanders. i am 74 years old. absentee in michigan. he is the only one with integrity and the only one whose ideas i think are the best ideas. i don't think he is lying. i think he has ethics and i do not like hillary clinton. i think donald trump is entertaining.
that's my opinion, thank you. call frommore franklin, indiana, republican line. caller: i am disgusted with the media. we have a front runner on the republican side, mr. trump, that is in the middle of three lawsuits for fraud and the media is asleep on the job. greta van susteren asleep, bill o'reilly asleep, megan kelly, asleep, chris wallace asleep. hundreds of interviews i have heard but not one question concerning this fraudulent as ms.. business. where is c-span on this question mark is guy is running for president so shouldn't we be asking in this question? host: that was the last call on the tone of campaign 2016. in our next segment, we will get the latest information on what is happening in flint, michigan
concerning its water supply and the crisis you have heard about over the last couple of weeks in the news. as marc edwards from virginia tech university, one of the lead people who discovered what was going on there, talking about his experience and what is happening currently in flint and we will talk with him next. later, we will talk about what's going on in the senate as the debate goes on about whether to nominate someone to go to the supreme court. "washington journal" continues after this. ♪ ♪ ♪
contest need your votes print we have selected the top i videos and now you will get to select the fan favorite. livegh march 4, watch the top student videos and what -- and cast your vote online. the student whose documentary is the most votes will win the fan favorite prize of $500. the fan favorite winter along with the winners of this year student cam competition will be announced march 9 live on c-span. "> "washington journal continues. host: our next segment will deal with the crisis in the water supply going on in flint, michigan. takingse held a hearing andok at the specific issue representative of elijah cummings made sharp statements. [video clip] >> they are struggling. they have come up over here from flint and i don't know how they got here.
i guess i'm a bus. the fact that they are here. what, they are americans. they are americans like you and just like your children. toon't want to be -- i want be real clear and the chairman will bear me out on this. i have said i don't care whether it's epa or whether it's local or whether it's the state. i want everybody who is responsible for this fiasco to be held accountable. i am not protecting anybody because that's not our job. we are the last line of defense and if we don't do it, nobody's going to do it. host: one of the people testifying in that hearing is joining us now, mark edwards, with virginia tech university, the environmental resources water engineering, good morning.
you briefly talk about the situation in flint and how you became involved? when awe became involved mother who determined her child had been lead poisoned from drinking exposure gave us a call and asked us to sample her water. we did that. we gave our data to an epa employee who wrote a memo that essentially said that flint was not eating protected by federal law. children in the city were at risk. this memo was covered up in july of this year. the statey after michigan department of environmental quality had a meeting with flat residence and bragged about the fact that they had handled the situation in flint residents would not hear about the memo again and no one was going to be helping flint residents. we dropped everything and tried
to even the odds on behalf of flint residents of a could find out the truth about their drinking water and we collaborated with them and found high lead throughout the city. host: you and your students ran tests so what kind of levels are talking about? as high as two times hazardous land levels and households had 200 parts per billion. the world health organization says 10 is max. sampling, we sampled randomly, levels as high of 1500 parts per billion. through random sampling come we found the lead in the water is twice the federal and or. standard for the law, you're supposed to find the worst case so it's a bad situation, no question. host: you just returned from flint, michigan, have things improve? guest: yes, our recent sapling has shown that the lead levels probably are about four times
lower than they were this august . finally, this collection of outsiders got kids out of harms way. they change the water supply back to detroit. they have added extra inhibitors to the water. we still need to do additional sampling to confirm that things are indeed better. probably the water has never been better than it has been in the last two years. water at thisthe point. no one in flint trusts either the state or federal employees, what they are telling them. ultimately, who was to blame for this question mark are they trying to make things right? guest: there is a lot of blame to go around. the michigan department of environment quality are the environmental police, we pay to
protect them from this problem so would never happen. they dropped the ball completely. they were assisted, unfortunately, by regional administrator of the epa, susan henman the new about this in february, 2015 and help cover it up. that's why people are so upset. we released our freedom of information act request e-mails and people realized that government failed them on every level. the civil servants we pay to protect us from the state and federal government just worked overtime to not do their job. it's very disconcerting. our guest joining us to talk about the water supply in flint, michigan. that is mark edwards from virginia tech university. if you want to ask him questions call us --
what is the long-term effect of drinking that kind of lead on the human body? guest: lead adversely affects every system in the human body. profound onur most children but it bad for adults. there is no safe level of lead exposure for adults or true to. -- or children. the water was eating up the pipes in people's houses and the and that'ss associated with legionnaires disease which were tied to the drinking water. host: you are a member of the interagency coordinate committee. what is your role going to be question mark guest: on that committee, it's a group of experts trying to figure out how to go forward from the state perspective.
governor snyder has made it clear that he wants to get this problem fixed, not just in the short term like getting the ther better, but improving flint infrastructure and trying to improve its economy. the interagency task force for the state is going to be looking at that carefully. it's how to reengineer the flint system so it's stable for a few decades. host: would the best approach be to replace the main water pipes into the city altogether? guest: obviously, that would be the best approach but it's also very costly. you also have to deal with the lead pipes. what will happen with those? there has been a little interplay bipartisan ping-pong on how to deal with the lead pipes. with each iteration, i think we are getting a more efficient and smarter solution. i have been pleased with the back-and-forth about where the lead pipe issue is heading.
we are zoning in on a consensus on how to deal with that issue. host: what is the consensus? guest: i think everyone agrees that they want the lead pipes out of the ground. the big trouble is that no one knows where the lead pipes are. it will take years to figure out where they are. asentially, you have to dig hole in the ground in each part of the city to determine what the pipe is made of. in addition, there is a lot of galvanized pipe in the system as well. in the long term surprisingly, the galvanized pipe is probably a bigger problem than the lead pipe because the corrosion control of the leadpipe really does good job. over the years, the galvanized iron pipes which go into people's houses have sponged so much lead that they are a huge lead reservoir. because the corrosion control does not do as good a job as keeping the lead on the galvanized pipe, we have to
figure out a way to deal with that. we are thinking about ways of cleaning those galvanized pipes and lining them with epoxy as a long-term solution. it has been fascinating to think about how to upgrade this infrastructure. host: we have people who want to talk about this issue. let's go to lake charles, louisiana, independent line. caller: can you hear me? great, i guess you know more than anybody that this is far from an isolated incident, the tragedy in flint, michigan. i was curious on your opinion as may be a systematic effort by local and state governments segregate ofghborhoods in the ad that overturning the 1954 case to essentially have poor black that local and state governments segregate.
in a sense, those neighborhoods are now not being paid attention to especially by city waterworks and things of that nature. question thats no these lead pipes are concentrated in neighborhoods that tend to be poor. everything is conspiring against the poor in terms of lead and water exposure. they are likely to be using infant formula which is the highest risk exposure, less likely to breast-feed for economic reasons. also, they are less likely to afford goldwater and filters. i think this is definitely environmental justice issue. how the epa has allowed this to spin out of control like they aboutwe have been greened -- the screened about the cheating about lead monitoring for about 10 years. the epa office of water has turned a blind eye. i have set meetings with a talked about cheating.
it's just absurd that so many people in this country are being told that their water meets federal standards when it doesn't. they collect the samples for testing and its high when people drink the water. it's something you have to address them as note doubt things are much worse in poor neighborhoods. host: fort worth, texas, democrats line. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. why is there no criminal assessed against the emergency manager appointed by governor rick snyder who switched the water supply from lake huron to the flint river? there is all this talk about the epa seems to be a smokescreen to try to blame the president and people in washington for actions taken by state officials that
are only concerned with one thing -- money. thank you. of what youdless think about the emergency manager personally, i am not in favor of the emergency manager. but theit's un-american reality is if you look at this from an engineering perspective, the emergency manager is not someone who makes decisions about corrosion control. all of these problems are related to the fact that the state civil servant at mdq did not follow federal law. they did not require the corrosion control the be put in the water. the leaks, the lads, all of this came from that fact. the epa soed up by this is not a decision that is made by the mayor of flint, the emergency manager, or the government. this is a specialized skill and we have civil servants paid to make your the law is followed and that did not happen. manager did not
make this decision that triggered these problems. host: san antonio, texas, larry is up next, republican line. when the story first came out, it sounded like it was the water supply was the problem. lately, i have heard a story where one house has a problem in that one does not. i need some clarification. is a problem with the water supply or the individual pipes going to the houses question mark guest: it's a combination incorrosive a water and led plumbing material. if your house is no leadpipe going into it connecting your house to the water main or you have no lead materials in your house, even though the water is corrosive, it might be eating your pipe but there is no lead going into the water. it depends. you have to have let in your plumbing to get lead in the water. there is no lead in the water leaving the treatment plant or the comes to the water main or from the house. at the same time, it's the
corrosive water that in the pipes. if the water had not been corrosive, the lead would have stayed on the pipes and out of the water so it's both. host: we hear about these filtering systems and whether they are done on the liner outside, are they sufficient to filter out levels of lead were waters drinkable? guest: they have to be installed at the end of your kitchen faucet. that is the only way you can be sure it will remove all the lead. if you read -- it if you install a whole house filter for what are the comes into the house, the water will pick up lead from your indoor plumbing. there is lead solder, brass, the whole house filters are not as effective as the $20 filters you put on the end of your faucet. maryland,imore, walter, independent line, you are next. caller: thank you and good morning and thank you sir for your assistance in bringing to
light the poisoning of an entire city by the republican administration of michigan. the emergency manager made the decision to switch. thatdea that this clown this was passed over to detroit to destroy the detroit school system is outrageous. i need you to answer one fact. is much more in this country being destroyed by the efforts of those trying his destroy millions of lies. if you have any reports on other localities from virginia to baltimore, maryland through the united states -- if you have any idea of your assessment on the poisoning of millions to save
pennies? guest: i understand the anger of the emergency manager issue but the reality is the mersey manager did not make the decision to not follow federal law or add the corrosion inhibitor. if the inhibitor had been on the water, and we have shown us in our experts in the lab, the switch to the flint river would have in a success. we have not had any of these problems, they would've saved money. decisionhink even the was made to save money. adding the inhibitor is the smartest economic decision you'll ever make. for each dollar you spend, you typically spends $10 and influence case, they would have spent -- they would've saved $10,000. i think it probably started as an oversight. this is such an important and specialized skill. we have civil servants who are
there to make sure that the law is followed and it wasn't. that is the reality of the situation. that's with the e-mails have shown and i realize people are angry about it. host: vero beach, florida, democrats line. caller: hi, i want to talk about the infrastructure. when this all happened, i got so mad. a whole city is poisoned and they are still going through it? i don't know why all army of plumbers is not there right now fixing the pipes, removing all of the lead pipes. and just putting in a whole new set. well, the simple reason they are not doing that right now is they need a strategy that can be employed throughout the city. secondly, they don't know where all the lead pipes are. it's shocking. they just went through their records of the city and they mapped where the lead pipes were based on the records. 2 weeks ago, they check out how
accurate the records were. they looked at 100 homes and there was only 20% accuracy in the records. i'm not talking about 20% error. they want your 100 homes thought had lead pipes and only 20 had lead pipes. this is a situation all the united states. no one cap track of where the lead pipes were pretty and you had an army of plumbers out there tomorrow, you have to find the lead pipes first and secondly, this is not something that anyone can do. you are digging up a street. arere making sure -- you trying to avoid natural gas line so you don't create explosions. you're trying to avoid fiber-optic cables. you are trying to avoid sewer lines running right next to the lead service line. this is not something any plumber can do. it's a very specialized skill. lansinge a team from that has had the greatest success in replacing service lines in the country and they
will bring their expertise into flint. we are figuring out a way to take care of these at galvanized iron pipes which are a bigger problem than the lead service lines. this is not as easy as it sounds, not as simple as a leak in my house and call the plumber. this is infrastructure issue that's underground, it requires very specialized skill sets. if we knew where the lead pipes were, we would have the chance to get rid of them and when you're but it will take two or three years to find out where they all are. host: how may levels of filtration are there from taking the water information horse like a river? guest: in general for flint, they have two or three. the first is the water comes in from the river and they do particle removal. then they have a normal filter and they also have a granule or -- a granular activated filter. they have three sort of levels of illustration be for the water is sent into distribution.
some plant residents have filters in their house. and at the end of the tap. in an extreme case, you have five levels of filtration in a house in flint today. but there is always the three better in play at the treatment plant. host: even with that, you found those levels? guest: it does not matter how clean the water is from the treatment plant. the water can eat up the lead pipe. it will contaminate the water with lead so that's what was happening. to get that led out, you needed at the last step. these are filters the go on the end of your faucet so there no chance the water will be contaminated after that. host: our guest is mark edwards ath virginia tech, he is member of the flint water interagency coordinating committee in flint michigan. he works in the areas of water treatment corrosion and arsenic removal. if you want to ask him questions
about what's going on in flint, these are the numbers you found similar issues with the water and washington, d.c. what did you find? guest: an interesting comparison. the d.c. lead crisis which occurred from 2001-2004 was very similar. it was caused by a failure to install corrosion control. it was the federal government that runs the entire system. the federal government runs the treatment plant, they are the primary agency, they oversee the primacy agency. utility the local water that was selling the water to customers. it was a complete failure of government but it was more of a failure of the federal government in d.c.
their issue was 20-30 times worse than what we see in flint in terms of the number of people affected and the amount of exposure and the length of exposure. the u.s. centers for disease control came in and wrote a falsified report. they just made up a conclusion that said no one got hurt. that derailed about six congressional investigations, the gao investigation, that would have held people accountable. instead, you had this absurd conclusion that no one got hurt. it was amerco. -- it was a miracle. the cdc covered it up and it took six years before we showed in 2009 that thousands of kids were poisoned in d.c. but by that point, how will you hold people accountable? have notits in d.c. gone to trial to this tape. the five kids left in the
lawsuit might have their day in court next summer maybe. i will believe it when i see it. at that point, they are out of high school. up to, the exposure was 30 times worse than q2 got hurt got zero. their parents got no help and the kids got no help. it's an outrage with the centers for disease control and epa did covering the problem up. have they learned a lesson and had we learned anything from d.c., something like flint would never have happened. because it was covered up and they learned they could get away with anything. another d.c. in flint was inevitable. host: republican line, james is up next. caller: good morning. i read your interview in the chronicle. it's good to hear you get your dander up this morning. being critical of academic scientists and their funding sources and how they
have to toe the line or lose their sources. i hope you could say a few words about that. i want to ask if you trust the climate scientist? guest: wow. i do have issues with academia. i love academia. i have the greatest job in the world being a professor and working a great school at virginia tech. you criticize what you love. i look around and i see the pressures being placed on young scientists to get money, to get publication and not necessarily do good science that creates new knowledge and helps people. i want to make sure that we recognize those pressures and we create an environment where young people can come into science and academia and follow feed thisms and virtuous cycle between the public and science which has served us so well for the last
150 years in this country. i feel that academia is betraying the public. we are not trustworthy in many cases. yes, and forcefully, that extends to some of the climate scientists as we saw in the climategate e-mails. to some extent, they did is service to themselves and their cause by not collaborating with the public and not being completely honest with the public at every opportunity. unfortunately, they shot themselves in the foot by how they behaved. as scientists, we have to be trustworthy first and foremost. if we lose the trust of the public, where all going to suffer the consequences. from newport, arkansas, independent line, william. little good morning, brother, welcome to the apocalypse. i have been a construction all my life and i have a cup water
if your home is over 30 years, there is no pvc running into it. it's metal or wood or something like that. you don't really know what you're getting. the new homes are all pvc and they have certain standards. the older homes is where you find the lead and these problems. every waterng about line in the united states. every one is suspect. host: thank you for your input. guest: you pretty much nailed it. it comes down to what our priorities are and we are in and you're a of declining discretionary funding. we have to decide where to spend the money and unfortunately, these pipes are out of sight, out of mind and you can neglect them only so long. flint, if you of
lose your water infrastructure, if you lose your ability to deliver safe water to people for drinking or cooking or bathing, civilization as you know it will end. that's sort of what happened in flint. people were leaving flint because they could not take a bath safely. i agree with you 100%. at the same time, we have other priorities. a dollar spent on water infrastructure is one dollar not spent on education. this is why we have to have a political debate about what our priorities are. politics, the senate approved the deal for $250 million to help assist with flint michigan. what is the status and what will that help to do? guest: i was disappointed with what was provided. not much of it will help the city. it's going to national programs that in general are supposed to help children with lead poisoning across the country.
i don't even know why it's called the flint bill. so little of the money is x are going to help flint. i'm glad these other people are getting the money but i'm disappointed in the bill. host: how is it better spent? guest: if you really want to help flint, the money has to be directed to flint. they need help with their infrastructure, rebuilding the infrastructure. priorityd be a higher to me than just spreading it around to many different government agencies who, frankly, don't have the best interest of flint at heart. host: what you say that? guest: because they tend to not take lead in water seriously. they would prefer to spend that money on other things. a viewer who asks about the houses and why some have led types or others don't. what goes into that? what was the law in the
city when the house was built? people don't realize that these lead pipes were put there not because of a choice the customer had but because it was the code of the city that said if you want to connect to the city water line at this time, you must use a lead pipe. at certain times, that was not the loss of you go way back in to be fromnded 1910-1950. after 1950, other types of pipes that connector how to the water were used. in terms of other homes in flint, virtually all of them have lead solder or lead in unless you upgraded it after 1986. only after 1986, the newer lower lead materials were used in the house. host: if a homeowner wanted to find out if they have led lives, what's the most efficient way to do that? guest: it's horrible because you can go to your basement in flight and have a galvanized
pipe coming in but that does not mean you don't have a lead pipe in front of your house. the simple answer is there is no way for you to know if you are in the city of flint whether you have a lead pipe coming into the house at all unless they dig a hole in your yard down to where the lead pipe might be and see it by i. that's the only way to determine if you have a lead pipe. host: for the average home, do they go to their local government and ask for diagrams? guest: you can ask but you will get the wrong answer. they just went through the records and found that it was 80% wrong. you are on your own. the information you get from your city is often wrong. you cannot trust what you're being told. host: from clinton township, michigan, this is david, good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate the plumber's comments that was made a little while ago. i think he nailed it.
googled quite a few articles and there is really good information out there. there was phosphates they could have added to the water that would have prevented the lead from leaching. from what i understand, it's a common practice but it was not done in flint. guest: yes. caller: that would have been $100 per day for these phosphates that would have cap a lead from leaching through and there would never have been a problem but they chose not to do that just to save $100 a day. asked why theou priority was not given to the city of plant. i think everyone knows that flint is poor black people. first off, you nailed it in terms of the problem. they were getting phosphates on detroit water.
the minimum allowable under federal law would have been to continue what they were doing and why that was not continued for this $100 per day, i have no idea. the people who talk about fact that flint is predominantly african-american and poor and they lived through this car which i described as half 1984, it was surreal. flint and youn areght this was because you poor or predominantly african-american, i get that because of i lived there, i would have no other explanation for it. however, the same thing happened in washington, d.c. in 2001-2004 and you cannot they washington, d.c. is a powerless city. the lead was high in the u.s. congress. the president was asked twice at a press conference whether he was consuming too much lead in his water during the lead
crisis. had i not seen that experience in washington, d.c., i would buy it was a area because worst crisis perpetrated on the residents of washington, d.c. which you cannot say as a powerless city, i have a different perspective on it than i think most people do. believe,s it is to it's the civil service agencies that are dropping the ball and failing to learn a lesson from their mistakes. they are incapable of learning from their past mistakes. governor done the as far as correcting the situation and what is he learning about this mistake and what kind of changes is he making? since the governor learned from his own state officials finally an earlier tober that the incidence of blood lead had risen in the flint children, he immediately intervene and declared a health threat by disturbing bottled water. overealth crisis has been
since about october. it's really bad that flint residents cannot trust their water for bathing or showering even though it's as safe as other cities we believe right now for those purposes. i understand that no one will trust the water for a long time. you can learn to live with lead in drinking water like people in washington, d.c. use bottled water and you are ok. i met with the governor last week. he is very committed to getting this fixed for the city of flint. i was at a press conference where he passed a law that basically gave $30 million of water bill relief to flint residents based on the task force were flint residents asked me to present this to the governor that they should not have to pay for water that they cannot use and consume. $30 million, some people say that's not enough,
i also say this about governor snyder, he studied the lead in copper expense and asked me questions that were so that he is literally one of the top experts in the country at this point on the lead in copper role. he is committed to getting this fixed for the city of flint but for the state of michigan and for the entire united states. he is also bring in experts all over the world on how to figure out how to best reengineer the flint water system. these are concrete things. you cannot dispute these things. he is committed to solving this problem for the city of flint. that's what he said and he is taking action to make that happen. i am 100% committed to helping people who will be part of the solution. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] host: from nazareth, pennsylvania. question to you is,
if you had a crystal ball, what do you foresee in the future, in the next five-tenures knowing that there are so many problems like in silver springs, texas where they turn on their faucet and oil is coming out. guest: right. caller: i wanted to ask you that question. in the nextroblems few years. it seems like no one cares. it's like we care more about oil than water. we can live without oil but we cannot live without water. i want to know what you foresee in the next five-10 years not just in flint, michigan but fracking. especially in pennsylvania, that's where it started not too far from where i live. where do you foresee us in the next 5-10 years of nothing gets done city to city? what's so disconcerting
about all of these problems is that we have laws to stop these things from happening. lead followed the federal in copper role, what happen in flint would not occur or in washington, d.c. and what's happening in jackson would not have occurred. that we me so angry come as a society, have spent the money to pass laws that say , we havelean water civil servants out there who are supposed to be protecting us and the laws are not being followed. none of us are safe in this country until we get an environmental protection agency, state primacy agencies and water utilities committed to following existing laws. mind that we have these laws and people think it's optional. i don't get it. host: detroit, michigan, albert is up next. caller: before we get to deepen i want thistion,
discussion to stay focused. i lived in flint for over 70 years. i just moved to detroit two years ago. this guy here is on the advisory board. let me tell you that governo r snyder is doing public relations. he knew about this problem over two years ago when they were getting brown water. this guy can say whatever he wants about governor snyder. i was next to buick. snyder has not done anything. they are passing the blame on thinga and on every other in the city that they can blame or in the government. snyder did not decide to do andhing until they decided
this. when national. he is putting the emergency manager over just about every black city in the state of michigan. this is done by design. he should be charged with murder. this guy will not even talk about it. tell me where they are doing something right now in the city. they are just having meetings and discussing solutions. you cannot even sell the house is inflamed. in order to repair this, you have to go into the drywall and everything else in the house. let's have our guest consider that. guest: i get the anger of flint residents and residents in detroit. what happened in flint was unacceptable. 1984, half enemy of the people. we went to flint and videotaped flint residents being arrested at town meetings for complaining about their water.
these civil servants were bipartisan in who they misled. the mayor took a lot of lame for what happened. he was voted out of office. i saw the e-mails. hedman anded i susan asked her if there was anything to the memo that said flint was not being protected by federal law. he asked the right questions. cop, hedman, the top environmental cop in the region, apologized to mr. walling for that memo. she said the state will be getting back to her and she cut an agreement with the state to let them have their way with the flint children and the future of flint. read the e-mails yourself. we posted the freedom of information act online. these course of a severance to do this job were truly
bipartisan in new they misled. they misled a democratic air and misled a republican governor. the mayor and the governor deserve blame but primarily the blame was they were overly trusting of the people paid to protect us. apologized.so that's something i have not heard from the epa for what they did in washington, d.c. or flint. i am 100% against any bad actors. i will work overtime toto stop e who was to be part of the solution, i will try to back them up 100%. host: flint water study.org is where people can find that information. dr. mark edwards joining us to talk about the flint michigan situation. stance as aom his professor at virginia tech but also part of the council taking a look this issue, thank you for your time.
several senators who have approved of waiting for a new supreme court justice are facing tough reelection this year. thisg up, we look at how -- where we are at that process. your moneyg, it is segment, it could cost estimate hundred $50 billion to maintain the u.s. new weapon stockpile. defense newsfrom about the price tag and where that money is going. washington journal continues. ♪ >> this is the hardest problem i
have seen in government, because it implicates america's gifted innovation, privacy, it implicates the rule of law and public safety. we have to talk about it and understand how to we optimize these things we care about? privacy and safety, how do we do that and it is not easy. communicators,he general counsel for the fbi agent association and vice president for policy at the center for democracy and technology will discuss the conflict between fbi and apple, over whether the fbi -- will grapple. the fbi given to the phone of one of the san bernardino terrorist and what this could mean for communication and law enforcement in the digital age. they are joined by a cyber security reporter. >> the tool is a device that was designed to be impenetrable. it threatens the way that our search and seizure laws were designed to operate
where reasonable searches under a lawful warrant can obtain access to evidence, so we do view it as a real threat to the fulcrum of the balance of private -- privacy and security sits on. we are very much worried that building any tool that allows you to break the security on the harm, onea privacy that will come back and bite apple users around the world. wants the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. washington journal continues. discuss theg us to senate and its role in choosing the next member of the supreme court is a member of the washington post, a congressional reporter, good morning. what is the general mood and stance of the senate? guest: we have not seen much change since last week, where we
had the republican leadership and virtually every senate republicans saying it is a hopeless cause. they will not take that person up, some people in so far to say they will not have a courtesy meeting. since then, not a lot has changed although there has been some maneuvering in the gamingund and everyone out the scenarios and mitch mcconnell and the other republicans are going to have the resolve to blockade whoever president obama and the nominating. host: what might happen in this process? a nosethe democrats have under the campbell tent attitude where if we can just get a takeng, if we can just --
that first step, then we will go from there. on wednesday,eek the minority leader taking a hard run at charles grassley, chairman of the judiciary committee, walking right up to impugning his integrity and legacy as a senator. i think that there is some sense that if you can change of crassly into holding a hearing, shame chuckork -- grassley into holding a hearing, that my work -- might work. there is some sense that if they andchip away in those races make it clear that they are
threatening the majority by pursuing this strategy, that mitch mcconnell might relent down the road. muslim they are working with right now. they have to apply pressure and test the resolve, and those are ways, obvious ways to do that. host: that is our topic of discussion with our guest. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. let's hear from charles grassley, what he had to say about this issue. he said in response to senator reid, -- we will get your thoughts. >> now, the biden rules are very clear. my friend from delaware did a wonderful job of laying out the history, and providing many of
the sound reasons for these biden rules. two boil down simply to fundamental points. first, the president should exercise restraint and not name a nominee until after the november election is completed. as i said on monday, president modeln was a good role for this practice. if the president chooses not to follow president lincoln's model, but instead as chairman biden said, goes the way of fillmore and johnson and presses an election year nomination, then the senate should consider the nomination -- should not
consider the nomination or hold hearings. it does not matter a good -- how good a person is nominated or stated plainly, it is the principle, not the person that matters. host: there is the response. talk about the influence that joe biden has. guest: joe biden is the republicans' best friend on this issue, ironically. when grassley refers to the biden rules, he refers to a speech that joe biden gave when he was chairman of the senate judiciary committee in 1992. he was addressing a situation in an election year. there was a thought that perhaps harry blackmun would retire that year and there would be a vacancy. it did not end up happening, but joe addressed the possibility and he made a very equivocal statement which was, i estimate
of the senate judiciary committee do not believe that president george h.w. bush should in this election year make a nomination and if he does, i believe he said, we should seriously can sitter that the committee should not hold hearings on that nominee. that as as see perfectly analogous situation. they are happy to quote senator back towords right anyone who is that they oh president obama's nominee consideration. well,mocrats have said that was a hypothetical, we are talking about actual vacancy and or ais not a plan vacancy justice who is engaging in a political maneuver, somebody died in office and this is an unexpected vacancy and is not the same. host: because they call it a rule, it is not technically a
rule. guest: it is a rule in the sense that somebody said it a little more than 20 years ago and thus, we must -- there has been such a back-and-forth of president -- of precendent. back to the civil war in many cases, so it has been a battle of which pieces out of the history books do you want to pick and choose and wrap your case around and in this case, it is one of the more recent ones. our guest covers congress for the washington post and we are talking about the senate and its role in choosing a supreme court nomination. john, democrat, virginia, go ahead. whethermy question is, you believe that the republicans will stick with this, given the fact that it appears that will trump is going to win the republican nomination and a
mitch mcconnell set up that happens, the party would drop him like a hot rock. then they would have to deal with hillary, i do not understand why mitch mcconnell would rather deal with hillary and a more liberal justice been dealing with obama and perhaps getting a more moderate justice. guest: that is an excellent question. can gameomething you out a number of different ways, there has been a was regulation that hillary clinton is elected president, there would certainly and -- that the obama nominee might be getting some consideration in a lame-duck situation. mcconnell is making the calculation that if obama nominates someone who is fairly moderate or does not have a political record, that may just be the best they are going to do
. of course there is the added conversation that mitch mcconnell loses the senate majority in the election. if donald trump and that being the nominee, the general feeling is that -- if that happens, the likelihood of republicans losing the senate majority goes up and in that case, then democrats have to make a decision, do they a confirmation vote on obama's nominee or do they think they can do better under president clinton. i think that is unlikely and that they would probably jump at the chance to nominates president obama's -- confirm his they get thever chance, but there was a lot of different ways this could go. host: bob in pennsylvania, and did. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span.
i think is one of the best on television. my thing is, it is the law, it is in because the tuition that that sits in office at that time has every right to nominates a judge and in a vacancy. i have called my senator and that he put his hand on the bible and swore to uphold the cost to she can, and that, too should is the event has the right. my thinking is, the democrats should go to the supreme court with this case if they don't give obama the right to at least nominate his man. the bible says this is something that right is wrong and this is something that is wrong is right is right on the nail and god bless america and thank you so much. guest: a great comment, republicans would say in
response to that, yes the constitution says the president has the right to nominate, but it also gives them the right to provide advice and consent and they can withhold the consent, but what i thought was really interesting at -- interesting about your comment, is that you are independent in pennsylvania, which is a swing state in the presidential race, but your senator is up for reelection and i think that he is definitely one of those senators who is possibly going to be feeling a if he maintains this posture and i think the democrats are going to do everything they can to heighten that pressure. independentsy want like you to call your senators and the way the republicans handle this is going to depend a lot on how independents and even
republicans react to this continued blockade. for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. democrat line, next. caller: good morning. live in district six in jackson county and we have been trying for 16 years to get something done about the water that we have and the chemicals in the air. getral people have tried to something done and they have been blocked like us. we have lost children in the process. we tried senators, governors, and they have turned their back. be calling in regards to our last segment, we have moved on to another topic, the supreme court and the senate's role in that.
caller: that's what i am saying. we have been blocked in every which way and what they are saying is that they are basically blocking them from getting any further and ignoring the whole process. host: thank you. talk about the role of public opinion then. guest: that is one of the wildcards that is going to depend -- it is going to influence whether republicans can stick with the position they have staked out. if it gets to be april, may or raceand the presidential is settled and attention turns to want the senate races this has the potential to be the number one issue that these incumbents could ask about -- get asked about by reporters in their hometown and my us on capitol hill. if they get sick of answering
the questions, they nudge mitch mcconnell and say at least have a hearing and let us take a vote, we know that we are probably -- we will not confirm this person, but wheelies have to show that we are doing our or you are hanging us out to dry in an election year. host: larry, chicago, illinois, independent line. caller: good morning. one of my thoughts is that we should look to what judge scalia would've thought about this. if he thought the constitution was so prevailing, then the president has a duty to nominate. the senate has a duty to advise and consent. if the senate fails to do their job, then the president should waste 67 days, the amount of time it takes for the party to have a hearing and get a vote,
then he should appoint using the powers that he has under the constitution. let the court then reach a decision. just two years from now, whether or not his decision to make the appointment with the congress froze and did nothing. host: certainly an interesting comment. guest: the way your framed it, what would justice scalia do is an interesting way to think about it. i don't know that he ever contemplated this particular scenario. reading of the clause in question says that the president shall appoint with the advice and consent of the senate, this -- the justices of the supreme court. is not clear what it means if a president nominates and the senate refuses to act. that of course, there is -- if
you admit that that is a constitutional question that could be settled by the judiciary, you have basically the supreme court, you are saying that it would basically be engaged in the question of who would be -- become one of the members and the court would i reluctant to do that and think -- i'm not a lawyer, but i know that there are berries elegant questions standing and tradition ability and whether this is a question that could be litigated. i don't see it heading in that direction, it does not in that we impart up down this road and neither party has moved much and it turns out to be something people look at, but it is certainly an interesting thought experiment at this point. the senate goes to
reassess, could the president appoint someone during a recess? guest: if they formally went into recess, he could, but the general understanding and in fact, the senate majority indicated to us that it is almost -- they are almost certain to stay in session to avoid going into recess where president obama could make a recess appointment. much that your paycheck on that, that the senate is not going to go into recess in a way that would allow the president to take action like that. host: arizona, democrat, ernie. is more toquestion the senate itself. do anything and they don't even show up for work most of the time. what i'm trying to find out is,
if this is the wrong way to do everycause doing it wrong time makes it wrong or right. let's do our job and read the job description and get done what they need to get done. don't you agree or do you disagree, thank you. guest: i agree that this is election-year, it is tough to get big things done because of the political stakes. the way that everything is viewed. i think that justice scalia's death has heighten that -- heightened that to a degree that .obody was ready for we were talking about things like criminal justice reform and faa reauthorization and doing appropriations bills and so on and so forth.
i think that is the moment we learned of justice scalia's passing, the chances of any or all of those things happening declined that much more, given the stakes of the supreme court nomination -- confirmation fight in the way that influences the attitudes and the way the bodies are going to function. host: senator grassley mentioned joe biden, the new york times talks about president obama when he was a senator, referencing a 2007 speech. the argument that kind of the senate had every right to block the president choice by filibuster because federal judges receive lifetime appointments and often serve through the terms of multiple residents. it benefits our democracy to find moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support. badoes on to talk about influence over this whole debate. another example of all the bits in pieces people have said over the years that
, in someeing revisited cases, thrown back in the faces right members of the other party. -- republicans would be right to point to that and say lesson, you said it yourself. we need to tread carefully on these sorts of issues. democrats will look at that and say there are some key differences. it's nott saying confirm anybody in the election year, he is saying let's confirm a moderate. let's put forward anyone who could be considered and i think he was referencing in that particular quote, a lower court and circuit court judgeships and i think the democrats have since in the past couple of weeks, have really tried to make the argument that
the supreme court is different, part ofch a important our democracy that we cannot vacancy in that slot for a year or more, possibly a year and a half and the senate should be obligated to take action on the president's nominee. host: mike covers congress for the washington post. he is also worked at the washington city paper. talking about the senate's role in choosing the next member of the supreme court. next up, and ohio, republican -- from ohio, republican. caller: my two questions are, people who don't know our
history are doomed to repeat the same problems. in five words or less, why is the liberty bell called liberty bell? two, and the constitution, what is the only form of government guaranteed and why do you keep calling us a democracy since it is never mentioned? i would like to hang on. host: why don't you reference a specific question to the supreme court? caller: if he doesn't know the basic history of our country, his bias will be and. how he reports what congress can do. that he does not know how our founders out of this country, he does not know as -- how to ask the questions and if he does not know what a 10-year-old would of known 100 years ago, why should i believe anything he says? host: i'm aware of the distinction between direct democracy and republican democracy.
i'm interested to hear what ed -- he is in one of the states that has an incumbent republican senator who is facing reelection this year. -- he is now out locked -- now in lockstep with the leadership of the senate and is someone that will be facing intense pressure if the status oh persistent. --t: he will those people was one of those people. -- wrote this when he talked about -- recognize the right of the president to place before the senate a nominee for the supreme court. i expect and look forward to president obama investing in him and he for the senate to consider. back to the original question, talking about how long this coalition can pull together to keep this from happening. you see fracturing going on because of these races. guest: that is the big question.
-- we need at least -- need to at least have hearings. the other senator. a lot of us have been surprised that senator ayotte was very forthright and very unequivocal early on in saying i am with mitch mcconnell, we cannot act on this nominee. we have to let the people decide through this provincial election, what sort of supreme court justice they want to see. election,esidential what sort of supreme court justice they want to see. placeed up in the same and you can go down the line and folks like ron johnson from wisconsin, even john mccain, , theyozeman in arkansas are all facing reelection this
year and add to that, the possibility of the truck domination -- the possibility of the trump nomination. there are a lot of people stretching their heads and wondering what is going to happen and to what degree the supreme court confirmation fight is going to be an issue. host: mike from arkansas, independent. caller: good morning. let me commend your guest for having such a wonderful first name. this is totally ludicrous. known to be a was strict constitutionalist. esther scalia what he would do in this case, but you can look at his record.
party arguinghin that what somebody once said, president lincoln, joe biden, speechesen of those trump what the constitution says. plainly, the president shall appoint and the senate will approve or disapprove or whatever. this is ludicrous. it is laughable. we are all watching to what degree republicans like mike believe that the senate republicans are not doing their job and are not following the constitution. that is something that will be watched closely and like mike
said, we will never know what andice scalia would think, a point reading of the constitution does say that both branches of government have a role in this, but it is unfortunate in that it is not specific to the point that it both branch has to do its or any particular time frame before so much time passes. things like that are typically matters for the courts to resolve but in this case, it creates a additional dialogue. -- additional dilemma. host: -- was being looked at by the white house and does it kind of tees to -- the white house plays this out or little bit more about the senate react -- reaction? guest: the senate republican leaders were quick to say we
will that we staked out our position on principle, not based on personality, it does not matter if it is a publican, we believe the next president should have the ability to nominate or appoint this justice. an element ofwas strategic thinking to that, which is they had to send a that they will stand strong and was not get into this game of one about this guy or what about that guy. than if thereent had been an actual nomination. out, they name came had to say they would stick to their guns. point where the situation really changes in where we have an inflection battle is when we have a nominee that is named and
once we start learning about that person, once we start figuring out what sort of person president obama wants to appoint, that changes the debate somewhat and this becomes personalized a little more. i think the pressure is, particularly, if president obama goes with someone who is a pathbreaking nominee, the first african-american woman or first latino man or the first openly gay justice, if you pick someone like that, republicans have a whole new set of questions to answer, are you going to keep this person, block this person position and the we don't know when that is going to happen, probably not this week, maybe next week, but that is when the battlefield changes a little bit. host: when you say maybe next
week week, is that something you are hearing? guest: no. typically, historically between the opening of the vacancy and the nomination, it is historically about three to five weeks, sort of par for the course. from what we know about president obama and his process of reviewing nominees, we saw him with this big binder full of things, last weekend with an expectation he would look this weekend. this is a process that is delivered -- deliver it -- deliberate and for good reason. host: let's hear from danny in alabama, democrat. caller: thank you accepting my call. as one caller said, this is ludicrous. this already happened before when reagan, i believe in 87,
-- nominated three. one withdrew, the other one was a -- one was refused and the third one was approved in 88 but was nominated in reagan's last year. case, you will have a president to serve three years of his life, what about the senators? they are not lame-duck who are up for reelection? why should they even have a say so in the nomination of the supreme or justice? host: -- guest: that is a great point. democrats are happy to point out that this goes both ways. if their position is essentially a president's term when it comes to naming supreme court justices is only three years, then perhaps senators should only have five years to confirm nominees.
you did mention the 1987 case where the vacancy created when -- retired in 1987, when the infamous robert fort nomination and rejection happened. it did not happen strictly speaking and in the election year. the vacancy happened the year before the election year and all the nominations, three in all, they happened in 1996 -- 1987 with the final confirmation in 88, the election year. it is not quite a perfect analogy, but certainly something democrats have. waited to. they say we have confirmed a nominee unanimously in an and that certainly is something that they are happy to mention. twitter saysare on
the constitution makes the requirement of the kind of justice that must be appointed, only whose duty it is. top from columbia, maryland, republican. -- tom from maryland, republican. president whoe a is a constitutional lawyer and the republicans get their way, he may be potus for scotus next year. wast: i think the president posed that question recently and forceful inas very saying he was not interested in being a judge. there is a sense that he is not one for the cloistered life of the judiciary. he wouldf he was,
still be a law professor at the university of chicago. i would not bet your paycheck on that particular possibility, although who knows? host: i know you don't cover the supreme court, but have senators made the argument that a court can unction with only eight judges -- justices? guest: that is certainly something that we are talking about. certainly this term, there is a number of very high profile and divisive cases that are coming through the court. among them are the case on abortion restrictions, the case unions, aemployee case about president obama's thegration orders will stop possibility of them breaking out 4-4 tie.- a when it gets to be supreme court
decision season, you will see more people pointing out that this court is not functioning the way that we expect it to and cannot go another term and need to get somebody confirmed before the new term starts in october. host: let's hear from hall, minnesota, independent. wondering -- for seven and a half years, we have absolute not working with this president whatsoever, this is just another example of it, and if this -- this many weators up for reelection,, have been paying them for seven years and not do their job, maybe it's time to replace them. this is the real deal here, it is supreme court, you have to have a supreme court, you can't just move this thing down the
, it for a year and a half is the supreme court of the united states. guest: that is exactly the point with anaking, can we go evenly divided court for two consecutive supreme court terms? i think that is something we will be hearing about later, this year and there was a lot of anticipation, some decisions in argumentes and the will come up that this is not good for the country. host: jeff in louisiana, republican. incredible the hypocrisy of the liberal media. over 200 bills when across harry reid's desk that were not brought up for vote. the reason why donald trump and ted cruz are so popular is because the establishment been givinghave into obama on everything, then
you try to pull this card about losing in the senate. they are going to get more after all this dealings with these democrats. guest: entirely possible. about thisthing senate race is it's almost all incumbent republicans who are up for election, only one incumbent democrat who is considered to be racey sort of competitive which is michael bennet in colorado. how many to turn over or potential turnover? to turn over the senate, you would need a swing of four seats. the republicans have 54 seats, there are 46 democratic senators
including two independents. a presidentlus would be a swing. independent line, good morning. i understand from the constitution that the president has a right to appoint with the advice and consent of the senate. appointment and concept, but what did the framers mean by advice? guest: that is a wonderful question for a constitutional lawyer and i will be honest, it is a question that i have -- has occurred to me, myself and i will tell you that i will do some reading on that point, but advice and consent is certainly a shorthand in the constitution and we use it to talk about the constitutional role that the legislative branch has when it comes to presidential nominations and appointments,
not only in the judiciary but in the president's cabinet and executive branch. host: bill in illinois, thank you for holding on. points.three real quick i think it would be a real slap in the face to the eight sitting judges to say they cannot complete their job. maybe some of the cases should be presented to break that gridlock, you want people to get along, that might solve it. no place in the constitution says we have to have nine supreme court justices. there have been less judges in the past and equal amounts. number three, sit back and ask yourself if things were reversed, and it was a public and president and the democrats had to make this choice, what would happen? especially that last point is a good one, i think as
we have atn, senators and politicians of both parties on all sides of this we look at situations previously, it is a safe bet to say if the shoes were on the other feet, we would be in a similar situation. you also made a great point about the size of the court. the constitution does not specify the size of the court. been 60, 70 years since we got nine justices on the court. that was pointed out by republicans, recently. i would point to some comments that justice alito made where he said -- sort of indicated that the justices is not ideal. early on in the
history, it was not unusual for there to be an even number of justices sitting and he said he could not understand how they possibly functioned in that sort of environment. i think that is the consensus, a court consisting of an even number of justices would be split quite often. host: jean from tennessee, independent. about what calling the young man is saying about the supreme court appointment by the president, the president is supposed to appoint someone to take justice scalia's place, but since they do not want that, so they can have the election like bush,id in 2000 with w they have isis and al qaeda, we need nine people on the supreme court and the president should support -- should appoint and the senate should support him.
guest: that about says it. there was a lot of sentiment out there that the senate should take up and at least have a hearing and perhaps have votes on president obama's nominee. host: what kind of discussion do you think you'll hear about this topic as the senate comes back into session? guest: we will see more speculation on the potential justices, potential nominees. democrats are going to continue to test the resolve of mitch mcconnell and chuck grassley in whatever way they can. the i said, until we get to point where we have a nominee and we start talking about that person and that person's record, we have senators reacting to that, there is not a whole lot that will change in the basic dynamics of this debate.
are still in wait and see mode, but this continues to be the biggest issue in the senate, it is really hanging over thing -- over everything that is going on. we are talking about doing a energy bill, heroin addiction bill, but this is really the thing that everyone is thinking about. host: as far as clues to whether there are winds of change in the sense of not appointing a nominee, what are you looking for? guest: when we have a nominee, if it is someone with a remarkable resume, somebody who in any other circumstance would a consensusd choice, somebody who's deeply respected. if somebody like that comes forward, there is a lot of -- a lot of those senators who are standing for reelection will be asked uncomfortable questions on a daily basis and the question
is, are they going to be able to withstand that and stick with that position, or are they going to feel some pressure to get this process moving? host: mike, thank you for your time. it is time for our regular your money segment. as a 77 -- an estimated 7700 nuclear missiles and it will cost allegiance to maintain those missiles. up next, a member of defense news who will talk about the -- where the money goes. ♪
>> it is a whole different campaign. how we have basically moved the on the early primary and now we are in super tuesday. 12 states, boaters in these 12 states will have a defining impact on who the democrats and public -- republicans nominate. we have moved from retail campaigning that one on one we saw in iowa and new hampshire, even in south carolina and now we are campaigning in 12 states for the candidates are going from airport to airport trying to appeal to as many voters as possible and make a last-minute pitches. advertising is key, organization is key but it has moved to a different level of this campaign for the candidates hope the voters know who they are. what the candidates have to do is convince voters, including the undecided that they are the person to vote for.
since this network began back in the late 1970's, one of the hallmarks has been for the ability of people to ask -- call in, ask questions and provide opinions. there is nothing better than talking to voters, a specially voters in the states where primaries or caucuses were held on a particular day. what were the lines like, why do you support a particular candidate? you really get a sense of the pulse of america. other networks have their pundits and analysts, and we will have the ability for people to question some leading reporters on super tuesday, but the best pundits, our viewers and listeners who tune in. continues.on journal host: it is time for our regular your money segment. we take a look at the u.s. nuclear stockpile in what is needed to maintain that stockpile and what is meant for the future. joining us is aaron metha. thank you for joining us.
can you tell us why we still have a nuclear-based stockpile as it is? guest: the argument that is put forward from proponents is essentially, look at russia and china. they are not getting rid of their nuclear weapons anytime soon. that is something we need to maintain our edge on. it is called x essential issue for the u.s. military to be able to match up with these countries and show that if there is ever a nuclear fight, the u.s. will come out ahead. about 7100 nuclear weapons, russia has about 7700 and there is falloff from their. guest: under the new treaty, those numbers will come down. the argument is that you can do a lot of damage with 7500 or 4000 or 1000 nuclear weapons. what is the appropriate cap? when dealing with the
money needed to maintain these weapons, what areas are we talking about? guest: the congressional budget organization came out and said that over the next 10 years, the project the nuclear arsenal costs about $350 billion. that number will go up pretty high on average in the 20 20's. other groups have come out, one think tank says it will be about 70 -- $700 billion in the next 25 years. was a group inside the department of energy which handles the development, production, design of the actual new warhead. those delivery systems are the icbms, the bombers, the air controlled cruse missiles and the navy submarines. the issue that is coming up right now is that all of these systems are essentially edging out over the next 15 years to get to the point were those
systems are replaced, various services in the pentagon have to begin spending the money now in designing systems and get them under way. that has been seen as an opportunity from the nonproliferation crowd to go at them and say do need all of these systems? there are various cases being made and you are seeing this layout in the hill. host: in the next 10 years, is it just replacing the systems to launch on -- or the missiles themselves? guest: it is both. the nsa is trying to combine various warheads down to about five different variants. that will also cost several billions of dollars. will talk about those delivery systems and the u.s. nuclear stockpile, the money needed to maintain those. guests, if you have questions, you can call (202) 748-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.
(202) 748-8002 for independents. list,.o down the and then we can talk specifics $160 billion price tag across the middle east. give us specifics, one we talking about as far as the actual delivery systems? guest: the first one is the navy's replacement for the ohio class submarine. if you have seen movies that in the case of a nuclear war would want -- lunch nuclear missiles from underwater, that is the first bill that will come due. a newnvolves building reactor, actual submarines, designing the systems. host: -- commonly referred to as the ohio class. technologies,ew
they will have less of them than they currently have. it will be stealthier, more capable, more weapons. -- it becomes less about the nuclear capabilities and more about the fact that the systems are old and they have to be replaced if that part of the so-called nuclear triad is going to remain. used thatis a term refers to the fact that there are basically three ways that nuclear weapons could be icbm.red, by air, sea or host: how much of that triad is sea-based? guest: the icbms are the biggest numbers. the submarine force is important because it is considered -- it is the one you would put in the pacific to hold china accountable and let them know that there are systems near the territory. host: are they always loaded
with weapons and to continually move around? guest: it is rotational. if there is a need for a presence, they will send one. in some cases, they will let the countries know they are there because the point of all nuclear weapons in the u.s. is deterrence. the goal is to remind everyone in the world that we have these things and we have the capability to hold him accountable if you tried to be a bad actor. the submarines are interesting because in some ways, it is the hidden part of the triad. it is the force that you don't know where it is. in other ways, the point that you don't know where it is and you know -- and we know that is kind of the core of the whole idea. host: we will talk more about the systems as we continue with our discussion. numbers will be on your screen if you want to ask questions. let's start with judy in virginia. caller: thank you.
i grew up in the cold war. the thing that horrifies me most is nuclear war. what horrifies me is that when we develop the atomic weapons and dropped it on nice psyche and hiroshima -- on nagasaki and hiroshima, we did not have television yet. telephone operators were still transferring calls by manually plugging into control boards. hands, in hold in our paul pilots or anything like a bank ofpower that computers used to have in the 1950's. there are hydrogen weapons, neutron weapons which are a lot more expensive. therelse could be out that we are up against, because we certainly have to maintain our defense and i think we have to upgrade our weaponry.
from what i understand, the russians have gone down because their missiles are more accurate. they have gone down to kill a tonnage as opposed to make a atonnage.- meg what can we do to defend against this and what do we need because certainly, we have to be number one in this. ,uest: i think the answer is you see a lot of investment coinciding with the kind of new nuclear non--- modernization that has been the focus of the last few years. something like a nuclear strike is going to be a priority. this is where things like cyber come into play. the u.s. has the capacity to do a cyber attack against a nation that could potentially stop something like this from happening. the best determined from a
nuclear war or attack is generally going to be a mix of diplomacy and of the actual u.s. deterrent, knowing that any country that would strike the u.s. would be responded to in kind from this mix of capabilities. the enemy will necessarily know where they are at any given time. host: washington, d.c., trevor, democrat. drop the whole playful euphemisms of deterrence and response? so we are talking about is genocide and mass murder. i visited the titan missile site that was turned into a museum and what struck me was, there are no plans for the people who lost that missile to survive. it was the subject of jokes among the operators. this is annihilation. given that our real threat nuclear weapons is a symmetrix, people who we can't to deter with mass murder and mass annihilation. isn't it insane to incentivize
our potentially unstable states like russia and pakistan to build more nuclear weapons, which could potentially end up in the hands of someone who wishes to use them? guest: that is the core of the argument from the arms control association and groups similar to that, that essentially the more the u.s. invests in nuclear weapons, the more likely it is other nations will do the same in the creates the potential for a rogue actor to lay hands on nuclear weapons. russia and the u.s. lead by magnitudes, the world in terms of numbers of actual weapons. the counter you hear from the pentagon or congress to support this action is essentially, russia and china both said they will continue to invest in their arsenal. if we don't do the same, we will fall behind and be held at this asymmetric advantage.
frankly, your argument falls down on where you believe whether nuclear weapons should never be used again or not. guest: aside from russia -- host: aside from russia and china, who is the next biggest threat? guest: threat wise, those are the existential threats, several u.s. allies have nuclear weapons. north korea is the big wildcard in all of this. exactly what capabilities they have is unclear, at least to the public. they have demonstrated in the last couple of months a willingness to show that they have these weapons and of a have some capabilities. it is unclear if they could really strike the u.s. or not, but a good certainly strike u.s. allies in the region. in thoses iran change it -- in that list because of the agreements that have been made? guest: according to the agreement, they will not have nuclear weapons, that was the whole impetus was to eliminate
them as a nuclear armed state. host: john from new jersey, caller: thank you very much. since the vast majority of people in this world in this piece, isn't it time for our leaders to take the lead and get all the other leaders of the world to sit down in a common sense conference and stop this altogether, to stop this proliferation completely. this should go to a public referendum in the united states and save hundreds of billions of dollars to go to something useful and life enhance thing rather than destruction and the moral courage is there in our leaders. this could get done. think that is in some ways
what the new start is about. interesting the number of candidates who have been asked about this on the campaign trail , several from struck out over the course of last year, asked about how you feel about nuclear weapons and almost all of them said at some point, i would like to see the world at zero nuclear weapons. that is not a realistic goal. theink that is shared by administration and others. the focus has become more about getting numbers down. there is a sense that is not a realistic goal in this world now. host: we showed you the $160 billion estimated price tag, about 8 billion dollars for tactical systems, $80 billion for weapons laboratories and $62 billion for command and control.
specifically because of sequestration? to what degree. >> this is the long tail of sequestration in budget caps. the pentagon would essentially have as much money as it wanted and while this would be a big price tag, everything would be fine for them. under the budget cap proposed by sequestration, you have a money is where tighter. how tight is the matter of argument, a slush fund by critics. the issue the pentagon is having and they are speaking openly about this, starting in 2022, a lot of conventional systems have to be modernized as well. time, the new ohio cost replacement, the new weapons systems are all coming online from a nuclear aspect.
you are seeing these two collide. the pentagon is saying if the budget cuts are made, we do not -- we will have to find things to cut. you are also defending a system with a cold war mentality. to say it. best way >> it is a strange mix the pentagon has been struggling to find a balance with. republican line, bill, you are next. go ahead. caller: over the past couple of years, the obama administration has been implementing this to asia, moving the u.s. navy there and i was wondering how nuclear strategy figures into that, specific we, john kasich mentioned that if he were
president, he would upgrade ballistic missile defenses and south korea. terms of theg, in peninsula and japan in particular, what u.s. nuclear looks like inlies israel now, and what kinds of --ansions are contractions or contractions could we expect in the future. >> there are two factors in this. the first is the ability to have the nuclear submarines floating in the pacific, letting everyone in the region know, whoever may be in conflict with the u.s., at these things are there and are able to have a response. the other aspect is the missile-defense aspect. play outeing that right now with the anti-miss it the u.s.e system that
has discussed for years and never really went anywhere. after the last nuclear launch, the countries will have a serious is gushing this week. china has raised serious concerns about that because the system comes with a radar that would seem to china would be intentionally spying for the u.s. .hey are trying to put pressure particularlyreat, north korea to japan to south korea, two other upcoming allies, it is a real thing that will be a big budget driver, very much a focus of the carter secretary of defense administration right now. ross, new york, democrats line. caller: i am glad the topic is being discussed, but i do have to take issue with what was said as the rationale
our defense department uses for having to keep our weapons up to date. is in order to have the ability to prevail in a nuclear war. the liney to stay on and dialogue on this. it is up to you folks. the fact is, 100 nuclear weapons, 100 missiles, especially if each is an independently targeted reentry vehicle, 100 weapons would life inlly destroy all the united states and make the united states unlivable.
explain whyd you you say that prevail is the intent of the defense establishment? sure. that is a term you here at the argument,nd not my necessarily. the nuclear power many countries to wipe oute enough the world with less weapons and they currently have. that is driving down the number of weapons and you that argument made quite a bit from the community. where do the weapons exist generally in the united states? guest: the western part. you may have heard there were a couple of cheating scandals at air force bases throughout that part of the world. the issue that has been there with the ground-based --
deterrent is it is not a great job. it has become abundantly clear that the people doing this job feel they are not treated properly. they are not given respect other members of services are and that the morale has been really low. talking the secretary openly about the need to not just modernize the actual weapons but modernize the way that particular career path in the air force goes. host: we heard the term, minuteman three. that is the existing system now and it is supposed to age out by the end of the early 2030's. a name that will probably get a -- quippiera quick title at some point. they have notd
necessarily started the way they started the next bomber and submarine program. host: our guest to talk about the issues with updating and keeping the arsenal. -- david from tennessee, independent line, you are next. good morning. my question is not really about the nuclear part. it is about any devices, electromagnetic pulse devices that could knock out the electrical system or sort of , that anybody could use before they started something. sure, that is something that gets talked about a lot. personally, i think there is less concern about something
like any mp strike then there is about a cyber attack that would knock out critic structure or take-out capabilities. even something as simple as denying gps, which everyone thinks of driving a car -- that is actually an air force program and it is how a lot of weapons use their guidance weapons to find a target. is a lot of concern something like that could take out infrastructure capabilities without messes rarely using a kinetic strike of them sort. host: jerry from the florida republican line. i am showing my age but i was a command major in 1963-1970 in colorado springs. i think it is an absolute necessity. with -- assure a piece, especially since 1970, we must system and nuclear
reclaim a superiority in a nuclear program. thank you. there are a couple of nuclear related hearings on the hill and even the democrats said we need to modernize, we need to be spending the money. it is a big will but it needs to happen and it is very important to the future of the country. you are not seeing a lot of disagreements at this point on the hill about the need to spend to modernize on the nuclear weapons. i think you will start seeing more concern as the bill gets closer and closer to having to be paid, especially in the early 20's. a viewer on twitter asked about a project in development, what is the expected cost and talk to me overall about our capability and fiscal standing
overall in the united states? aret: a lot of programs coming due for the pentagon not just for nuclear but things like ship6 tanker, several new programs, the army has a couple of programs. there is certainly going to be a big bill coming through. that is the thing to keep in mind. it is not just the cost of nuclear weapons. it is the cost plus the forces hitting at the same time. barring some sort of fiscal change, something will have to get cut and all of these programs will conflict with each other. you can see the turn to a real fight. democrats line, here is john. caller: a couple of quick questions.
graham andindsey would not go forward with the treaty unless we did some upgrades to the systems such as the gps mentioned earlier with just casecognition the gps was knocked out. also upgrading delivery systems. my question to you is, talked about upgrading the navy, subs, back innd i remember silos, those are automated for the most part now. my question is looking forward to i guess 2020, did you
mention, replacing the subs, missile defense systems, that is what i am looking at. i thought that was part of the process to reduce the missiles necessary. guest: part of the issue is sequestration popped up. it through giant monkeywrench into a lot of plants. for the pentagon, it essentially put in budget caps that we know we have a levels forward, unclear after that. mostly, the money is going to current programs. it means pushing off capabilities in the future like upgrading to the next generation bomber and subs. these things will make a cake further down the line but at some point, you have to start these programs to actually
finish them on time to replace the things they need to replace. that is where he gets messy. host: we talked about a new sub and missiles. something called the long rage strike -- long-range strike bomber. it will replace the conventional bombers for the u.s. air force. the b-52 has been around for 60 years. starte point, it will falling out of the sky. no plan has flown as much as this plane. have beend the b-2 used since there'll he 1990's. these things need to be replaced at some point. on long-range bomber, friday, you saw the first picture of this thing. it will replace the b-52 and the b-1. it is assumed it will -- eventually replace the b-2 but that is not technically the point of it. it will be nuclear capable and that will be the primary nuclear delivery system from the air
force. -- droppingct but of bombs of it came to that? guest: dropping bombs, and obviously, there is also a cruise missile point to it. you can hit something here, you do not have to fly over and drop bombs. will be stealthy and penetrate into enemy territory, take-out defenses, pave the way for more conventional forces to come behind and be used to drop nuclear weapons. host: how long until we see a prototype and an actually working function? this is an expensive press -- question. the air force says no and a lot of people think something has been flying. find out we actually details? we still do not even know the details of who is working on it. at the air force
continues to refuse to say who is making the engines or any components. my guess is it will be a couple of years before we see design concept and basic ideas. maryland, mike is joining us on our independent line p or good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. how much ofask you a role compared to a decade or so ago, does the private sector in upgrades to the weapons systems? i will take that answer off-line. thanks. a rule, the private sector is the king of developing these things. the pentagon this contrasts with them and they drive the new technology and the new systems. people bid on contracts and eventually there is a winner.
in terms of nuclear, it is a huge part. u.s. does not make any weapons. the u.s. contracts out for all of our weapons needs. bigstry will always have a role. an area to have an ion with spacer stuff is the architecture behind it. it is not a situation where you just push a button and a missile launches from the ground and appears where you want it to. there is a whole architecture behind that. a lot of those systems need to be replaced or redesigned over the next decade, something where you will see a lot of industry participation. doug in ohio, democrats line. caller: the biggest threat to the united states and the world presently is pakistan and india. they are staffed over kashmir. if those two countries have a nuclear exchange, the world is wiped out anyhow.
that. comment on thank you. that is certainly a big concern. you see that and how the u.s. has reached out to both countries. the two countries are divided in the way the u.s. handles them. one part of the pentagon is in part of that and the other is in part of india. direct lines to both countries without having u.s. officers in conflict with the two of them. ask carter has made india a priority and has increased ties there partly under a directive from president obama. for secretary carter, this is a part of the pivot to the pacific . a big part is to make them partner. part of the thinking with that is to make sure it does not happen. maryland, republican line. caller: i want to ask you a
couple of questions. , why are you exposing our secrets on national television so that our enemy will know exactly what we have and where we have it? we depend on you guys to have us ready so if we or when we are attacked, the enemy will be surprised when we bring them down in defeat. where theknow position is, what we have, where we have it, then knows the, we get to be surprised because they come prepared for us. you see? so that is what make me sad, ok? host: let our guest respond. guest: there are two things. nothing i am talking about is a state secret. this is stuff the pentagon is talking about.
the goal is to let everyone else in the world no that the u.s. has this capability, and we have the ability to strike back or strike first if we need to. the is the idea of deterrent, the main argument for keeping the nuclear weapons, that the u.s. is the biggest role in the block and you cannot step to the u.s. without getting responded to. the other aspect is letting people know where things are. that is the point of the air fleet, that you would not know where these things are. you do not know where the stealthy summary and is, or the plane, at any given time until it appears and you unfortunately find out. governmentoes the determine when the missile has to go online -- offline? they are in charge of looking at the weapons and doing a time check and making sure everything is working properly. a lot of it is aging out.
in terms of actual protocols, it is a number of fancy calculations and algorithms they do not tell me about. there are people whose jobs are to check every day and say ok, should this be online or off-line? host: what is the process of taking it online? there are a number of options on what to do and it is a political issue. you have seen lindsey graham who to deal a big issue with this because it is a huge jobs creator for the united states. that is where you will see the first week fight on the hill about nuclear weapons, how do we dispose the ones we are getting rid of, what is the proper way to do that and which states will benefit. you isew jersey, and next for our guest on the independent line. good morning. guest: good morning. i just want to say, we once had
a president by the name of john f. kennedy who made a speech in june at american university in all inhabit the same planet, we all breathe the same air. problems a man-made, therefore they can be solved by men. i understand this is about jobs are wetes, but what doing when we have an infrastructure in the country where it is rotting and bridges are all in down, college kids are coming out of college, 95 house and dollars in debt, they work for banks that they own the eventually, is this the end game for the department of defense? is this the end game for the tont chiefs of staff who go work for these very companies, and this is what president eisenhower warned against, the
buildup of the military-industrial complex. good day. the cost is the argument here. many people would like to see the money being spent on nuclear weapons invested in other ways, education, or even just back to conventional military programs. as people begin to become aware of the issue, and this is really just happening now on the hill, people are starting to realize the cost, you will hear the argument a lot more and you will start to see some resistance building up, $350 billion over on bringingyears the weapons back. to read the want guest'story, it is on the defense news website. what first led you to write on this? event inwas at an october and there were a number of officials who started to have
a roundtable discussion about nuclear weapons and a top official said i'm glad i'm am not going to be here when we have to deal with the issue. i will be gone and it will be someone else's problem. then you started to hear members of the pentagon talking about this, saying i do not know how we will balance this out in the next couple of years. you start to think, maybe this is worth something -- something worth diving into. >> good morning. i tuned in late to your show, so you may have already covered this. i was under the impression that nuclear disarmament was still an active program. are the nations of the world not pursuing nuclear disarmament?
i would like to tell you about a book a woman by the name of caroline wrote. in the nucleard disarmament talks back in the 1990's, i believe it was. loveitle of her book is changes things, even in the world of politics. get one more book income i have written -- host: go ahead quickly. caller: you can find at godislove.org. thank you. guest: there are on going discussions about nuclear weapons. the obama administration has pursued. the administration made clear they also believe a strong nuclear deterrent is something they will not get rid of all of
the nuclear weapons. what will be interesting to see in the coming couple of years as a new administration comes in is to see how they prioritize what the nuclear weapons stockpile should be. to restart nuclear discussions with other nuclear powers and decide that all of these programs have to be capitalized and modernized if they make sense to continue to do that. host: who are the key players? who else is involved? the secretary of defense, the deputy secretary of policy, frank, the top weapons buyer for the pentagon, mike, the comptroller, the money guy, all of these guys will be involved in the discussion inside the building to it is a national level discussion. sets the agenda. the pentagon will do what the obama administration says, and follow their guidance. the decision to go ahead with modernizing and keeping all visas -- system together was
made by the obama administration early. host: darrell on our independent line. hi there. i understand we have taken weapons of the nuclear type and have shipped them to in oures like they are bases, of course. germany, 20 nuclear weapons over there. i do not know all the other nations we have shipped weapons to. you fight isis and there is a chance you will get run over by one of our home these -- home these -- hum v's. making sure we are not the country of peace anymore but we will put the world and pieces. it is a shame, we will now have a deal and all those people in them grades that -- graves that died, wonder if they were able to come back to life, they would say, what did i die for? so i can get a vietnamese
vehicle? the united states is not a country anymore of let's say peace. we are looking to put the world and pieces. thanks, guys. guest: interesting you mention jeremy. aboutis a lot of talks whether a nuclear weapon should be in europe or not. that is a key part of the cold war planning the strategy. since russia's invasion of ukraine, you see the argument against having any nuclear capability in europe including european militaries having that capability. it has been quiet and we start to see the reinvestment capabilities again. that ties into a lot of what the u.s. talks about. and insurgents in russia under putin, in a way the u.s. has not seen since the cold war, requires having some of these capabilities still available. south dakota, republican
line. caller: i do not know how i want to ask the question, but all the money we're spending on nuclear and the united states is so worried about iran getting one nuclear weapon, and how much do we give israel? billions of dollars. i agree with the gentleman who called and before that went eisenhower warned us about the industrial military complex, all the lobbyists and so forth, lobbying our congressmen for this kind of stuff, i just don't understand. buta vietnam-era veteran, i'm totally against what we are doing in the middle east. i don't think we should intervene. what