tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN September 3, 2015 9:00am-11:01am EDT
what this plan of july 43 and is it projects soviet forces to the mountains in the west, through the lesser hingans in the north, in other words, up the river through hylar from northwestern manchuria through the mountains and also prescribes seizure of the passage. basically, what this plan in 1943 does, in a defensive context, is it requires forces on the ground in manchuria to secure the jumping off positions for reinforcements that will ultimately come in the summer of '45 to reach the central valley of manchuria. september 1943, the general staff follows that up with an assessment of offensive needs.
and you'll find then a whole series of directors. and i might add all this is in the paper together with two appendices with each directive and precisely what that directive calls for in '41 to '45. the append sees are larger than the paper. the general staff assessment sets essentially the framework for the logistical buildup that will begin in '44 and then will accelerate in '45. so what i'm saying is the logistical build up on the part of the soviets occurs well before the period that most previous histories said it occurred. a lot of these units are anti-aircraft artillery, they're specialized support units and most out to the far east throughout 1944. allied consultations, november 1943, that's when the soviets
agree to join the war in the east without pinning themselves down as to precisely when. moscow, october '44, this is the statement by stalin. we have 30 divisions in 19 brigades, but 30 more are needed. actually, this is a little erroneous. if you look at the formerly classified battle, these are rifle divisions in the text of the conversation. there are 30 rifle divisions and 22 rifle brigades in the far east in regard to a lot of other units that will bring that number up much higher in divisional equivalent. i might add in these early deliberations, there is some disagreement over what territories -- the japanese forces -- who will the japanese capitulate to and which territory to seize.
and that's the way it's worded. the kureals are a point of contention because although we do promise the kureals on a number of occasions, there are also a number of occasions where we waffle a bit. and in 1945 when general order number one is put together in august, we waffle a little bit and in the end truman accepts that, as we'll see. okay. this is basically the period from april 1945 when the soviets renounce their neutrality pact that they've had from august 1941 to august 1945. and i call it target hokkaido revisited. there is an argument and there
are disagreements over this question of who will occupy what and when they will occupy it. the soviet view very clearly is that manchuria and particularly those in the peninsula rights should belong to the soviets. korea north of the 38th parallel and the kuriel islands with hokkaido treated covertly but mentioned in a soviet planning meeting. most of these plans that i've talked about, 42, 43 and the revisions in '45 do not mention hokkaido. hokkaido is kept quiet. but apparently in the june 26th-27th meeting, this preceded the final publication for the plans in manchuria, there was an open discussion in closed quarters, and zurkov has
reportedly put in his two cents about what was required there and other generals and other figures did the same thing. so it was behind the scenes and it was a point of consideration and discussion. the evolving u.s. view is an interesting one. the state war navy coordinating committee, an acronym i can't even discuss when you put it together, worked on general order number one in august of '45 and we published it in august '45, but without addressing the kuriels. they recommended adding the kuriels but dividing them between the u.s. and the soviet union. there's a map that they used with the dividing line north of
the islands and so on. but the details are in here. and the problem was that that affected or was checked or was trumped by subsequent negotiations. this is a general list of items. i'm going to quote a cup of things verbatim because they're interesting, if i can find them in here. 15th august, the soviets -- actually they sent it the day before. they sent an operational group where the general staff is any sort of group of senior officers who have a specific mission to perform. this is -- this group of officers is headed by lieutenant general kn derivienko. a very shadowy figure in history, but now we've got a lot of his correspondence and reports back to the u.s. subsequent to his arrival on the 15th of august. he is sent over with instructions on what he should do. the instructions on the 15th of august are fairley clear.
on the 16th of august -- and there's a coordinated effort with this. he's told to get there as fast as possible and he's told to submit the very same things to mcarthur that stalin's 16 august message to truman has in it about order number one. and i'll read you an excerpt from stalin's message. it states to include the release of soviet troops to all the kuriel islands, which were the three powers in the crimea had come into possession of the soviet union -- have to come in possession of the soviet union to include in the region of surrender of japanese armed
forces to the soviet troops, the northern part of the island hokkaido which it joins in the north to the laparuse strait. demarcation line between the northern and southern havrs and the eastern coast of the island to the city of rumoya, kashira on the eastern coast and so on and so forth. the same thing in his message to deravienko -- and i might add he's to communicate. and if you look at the message he sent back after the 16th of all, they go right into september, he's doing an interesting job of laying out the u.s. order of battle in the pacific, something that if you gentlemen haven't looked at already, you might want to do to see how accurate they actually are. he has two other generals with him, as well. one will become essentially the chief of intelligence in the far eastern front and later be a chief adviser to mao setung's
army. he's got another shadowy figure, colonel ivanoh is doing missions of his own there. the mission is quite a critical one. the orders are with a previso -- talking about what mcarthur is to be presented with and in addition demands the following regions in which all air, ground and auxiliary japanese forces must be taken prisoner by soviet forces. you are obliged to insist on the fulfillment of this demand ol the soviet government before general mcarthur. then he adds a real hooker to it, and your paper on mcarthur's post war structure brings this to mind. adding fuel to the growing fire,
they insisted derevenko presented general macarthur the questions of soviet union's government concerning any sort of stationing of soviet troops in tokyo. if you look at the order itself, it states categorically, we want troops in tokyo. there is, throughout all of this, an implication that somebody has told stalin -- whether it's officially roosevelt himself in a meeting or whether it's kgb operating somewhere. but they've told stalin that hokkaido is in play. if he plays his cards right. that remains to be seen who that source is. maybe we'll find out in the next generation of releases from moscow. in any case, august 17th truman responds to the message and this is a message i didn't have available when i wrote the book back in 2005. but the response is a very, very sharp rebuttal basically while
agreeing to stalin's request to modify general order number one to include the kuriel islands, to be surrendered to the forces in the far east, truman adds, regarding your suggestion as to the surrender of japanese forces on the island hokkaido, it is my intention and arrangements have been made for the surrender of jas japanese forces on all the islands of japan proper, hokkaido, and others to general mcarthur. it is a very, very direct, sharp warning, and i believe that that is the reason why the soviets ultimately together would difficulties in mounting an offensive, why the soviets refused or defer or postpone or whatever you want to call it the invasion of hokkaido. there is more to this now and we
now know that 18 to 21 august, the high command accepts the fact that the operation will be postponed but in everything that they publish leaves the previseo until further orders as if there is going to be something coming down. during this four-day period, essentially the first far eastern front and the other commands in the area seize everything they possibly can short of hokkaido. this is when the northern territories go, when the southern islands go and so on and so forth. i think perhaps the most telling note of all, though, is a message on the 25th which indicates to me that -- and this is quite late in the game, but he's telling his hand picked representative to mcarthur that the jig is up, that's it.
we simply can't do anything more and it's time to back away. and i'm going to quote that one to you, if i can find it. this is a directive, 11125 swb 17 august 1945. deravenko has informed the following, you must not raise the question about the japanese armed forces surrendering to soviet armed forces in the northern half of hokkaido as you were instructed because president truman denied us on this matter. stalin, one of the few times -- and this is a stalin signed directive actually mentions why. you must not raise the question about the granding to the soviet union of any sort of stationing
zone for soviet forces in tokyo. as concerns the stationing of soviet forces on all the eye legions, you are obliged to insist on this before the soviet government since according to the agreements in the crimea, the islands will be turned over to our ownership and what is basically where it is left. let me move quickly to a series of conclusions. and i'll let you read these for yourself. they're a disthat las vegas of everything in this 50-odd-page paper. first, beginning in march of 1942 and far more obviously in july 1943, soviet defensive plans are increasingly offensive in nature. that is now undeniable based upon the release of those various operational plans. and collectively, by mid 1943, if you take these plans and this specific locations the forces
are to go to, you see nothing more and nothing less than a framework for what will evolve in july 1945 with the final plan. the only thing that's new is the army sent from the west and plugged into that final plan. beginning in the fall of 1942 and accelerating throughout 1943 and '44, stalin covert left-hand increased the strength to levels commensurate with his evolving plan. and you can, in fact, see a parallel running through each of the plans and the corresponding force structure. a lot of these plans generated in the far east and the siberian military district. this involved increasing the number of divisions equivalents. you can read that yourself. 48 in october '41, '53 and
january '42. 64 in july '42. 78 in october and this will increase into '45, basically the same. third is the correlation to his force built up in the far east beginning at tehran, but most obviously at moscow in october and yalta in february. stalin routinely low balled the strength of soviet figures in the far east. you can probably put a rationale on that showing how difficult it would be for the soviets to do this. they're bending over backwards, also, the argument for increasing through that that would materialize in 1945. and i give you the evidence that i've cited on two other occasions. forth, to a far greater extent
than has been known before, they tailored its command instructor and it's cadre and units in the far east. i am astounded. i knew he sent them because he had gone through the carpathians in hungary. he was going to go through heavily wooded areas of manchuria. i knew he sent other commanders specifically because of their training, but this extends all the way down. the general who leads a special operational group into manchuria, which will become the far eastern main command in the summer of 1945, vosilyevic is hand picked. he's a very competent, accomplished tank core commander who will command the tank mechanized core after he finishes his work and hands over his headquarters to the headquarters of the far eastern
command. that is the unit that will play the key role of getting into north korea and reaching the 38th parallel before any of the allies interfere. this will go down to the captain level. and i'm talking army captain rather than naval captain. when leonoff, senior lieutenant, leads a reconnaissance diversionary detachment in northern norway, he will end up leading the assaults on ungi and chonchung in the north korean ports, and no doubt he would have been involved in hokkaido had hokkaido occurred. this note i got from moscow today is about the 82nd rifle corp. i suspected it and my suspicions
were right. this corp is earmarked and to take hokkaido in its northern half. its mission was to grab anything you can and hold it and it's not a matter of how much, but whether you get something or not. my book on the operation and all russian records up to now tell you that the commander of the 82nd rifle core was none other than general fz barisa. if you look at the new biographical dictionaries, it will tell you that he was replaced right before the operation and by two very capable commanders. this was in july, who did the training of the 82nd rifle corp, and then he was replaced by lieutenant general kusinotof who was, in fact, an army commander.
so you're getting some pretty high paid, high ranking folks. i've done a similar study on the divisions and the division commanders ear marked to take part in the hokkaido invasion. contrary to my previous information, it was now 4 to 3 divisions in a rifle brigade and at least two of those divisions were specially configured divisions with 9,000 plus men as opposed to the 7,000 most rifle divisions were manned to during the offensive. in any case, those are the points that i am making. incredible effort to get the right man in the right place. obviously, they didn't succeed. one of the division commanders
in the 87th rival core was found unable to comply with orders effectively and reprimanded for it and reduced in rank and replaced. here are the people that i've just talked about with you. these are all listed in the paper that i've done. and you can read the rest of these, if the decision by stalin to enter the war was consistent with what he had done in the european war. to a tee. to a tee his methodologies were -- by entering the war against japan, he not only defeated the japanese forces in manchuria and the kuriels, but obviously significantly expanded the soviet territories. a lot of this went to the red chinese. he didn't get hokkaido. i don't believe he got hokkaido because i believe truman's message was a credible one and deterred him. but he made every possible measure to ensure -- if you look at the 87th rifle core and the support provided to it in terms of naval and in particular air, you'll see it was quite a
formidable force. and my conclusion overall, just as a he had done in europe, he certainly improved the soviet union's stature in the far east, but the truman refusal to let hokkaido go probably meant japan would be under u.s. administration and that would have caused fundamental changes and subsequent history of that region. any questions? >> also, the perceived vulnerabilities to the trans-siberian railroad. >> and this is why more recently, in the '70s and '80s and you can date me by that one, they've put the new -- the
trans-siberia is vulnerable and adjacent to manchuria. most of these planned that i've listed and laid out for you are specifically to defending that. although the one in '43 pushes that defense beyond the realm of reason. in the summer of '45, they began moving the armies to man chur ya, they're really paralleled the previous ones, telling them japanese to do a thing with that movement and you immediately seize along the areas back along the river, as well. very, very critical because they need that movement into the far east. now, i would maintain, however, that even without the significant reinforcement that they receive, had the soviets had to do it in 1945, they could have done it -- they actually didn't have all of their forces there.
they accelerated it by 48 hours at least. and if you look back at previous dates and times, it originally had been planned for the end of august and they move that back quite a ways, too. so there's a game being played on dates and times. that is what stalin is saying to this diplomatic question in the far east. >> can you say anything about soviet intelligence estimates of japanese forces in manchuria? >> i hate this configuration. i'm a wanderer. my mind works better when i wander. yes, the intelligence reports are there. they're periodic ones. panasenko commander in '41 has several intelligence reports. there is a two-volume set in the terra series.
the publisher. on this volume 18, 7-1, 7-2, great patriotic war, japanese soviet, japanese relations. and it's a marvelous publication. i didn't know i had it, frankly, until two weeks ago when i discovered it. you get to a point where you have too many books. but the intelligence reports are in there. and they're constantly -- there is another report later on, i remember this one because i saw it. talks about transfers out of manchuria, the fact the unit is going to the pacific, being replaced by defensive divisions out of china and so on and so foreign and interesting intelligence reports that the rest of my team here should look at sometime and see if they're actually accurate or not. did that answer your question? [ inaudible ] >> they were pretty good then. and i had it checked this.
this was -- i did this quickly. the gru and kgb have issued thick volume histories of their operations. they go right up to august/september '45 and stop. i got somebody that wanted advice after. that's not covered yet, supposed to be covered in subsequent volumes. but there is a lot of detail there. there is also a declassified formerly secret study that i've had for quite some time, 20, 25 years, and it has a lot of key detail now. i haven't looked at these to see what they say about the operations, or if it is a large community in manchuria. >> can you comment on u.s. intelligence holdings on what
the russian military was up to in the far east? >> no. there's only so many hours in a day. i don't know. that's why i'm curious to see the reaction to the reports sent back to detail so and so will occupy such and such, occupied such and such a date, and they go down to core level and in some cases division level and pretty specific reports. i only copied one or two of them for the paper. there are about eight or nine. you may have looked at them actually. >> one thing i just discovered last month, in a conference in s australia, and it was published in a publication in australia national university, the australians found out, through diplomatic intercepts, that there were sources in canbarara which we know were a couple of
soviet spies handing over top level intelligence reports published in -- by the australian senior armed forces, both on intelligence estimates and plans for operations in the philippines by the u.s. that agent communicated them apparently to moscow. moscow then sent it to the council general because the japanese were maintaining the charade that manchuria was an independent country and had diplomatic relations. the subjects have diplomatic -- they hand over to the japanese the intelligence reports that the australians have generated and the operational plans. this is a rather startling piece of information. >> matter of fact, the friend in australia sent me that article. it's sitting next to my desk now. having seen these -- having looked through the gru and kgb volumes, nothing surprises me. their intelligence was superb. they had folks everywhere telling everything. and so when people say, this is post home, forget it, with the russians, it wasn't. it brings to mind when the cold
war ended and friends of mine went into the stuff in germany -- they had stuff -- they knew more stuff than we ever imagined. it was all irrelevant because they fell for other reasons entirely. shows you that you can have the best intelligence in the world and it doesn't make any difference at all. but i would not doubt that australian intelligence was not completely penetrated. german headquarters on eastern front, army headquarters were penetrated. it is incredible, the intelligence effort going on. catch me in the evening, if you would. >> in the evening. >> all right. time for lunch. thank you very much. [ applause ] american history tv and primetime continues thursday night with manhattan project voices, an oral his friday of the u.s. effort to build the
first atomic bomb. 8:00 p.m. eastern, an interview with cynthia kelly. and the atmosphere of secrecy around the project. each night this week on c-span3. the c-span cities tour working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. this week we're learning more about the literary life of grand junk, colorado. the mining of a certain mineral had a long term importance in this part of colorado. >> all over the colorado plateau and especially here in mason county, outside of grand junction, we're surrounded with morrison rock. we find a lot of dinosaur bones. but the other things that we
find in the morrison is a mineral, a rock called karen hit. karen tithe contains three different elements. it contains radium. it also contains va nad yum which is used to strengthen steel. during the buildup to world war ii and during world war i irk itself, wit was of extreme value. and also uranium. and uranium, as we know, is one of the best sources for atomic powe e power. >> he fought the battle to reserve water for western colorado by making sure that we got our fair share. how did he do that? well, beginning in his state career and then going on to his
federal career, he climbed up the ladder of seniority and was able to exercise, i think, more power than you might normally have. certainly in the united states congress where he was able to make sure colorado and western clort would be treated fairly in any divisions of water. his first major success was the passage of the colorado river storage project in 1956. >> see all of our programs from grand junk saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2's book tf. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. democrat brenda lawrence is a now house member of the 114 congress. before that she worked for the postal service, served on her local school board and as mayor of southfield, michigan. since coming to washington, d.c. she's been appointed a senior
democrat whip. here is our interview with her. >> representative brenda lawrence, democrat from michigan. before you came to the house this year you spent a long career work in the federal government. >> yes. >> what kind of work did you do and what perspective did it give you on the seat that you now hold? >> well, i'm proud to say i was a postal worker, postal employee, united states postal service, came in being a letter carrier, actually walking door to door in the weather, worked my way up through management and actually after 30 years to retire -- not retire, but to transition from management district job to go and be full time a mayor of my community. >> what perspective did it give you as a member of the house now on how government should be working? >> you know, it's a government
agency. so knowing the checks and balances, not being frustrated with that. understanding the impact of respecting tax dollars, although the postal service generated their own revenue. the perception was that we were taxpayers generated, our rev new came that way but it came from our sales. but what's key about that is we were regulated by the federal government. so there were internal controls and restraints. and the expectation of our role in public service to the country was extremely consistent throughout my service. i served in hr, was very concerned, served in customer service where i actually had the responsibility of, you know, delivering the mail. and that gave me, early on in my
career as the first job i ever had, of respect of public service. >> you were born and raised in detroit, michigan. >> yes. >> what was that like? what did you see other the years and up to present day? >> well, being born and raised in detroit is just an amazing thing. i came up during the motown era. we are so passionate about our cars. and the manufacturing industry was in our blood. as we all know the story of detroit, we peaked during my lifetime and then we saw a huge decline. i am so excited to represent the city of detroit at a time where everything is coming back to life. it's almost like you were dying on the vine at a certain time. and now, as we see, the auto industry has rebound, manufacturing is being redefined in that definition of manufacturing. we've still a major player in detroit.
to see the crisis just devastate our area, our region. and now to see those homes being bought and occupied again, it's just a great time. and you feel like you're coming back to life. and i'm so excited to be part of that and to have lived through it. it's my home. and now to see it coming back to life. >> what originally drew you to public service, meaning elected office and how did it start for you? >> it all started with pta. very active parent in my children's education. and every time we wanted something done, we had to go to the board, talk to the people on the board. i said, i want to be on that board, i don't think they get it and i think we can do a better job. i was a little reluctant. you know the whole story of women going into politics. i was encouraged to do it.
and when i won the first time out, it was so amazing. it was like a rush. but then it became very sobering, because then i realized that these people who voted placed their trust in you. and then i will it in every time i won an election, and i have won school board, city council, mayor for 14 years and now to be a member of congress, i have taken that initial just sober moment when i sat there after being so exhilarated over winning, i am now an elected official, to what this is, is a vote of confidence from the people. and you have a responsibility. and every time i took a vote, over a school district, over thousands of children, their opportunities and basically their future, i've taken every
single job that i've had that the public has put their trust in me seriously, and i define it as being a public servant. >> you were in fact the first woman and first african american mayor of southfield. >> yes. >> what did that mean at the time? what does it mean to you present day? and tell me about southfield. >> when i was elected a reporter came to me and said, you're the first woman, first african. do you think that because your city, at that time it was 40% african american, 60% white or other races, and he said do you think it's because there's a growing group of african americans? i said, you know, the people of the city of southfield voted and elected me to be their mayor. now i'm going to use every skill set, all the passion i can to represent this city and to provide the government services and public service that this city deserves.
i said, now, god decided to create me a woman and bless the skin with this beautiful brown color. if you want to talk about my race, talk to god. i want to talk about what i'm going to do for my city. i don't take lightly the fact that i am a woman and first to be able to sit in that seat. nor the history and the legacy and challenges of being an african american in america. i don't take that lightly. i want so much to be a role model. and every time i see a little girl or a little african american say -- when i go to schools and read to them, they say, wow, you're a mayor, and now they say i'm a congresswoman. i tell them, you can too. i take that very seriously. and when i talk to women, i use the phrase, i say, i'm planting my feet firm and pulling my shoulders back because i know all of you need to stand on my shoulders. i take that seriously. we're still a minority. we're still only 43 in the u.s.
house of congress. and so as we have increased the largest numbers ever, to have the voice of the people i represent, to have the diversity of my life and experiences at the table to debate issues, to be a woman in congress and to be able to fight for those issues that i feel are important to women, childcare, have issues about being a caregiver. our ability to make choices about our own reproductive rights. those are important. and i don't take those lightly. so to say that i've been given this opportunity, i'm wearing it with pride and i also wear it with a tremendous amount of responsibility. and i'm excited to be here.
>> what's the connection between being a mayor and a members of congress? what lessons did you take from that past experience that might help you in this new office? >> so being a mayor you have a lot more staff. you have your whole city employment. just the national impact. i owned my city. i knew every single block of it. i could just dig down -- if i wanted to know how people felt about an issue, it was manageable. when you go to congress and you start getting lobbied off of so many different interest groups, for every issue there's a pro and there's a con. when you vote on an issue, the impact on a national level -- the most sobering moment since i've been in congress in this period of time and being a freshman -- i like to say freshwoman but we say freshman.
it was when i received the letter from the president asking for the right to initiate military force. that was sobering. i had a police force and we went to save people. we went to take care of the city. and if there was a bad guy, yes, we were trained and skilled to do that. but to use military force was a very sobering moment. i miss the intimacy of my constituents. i love going home because i get to touch the people and hear from them, and get the energy of am i meeting my mark. you know, what's important to you. i never want to lose that. and i think local government -- that's why i wanted to run for congress, because to give you an example, the highway trust fund, to talk about issues about
minimum wage, education, these are issues that we're talking about and i know the intimate impact on the federal law right down to the person or to the home. that's why i wanted to run for congress. because i felt that that voice and that experience was lacking. and i never want to lose touch with my constituents and those who i represent. >> your district has been described as a combination of sort of vastly different communities. >> yes. >> explain the district, how it's made up, who is there, what they think, what they'd like for you to do for them. >> so, i have some of the most wealthiest communities not only in michigan but in the country. and i have, as you know, detroit and some other communities that have gone through extreme challenges, with criminal
justice, with education reform, with unfortunately violence. we have had some of the most challenging issues, social issues played out in my district. so we have the finances, the bankruptcy that you saw detroit go through. i have four communities in my district that are going through or coming out of being under a financial manager. now in addition to that, i have the largest number of middle eastern population in my district and in the neighboring district than the middle east. so i have issues as playing out in baghdad, in lebanon, in yemen, all of these are my constituents. so where some congress members may not be deal with what's
happening in yemen, these are my constituents and their families. so that has been an issue and a responsibility for me when it comes to my case work, when it comes to my being sensitive. i have a very large jewish population. so issues with israel is very important that i represent them. social justice issues. my constituents -- my district is majority african american. they want me to have a voice. they want me to stand up and fight for them. you know, what is happening when it comes to policing in america. our education, you know, title 1. it breaks my heart because i know the impact for those children who are in poverty that title 1 has on their ability to succeed in an educational situation that most people would call not normal because there's so many challenges. this is an opportunity -- when i talk about the diverseness --
now, in addition to that, i have water, michigan. i have water all around me. they're very passionate. you better protect our water. you better be on board with this. and then you have the issue of -- that, you know, people are split on, you know, choice, life. those issues always play out. you know, when we talk about funding for our roads, oh my gosh, michigan is one of the worst in the country. we need to invest in our infrastructure. i'm so proud that i'm on the -- i started a task force -- caucus on skilled trades. i'm from a manufacturing environment. so i saw factories close and move to mexico. but now the industry is coming back. and what you see, where the
person used to stand there and weld a door together, a robot does that. so that job doesn't exist. that person may be unemployed. but guess what, that robot needs someone to program it. they need electronics technician to repair it. so here you are with a brand-new set of opportunities. and while we are doing well with engineers, that base, that support is -- we are across the country there is a huge gap. and only 30% of our children go to college. and we in america do not support skilled trades. you and i both know, i don't care how rich you are, when you toilet stops working, you need a plumber. when the lights aren't working, you need an electrician. when the computer stops working, you need a programmer. these are skilled trade jobs.
we're going to have to focus and support that. i submitted a bill that if you, as a manufacturing company, will take khan of your employees and train them in a skilled trade, we'll give you a tax incentive up to 20% to do that. we as the united states government must be partners in addressing the skills gap and the unemployment in america. >> you mentioned such a diverse portfolio and your busyness here and back in the strict. how do you balance your time between the work you need to do here on the hill, committees, hearings, the floor, constituent visits, and then going back home and doing all of that and raising money for reelection, right? how do you do it all? >> it's a grind. it's a grind. what's the major difference of being a mayor, i had a little more control of my life. here you have to make the
commitment. and you know, every member has a scheduler. that's their full-time job, to manage your schedule. and have time for my granddaughter who is the light of my life. my husband of 40-plus years. you know, i trained him. i don't have time to train another one. i want to keep him. you have to schedule time to be with your family. to say that raising funds for money. i'm still celebrating winning congress and already i'm preparing for reelection. so that's -- i'm right back into the campaign mode. and then when you talk about the voting, i have to spend time with my constituents. so when i leave here, get on the plane, travel home, i get off the plane, go right into district work. so people say, you're going home to relax, that's absolutely not the case. >> how did you first make your way around the hill as a new member? who showed you around, how did you find out where to go, what do do when you got there, the whole orientation thing. >> i think that the
administration committee did an amazing job with orientation. what they did that i thought was so profound is that they included your spouse so that your spouse would get a sense of what your world would be like. it was two weeks of going to every -- all of our orientation, except for the security briefings. they were included in our ethics, going on the floor, seeing where we'll be sitting, what, you know, what we'll be doing. that was important. the other thing is that you get lost a lot. this is a massive building with tunnels that will take you places that you never heard of. once we started building staff who had been on the hill, they would walk with you to make sure you got to where you were supposed to be to vote. i now know how to get to the floor to vote and to the cafeteria. but it was trial and error.
and they kind of laugh at you. they know when you're a freshman because you're walking around with that look. and they will say, are you lost? >> our c-span viewers might see you and other members in small chunks. two minutes on the floor, five minutes at a hearing. is that enough time to express yourself, to ask the right questions of people? or what should the viewers know they may not see on tv? >> what you see on tv are hearings, committee work. it is is where legislation is framed at. and they may not all see that. because that's not channel you watch are the actual hearings. and they can be like paint drying. but that's where the work is. that's what gives me that being a freshman. i learn more. when you see us on the floor. one thing many people don't realize, buzzing around, we're actually talking about bills and legislation and debating with our colleagues. you'll see us cross over and talk to republicans.
i need your support on this. why can't you do this? a lot of work happens on that floor when we're taking a vote. that was surprising to me. before coming to congress it looked like chaos, all of these people running around and talking, why aren't they sitting down being orderly. but that's one time where every member of congress on the floor. and you can go and touch someone and say i need to talk to you about this. so that is something people need to look at. but i have an amazing legislative staff. every district -- i mean, every congressional office, we hire people. that's all they do is go dig in to legislation. we have a lot of reading to do. we have meetings. we have caucus meetings. that goes on all day long. and it's on issues and you learn more. and then you can -- sometimes
you go to another committee and sit in so that you can learn more about it. >> overall, and more broadly, what do you make of the way this town and capitol hill operates? >> there's some traditions on this hill that i find amazing that we still use. i don't know a lot of people notice when we're in session, a person puts on white gloves and brings it in and sets it down to signify we're in session. i find that amazing. it's a tradition that has gone on for years. i question the partisan. i'm concerned about that. for some issues that we're all on board, and then it gets locked into a partisan issue that i just can't understand.
i'll give you an example of homeland security budget. there wasn't a member in congress that didn't realize we needed to fund that, how important that was. we got sidetracked on an issue that was put into that bill. i keep saying this. if we agree on the issue and it's good for our country and it's good policy, let's vote on that and take care of the people's business. there are some things we fundamentally disagree on. operate that and let's grind that out. there is nothing wrong with partisan discussion debate. our country was built on that. democratic republican philosophies. and everyone thinks that we have one of the best democracies in the country -- in the world. so i'm not afraid of the grind. but don't grind on things that we agree on. don't implant divisive legislation into something we
agree on. that's -- with new eyes on the system that, to me, that causes me some grief. >> the massive reading you have to do for legislation, what else do you read? what do you like to read in the office, outside the office or at home? and how do you fuel yourself that way? >> well, for me, i like to read newspapers. i like to know what's going on. i like to read editorials, comments. to me it gives me a broader view of what people are saying. if i read, i'm going to read something that is fiction. i need some time to just get away from the real hard issues and just read a feel good book. i like motivational books to give you tools on how to get through difficult, challenging times.
i love the books on women and leadership. as a matter of fact, i'm writing one now. it is important to me for women who have been given the opportunity of leadership to really navigate through that and share that so that other women can avoid some of the pitfalls, the road blocks that we've had. >> besides your staff, what's important in this room, this office, mementos, pictures? >> well, family. i never want to lose sight of how important family is. i told you i have been married to my childhood sweetheart. i have an amazing granddaughter. i have two just great children. and i just -- i think in everything that you do, like right now when i'm talking about education, my granddaughter is currently in school being educated. that brings it home.
when i talk about long-term care insurance, i think about my parents and my grandparents who i was a caretaker for. so family kind of defines everything that we talk about here. it is hard for you to dismiss it from that. and i will tell you that there's other things in here. i mean, it's different pieces of detroit that i brought into my office. i'm a member of a sorority, delta sigma theta. and i'm just so proud of the women. i'm proud of that. i think that everybody has a begin date and an end date. but what's different is the
dash in between. and i'm just so grateful for me to be able to -- for this dash that i have to be able to say i made a difference, not only in my city and my school but in the country. >> as we begin to wrap up, your mentioned leadership. we should point out you were elected by your peers as freshman whip. appointed by a senior whip. why do you think they gave you those assignments? what does it mean to you? what do you hope to accomplish? >> well, the senior whip, i was offered by steny hoyer before i was even sworn in. i asked that question of him. i said, you do know that i'm a freshman, right? he said, yes. but when i look at your background, the path that you've taken and the experience and skill sets that you bring, he said, that's a voice that i want at the table.
so as a senior whip, you are hearing the challenges, the legislation, and the bills and you are sitting there to bring perspective. how does this impact. what is good about that? what i want to do is continue to bring the skill sets that i have and i'm so proud of to the discussion of federal government. we were freshman class of some amazing people. and we have stayed really close. so to have the class put that trust many me, and i send out a newsletter to them, telling them what we're doing, different members, to make sure that we keep that closeness. >> how long would you like to serve in the house if they'll keep you? i should ask, you ran for lieutenant governor. at one point in michigan. do you have larger aspirations back home in michigan?
>> i am living and working my dream job. i have been given this amazing opportunity. i want to serve as long as the people keep me there. as long as i have that fire in the belly. i was telling my staff, i was walking down the hall of the capitol and i said i never want to lose the sense of awe of this place. i still stand here and i think about the history and the people that walked these aisles. i never want to walk and not just feel that i'm in a special place. if i ever lose that, i'm going home. so i have that fire in my belly. if i'm truly doing public service and i'm taking care of my constituents, then i want to stay. >> representative brenda lawrence, democratic michigan, freshman, 14th district. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you so much. me ment. coming up at 2:00 p.m. eastern, a discussion about the
future of iraq. again, that's at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. now also at 2:00 p.m. eastern, live on c-span, republican presidential candidate donald trump will hold a press availability at trump towers in new york city. again, you'll g able to watch that live on c-span. it starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern. ♪ good morning. when congress returns next week it will be the house first up to vote on the ivan nuclear deal. the announcement yesterday from republican leader kevin mccarthey, it will be a measure disapproving the agreement. this comes after democrat senator barbara mikulski became the 39th senator to support the bill. it is thursday morning, september 3rd. and in new york this afternoon,
republican presidential candidate will hold a news conference. republican party is asking all of the candidates to sign a pledge vowing to support the nominee, clearly a measure aimed at donald trump. and the front pages of the most of major newspapers showing the horrific situation across europe, the migrants misery is haunting the european continue tent. we want to begin with your comments on the iran nuclear deal. 202-648-8000. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents, 202-748-8002. and the debate continues, have your opinions changed on this agreement? you can send us a tweet and join us on facebook at base book.com/c-span. good thursday morning to you. front page story of the "the new
york times" times drilling down into the details of how the president was able to get his 34th vote. just after the senate left town for the august recess, a dozen or so undecided democrats met in the cam toll all delivering a blunt joint message. the nuclear agreement will aran was the best that they could. the five world powers had no intention of returning to the negotiating table. a delaware democrat among those in the meeting saying quote, they basically said unanimously that this is as good of a deal as we're going to get. they're clear and strong and will not join you in reopposing sanctions. for many democrats it was a message that ultimately solidified their decision leading to the president to get the votes he needed to put the agreement in place over fierce and united republican opposition. this morning's front page of the "the new york times." always available online. this of course came as secretary
of state john kerry yesterday delivering remarks at the constitution center in philadelphia. there here's a portion of what he had to say. >> you've probably heard the claim that because of our strength, because of the power of our banks, all we americans have to do, if congress rejects this plan, is return to the bargaining table, puff out our chests and demand a better deal. i've heard one krit uk say me would use sanctions to give iran a choice between having an economy or having a nuclear program. well, folks, that's a very punchy soundbite but it has no basis in any reality. as dick said, i was chair of the senate foreign relations committee. but remember, even the toughest restrictions didn't stop iran's nuclear program from speeding
ahead. from a couple hundred sent fuses to 5,000 to 19,000. we've already been there. if this agreement is voted down, those who vote no will not be able to tell you how many centrifuges iran will have next year or the year after. if it's approved, we will be able to tell you exactly what the limits on iran's program will be. >> comments of secretary of state john kerry yesterday in philadelphia. and the full speech available on our website at c-span.org. same-sexes is most likely the path. this is the headline as the republicans weigh new ways to upend the deal. pointing out that republicans had been thinking through alternatives for months knowing that mr. obama would be able to fend off the efforts to override a veto. and for approving the new
sanctions set to be part of the accord. it would send a message to tehran and the white house and put democrats in a tough position. marco rubio among those joining in. he's joined all of his senate republicans staunchly opposing the deal. here's what he said yesterday on the fox news channel. >> he doesn't have the votes to pass it. he has the votes to sustain a veto. i'm confident that the majority of the house and senate are going to reject the deal. there's nothing about this that's binding on the next generation. if i'm the president on the united states and fi mister day in office, we will lift what the president is doing. we'll reimposition sanctions and ill will ask congress to increase same-sexes an back it up with the threat of medical force. >> so the votes to override a veto are not there. so in essence, this is a done deal, senator. >> well, it's a done deal for
the next 18 months. but again it's not a treaty. there's nothing legally binding about it. the president decided to use the national security waiver of the current sanctions that are already on the books and h's going to use that waiver to lift sanctions on iran. when i'm president, we'll reimpose the sanctions on day one and i'll will go to congress to increase the sanctions more and i'll back that up with a credible threat of military force. if you try to build a weapon, we will destroy your program. >> the comments of senator marco rubio. so what do you think. as this debate ensued over the last couple of months, have your views chakd on that? 202, 748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans. several hundred of you weighing in on the facebook page president here are some of their thoughts. brad says iran gets to keep american hostages and develop
nuclear power. cindy says i'm elated to dediplomacy given a chance. and it's a bad deal. we'll going to trust them with nukes? they'll be checking themselves? bad, bad, bad. carol and brown has this, saying it's still the best deal on the table as the other side has none. and anna saying so proud of mo yo members for strongly supporting the diplomacy. rick from new york city, democrats line. your thoughts an all of this, rick. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i think at this point we have no other choice but to good forward with this plan. i mean, what is your alternative ultimately. you're talking about beating the drums of war like we did with iraq and saddam hussein.
and we turned that country into a waste land. what do we want to do? we want to turn iran into a wasteland? we want to start in to disrupt iran and turn, you know, hundreds of thousands -- bomb iran, hundreds of thousands of people being injured, killed, fleeing the country, fleeing into kurp. do we want more homeless iranians fleeing a war torn country. i mean, you have to try to make it work. have to -- this is the best deal that you're going to get right now. and you've got to -- i'm not saying that if the iranians are going to turn out to be wise guys that we can't be tough on them in the future. we can be real tough and there's no -- that's the easiest thing for us to do. >> okay. >> this is something that -- this is something that's hard for us to do and we should go
forward with it. >> rick, thanks very much for the call from new york city. and carol has this point on our twitter page, i've always thought it was a lousy deal but it's hope it works. the dems voted for the deal for unity, not for scruples. again, the announcement yesterday, senator mikulski, retiring at the end of next year, obama ekes out the senate votes but a majority oppose the iran nuclear deal. rob is next from california. welcome to the program. >> caller: hi. this only kicks the can of military action down the road. and the persians will cheat. but on the other hand, secretary of state kerry's masterful presentation that you showed an exert of really swayed me to say to myself, even though i'm a democrat who has oppose the deal, it is perhaps the best
that can be done right now. it kicks the military action down the road. we will have to take military action, we and israel and others. but for now it's okay. the iranians have even had hostages now, three or four of them -- regimes like that go back thousands of years, taking hostages to enforce various powers to agree to agreements. this is an outrageous regime and hopefully will be overthrown eventually. for now this the what we've got to go with and i support it. it's going to delay the military action. >> thank you for the call. speaker john boehner weighing in sending this tweet yesterday on his twitter page saying why should iran be trusted to do its own nuclear inspections at a military site it tried to hide from the world? well here are some of the
headlines outside of washington, d.c. front page of the atlanta journal constitution is the iran deal clears a hurdle, denver post, president secures the 34 commit nmt the senate to support the treaty. the republicans unable to block the deal. and from the hartford kour rant, the president has enough votes to uphold the deal. by the way, later in the program, we'll have neil from seek your roll call. the house likely to take up the measure next week, the senate the following week. live coverage from c-span and from c-span 2. david is joining us on the line from nebraska. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you today? >> fine, thank you. how are you? >> caller: i want to thank the president for the new deal that he give the iranians. it's just amazing to me how
corrupt this government is from the top down. there's never been a more corrupt government in the united states in history. and i want everybody to know -- i want to thank the democratic party for putting an end to israel. thank you. bye. >> edwin has this tweet saying i guess the gop feels war is the best option. it's not their boys being sent in. next is teresa joining us from patterson, new jersey. good morning. welcome to the program. >> thank you for taking my call. >> sure. >> i just have this comment. i listen to secretary of state john kerry in its entirety. there certainly is substance and depth to what they are proposing. i just have this comment to make. i haven't heard that kind of a presentation from any
opposition. there seems to be only surface negative comments rather than an in-depth explanation as secretary of state presented. after listening to his entire story, i kind of agree that first of all, diplomatic opportunities are far better than a military conflict. >> teresa, have your views e vofl evolved? have you always been in favor of this agreement or has it changed over the last couple of weeks? >> caller: i would say it has changed sincety listened to the secretary of state. >> by the way, the president also delivering a speech last month before he went on vacation at american university outlining his support for this agreement and refuting the republican charges against the agreement.
that's part of the video library at c shan.org. tony, have your views changed over the last few weeks? >> caller: my views never changed. these people should not be called iranians. they're persians. they should not be confused with the iraqis next door. they're excellent people. they're well-educated. they're not like the dumb ass farmers -- pardon my french. they're not like the iraqis next door. they're well-educated. they are persians. they should be called persians. they're not like the dumb farmers next door. they are well-educated, wonderful people. i studied with them at the university of illinois and they should be given the due -- they should be called persians. >> toni, have you been to iran?
have you visited there personally? >> caller: never. i have traveled all around the world. but as a former flight attendant of transworld airlines in the old day. i made many friends at the university of illinois. they're not bad people. give them a fair shake and don't call them iranians and don't confuse them with the iraqi dumb farmers next door. that's all i need to say. >> your last point quickly? >> i think this is a good thing. i think obama will go down on a good legacy. thank you for taking my phone call, sir. >> thank you. well inside the wag post, no peace for senator car den on the iran vote. the story available online. the piece points out that even as his colleagues from maryland providing the final vote needed for the president with senator barbara mikulski supporting the
agreement, senator ben car den continues to wrestle with whether or not to support the deal. it's consumed him for much of the past month. akorlgd to the executive director of the jewish community relations council of greater washington, when senator docard goes to dinner, he hears about it. when he sees his grandchildren he hears about it. on the republican line, josh is next from texas. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning, josh. >> caller: yeah, my comment was, you know, how is this going to affect the oil fields in texas. i'm currently working in the oil field right now. it's been struggling a lot. if this bill gets passed, they're going to be -- it's
going to plunge a lot. a lot of people are going to be out of work. that's another things people got to think about. i mean, i understand obviously in iran and the nuclear bomb and everything. but i just don't see why we got to tie that into the deal at all. that's just my opinion. >> josh, thank you for the call. well the washington pogs has the list of those undecided senators. the president receiving the 34 votes he needs. still on the list, senator carden among them, michael bennett web cory booker of new jersey, maria cantwell of washington state, jo manchin of west virginia w, gary peters of michigan, mark warner of virginia and ron widen from oregon. and a list of all of the republican senators and all of the house members opposing the deal. the only democratic senators announcing publicly that they
will oppose to deal, we heard from senator bob menendez from new jersey and earlier this summer from chuck schumer of new york. next is eric from antioch, california. good morning. your take on all of this. >> caller: i support the deal beforehand because basically we should back the president. but kerry's presentation was excellent. i think if ben franklin had been there watching it he would have been impressed. >> if the iran deal is voted down, those who vote no will not be able to tell you how many sent trifujs iran will have next year or the year after. the deal can you that. ron from north carolina. good morning. >> caller: listen, i think this is a good deal. from the first time i hear it i thought it was a good deal. you know, the aca is a great deal, as far as i'm concerned.
but listen to the other side of the aisle, they called it all kind of witch doctors, called it death sentence to old people. they came up with all kind of things to say bad about it, you know. i think it's a great deal. they are very mad. i mean, they doesn't hit obama from every different direction and they always come up empty. and your boy marco rubio, you showed a clip of him on fox news. i remember my education -- my elementary schoolteacher told me the biggest word in the dictionary is if. he didn't use it the fist time. he said, when i'm president. and then he turned back and said oh my god, and then he said if which changed it into the biggest word. if he becomes the president of the united states, which i don't think so. he's got to beat donald trump first. >> by the way, donald trump will have a news conference this afternoon live on the c-span networks at about 2:00 eastern time. you can see it online at
c-span.org. this is the headline this morning, as we listen to brian from massachusetts. good morning, brian. >> caller: good morning. i think this is a good deal. i actually think -- you know, u rupert merdoch is a you. they don't believe in jesus. they want to wipe out all of their neighbors. they want them all crawling in the dirt. the people in iran, they don't have single parent, they don't have problems with drugs. i mean, this country is going down the tubes because of drugs, single parents. i mean we're going down the tubes. and they're doing great. >> brian from massachusetts. and kiki says this, look at the bright side. if dictators kill their people, torture and murder people around the world, so do we. her point, no more wars.
front page of usa today has the iran nuclear agreement, and a photograph of senator barbara mikulski and below that is a story we'll be talking about later, the crisis at europe's door steps and the most heart wrenches pictures, the front page, we can show you that, including pictures of a young boy who was picked up off the coast in turkey. this is the photograph front page of usa today. phil, from maryland, good morning, independent line. >> caller: good morning. just before i left my house this morning i saw on "morning joe" a commercial that, you know, congress should review or scrap the iranian nuclear deal.
the view has been clinch by the obama administration. the question is why is it that the commercial is still running? it makes no sense really. because it is highly unlikely that any of the 34 democrats will change their minds. this question is not for you per se. however i believe sincerely that those could be telling their friends, look, this deal is forward. let's stop it. >> you know that senate republicans will try other action including putting sanctions on iran. this is really a continuation of the debate that we'll see this month now that the lawmakers are returning. >> caller: that is true. they can still put sanctions. i sincerely believe if iran does anything stupid, sanctions can be snapped. that's fine. but at the moment there is no way in which the deal can be stopped. it is a foregone don collusion based on the numbers that we
have. i know there are about nine or ten. i just didn't get the correct number indeed. however, they need seven of those ten to not be able to bring the vote up at all. but for now, you know -- i mean i do understand that iran benefits. that's a fact. but the truth of the matter is that, you know, if iran begin to do anything stupid, well i will wholeheartedly support congress to try to, you know, snap back some, you know, sanctions that will cripple them. i don't know. >> and you're right. because if the president gets 41, then they can block this from coming to the senate floor under the senate parliamentary rules. front page of the business section, the money section of "usa today" focusing on the feds saying the economy is expanding slowly and the jobs report out tomorrow could be a factor by the fed on whether or when to
raise interest rates from the money section of "usa today". the president who is back in washington today, the first sitting president to travel above the arctic circle where he takes a climate message where the change is rapid. this photograph of the president in a town of 3,000. a third of the residents on hand yesterday for the president's speech. and inside the "the new york times" during a show of force, china announces it will cut its military by 300,000. the chinese military has more than 2 million members at the moment. this means there will be more specialized forces within the chinese military. let's go next to betty from north carolina, republican line. have your views evolved or changed in the last couple of weeks? >> caller: not really. and i just realized that's what the question was. but i think it's a terrible deal
and i think we have not served well by congress at all. because anybody who would vote for that without reading of the side deals -- and i saw a congressman last night who said that he had not seen it, it had not been given to him. and i think that's ridiculous. and i do agree that there are lots of -- probable the majority of the iranians are persians, and i've known some, nice people, wonderful people. but they're not the ones who are in charge. it's the real radicals that are in charge. that's where we'll have the trouble. >> your final point? >> caller: well, my final point is i think the president laid his -- i think he chose -- i
think he chose the islamic side over america. that's what i think. >> he being the president? >> caller: he being the president. >> betty thank you for your call and comment. apeck, the american israelly political action committee opposing the agreement from the beginning, joining benjamin netanyahu. aipac with this tweet. and paul has this tweet, don't trust iran in the late '70s or did not trust iran in the late '70s and still don't trust iran. wake up america. fox lake, illinois is mourning the loss of the police officer as the manhunt continues for the three suspects. and so far only a couple of hoaxes. they have not figured out who has been responsible for the shooting of the police officer.
the wife of the police officer speaking to reporters yesterday saying her h husband was the love of her life. the headline as fox lake mourns a fallen officer as the hunt continues. james is joining us from illinois, good morning, democrats line. >> caller: hello. >> good morning, jim. >> caller: yes. i just want the say how many of these people running and going against this bill have served this country in a life open death situation. i have not seen one who has a dv 214 and that's out of every republican running. and some of the democrats. i think the more -- the people that's been there should be able to talk up more. what do we want a war for.
i hope that makes sense. it just upsets me. >> jim, what are you referring to? is that your id number? what is that? >> dc 214 is a service number. once you serve this country and protected this country and swore to kill or be killed to protect a way of life and the constitution, that's what it is, dv 214 is you've been in the service and you've been there and you've seen it and you've felt it. these people have not. i've lost a life. they've lost nothing. and yet they're cheering on a president that want to prevent a war. it makes me sick. >> these are three headlines dealing with vice president joe baden, first from usa today is the biden boosters are racing for democratic donors with to be
vice president in mime getting fired up for bide. and the story from the washington times, the ears are open for a biden presidential run. he'll be traveling to pittsburgh on monday for a labor day event. and then appearing on the stephen colbert show later in the week. his office saying he will make a decision by the end of summer, which means between now and september 21st, if you follow the calendar. paul from michigan, good morning, independent line. >> caller: good morning. the question was has your attitude changed about the iran deal. it's a bad idea. it was always a bad idea. will always be a bad idea. but i have a question. did somebody pass a constitutional amendment while i wasn't paying attention that means that the senate does not have to ie prove a treaty anymore? i mean the so-call worker bill
doesn't yo doesn't override the constitution does it? this is just obama trying to go around the constitution again. this stuff is really getting old. >> paul, thank you for weigh in on this. daniel from houston, texas. good morning, dan, republican line. >> caller: good morning. obama and kerry are trying to convince us -- they're running all around the world to say that we should not be concerned with the iranian deal. it's very, very simple. suppose the iranians are going to be wonderful people, honor their agreement for ten years. eventually they get the bomb any way, no matter what they do, no matter what they say. the only thing they're saying is we're postponing it for ten or 15 years and that's it. but for the lifetime of the country and the nation, ten years is not -- it's just a
very, very short time. even if they don't cheat -- i can assure you in my opinion they will not cheat, they're going to be very good, supporting all of their organizations that they're supporting any way, getting all of this money. this is about wasting automatic of this energy on cheating cheating cheating doesn't mean anything because it's irrelevant. they will get the bomb any way. >> daniel from houston, texas. on our facebook page, some of your comments as well. lynn so says, this is ridiculous. there shouldn't be any deal with terrorists but this administration just ignored the facts. and from joe who says, nope, my views haven't changed. next is roy joining us from sun city, california. democrats line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i like to echo the sentiments of the gentleman who asked about
the dv 214. okay? i'm a veteran. i served this country for 20 years. and all these shade tree diplomats who are willing to just send our youngsters into war is ridiculous. they have not offered any alternative to avoid this deal. what's the difference if we eventually go to war. we can do that in 10 or 15 years if in fact they don't live up to the agreement. i don't understand this craziness to rush in. and the alternative is war, belief it or not. thank you. >> and again, this headline from the "washington times", obama eking out a senate victory. if you're just joining us or if you're listening on c-span radio which is heard nationwide on xm and also streamed on the web at c-sp
c-span.org. we're focusing on the nuclear deal now that senator barbara mikulski because the 34th senator to support the deal. and barbara mikulski is stepping down at the end of next year. and still to be determined, her colleague senator ben carden. a little comment, the headline is the staffer who set up hillary's private server, i will plead the fifth, saying he'll assert his fieft amendment right and not testify before the house selected question. the attorneys sent them a letter earlier this week saying that their client will not testify at a hearing planned for next week. the letter was first reported last night by the "washington post." this reaction from the maryland congressman confirmed that tag leeann no did send the letter. he's calling this a wild and
unsubstantiated accusation against hillary clinton and saying he supports his decision. he's not surprised by his decision to take the fifth. full story available online. from oklahoma, republican line, jim. your take on the iran nuclear deal and what happened in the senate yesterday. >> caller: yes. hello. >> yes, good morning. >> caller: yes. okay. i'm a veteran and what the previous veteran was discussing, saying to wait and maybe if they get the nuclear power ten years down the road, then we deal with them is ridiculous. they've been slowly gaining more power and they've always been a leading sponsor of terror. and they need destroyed. not negotiated with, not given the availability and money from our taxpayers to gain more powerfuler and evil. i'm against war but sometimes you have to go out and take care
of things, you know. and you cannot avoid their evil. they're the ones that want war. they're the ones that have claimed publicly to destroyed america and israel. all of these negotiations are being done while american hostages are again being held hostage from iranians. this is insane. obama deserves the most stiffest penalty for this, and kerry. this is complete treesen. why would you negotiate with someone while they're holding hostage. but anyone in america negotiate with someone while they had a kid of theirs hostage and hope that maybe down the road, maybe they'll act properly. release them and then maybe we'll do something. should be no talking with them. should be action, firm and
permanent action. they will been the leading sponsor of terror for decades. >> thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. if you're interested, the "washington post" did a breakdown of where things stand in the house and the senate. the president has the votes necessary to prevent a veto override but also trying to block this from coming to the senate floor. you can read the story online. jay street, a jewish organization in support of this agreement sent out this tweet, 34 senators are publicly backed the iran deal, ensuring its everyone mentation. say thank you. meanwhile, john who lives in north carolina sent us this tweet. who make as deal with the devil and then brags about it. e manuel is next from los
angeles. democrats line. good morning. >> caller: yes. am i on? >> you sure are. go ahead. >> caller: thank you for c-span this morning. i think it's a pretty interesting topic. listen, first i want to say, just to clarify the previous veterans, the dv 214 form officially is a release in active duty form. it's not a discharge form. it's to state that you have been in service and to verify that you've been officially released. in getting back to the deal itself, i was a little skeptical so i've somewhat had a change at least prior to the sanie ing si the deal. but now that the deal has been signed -- and i give it a lot of thought -- it made me think that the iranian people also had a voice in this. and i think this is what really turned the tide to even make a deal such as this.
it may not be the best deal, but i really feel like the people in iran probably feel like some of us feel. we're tired of fussing and fighting over this. the hardliners on both ends are being very stubborn. but you've got to remember the history of our relation with iran goes all the way back to where they felt like they were deceived when we had a puppet dictator in there. so if there was any distrust, it may have been all right. america has a tendency to not own up to things they've done wrong in the past, such as slavery and other such things that we've done. and we call ourselves a democracy, there's a good reason why the hard liners don't trust us. now that we've got this deal, we've got to at least give it a chance to work. because i feel the iranian
people want this deal, the americans i feel we're tired of war. we've got to at least do our part to own up to what we did in the past and give them a little trust. if it doesn't work out, we got all the nations that have sat down at the table. and to make this deal a good deal. and we've got them backing this up. now if we back out -- >> what would you say to critics of the deal including apec and benjamin netanyahu? how would you spond to that. >> caller: i said let's give it a chance because we know that there's people that are not all hard liners. >> thank you for the call from los angeles. peg has this point.
we cannot pick good guys or bad guys in the middle east. we have to consider balancing power and control between all of them. this story is dominating many of the headlines around the count kri, including this, as the president gets a key victory on the iran deal. and a national review has this tweet. if reagan were here, he would tell president obama no agreement is better than a bad agreement. and the story this morning front page of the star ledger in new jersey, obama locks down votes for a nuke deal. and yesterday more from secretary of state john kerry in which we went after the critics of the agreement including the israelly government. here's more from his speech. >> i take a back seat to no one in my commitment to the security of israel. a commitment i demonstrated in my 28-plus years in the senate. as secretary of state i'm fully
conscious of the nature that israel must make. i understand that they cannot afford a mistake in defending its security. and while i respectfully disagree with prime minister netanyahu about the benefits of the iran agreement, i do not question for an instant the basis of his concern or that of any israeli. but i am also convinced, as is president obama, our senior defense and military leaders, and even many former israeli military and intelligence officials, that this agreement puts us on the right path to prevent iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon. the people of israel will be safer with this deal and the same is true for the people throughout the region. >> the comments of secretary of state john kerry yesterday at the constitution center. front page of the "l.a. tames" have this headline, why foes of the iran deal fell short.
pointing out that determined foes of the president's nuclear deal had vowed to use august to fire up public opposition and build a bipartisan majority in congress to sink the land marc deal. instead, the effort fizzled, giving a boost to the white house. bert is next from kington, rhode island, independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have changed my mind. i think we need to do like the great ronald reagan and give themselves arms for hostages and then our hostages in guantanamo can also be released as a trade. this is really ridiculous. bush and chaney took us to rar war in iran and iraq.
that destroyed the middle east and now refugees are swarming into europe. this is really ridiculous. war is not good for anybody, especially kids and world peace. you know, this is going on too long. the rest of the world is into the deal. do it already. it's ridiculous. bye. have a good day. thank you for c-span. you do a great job. >> bert, thank you for the call. this picture, front page of the "washington post." it's in many nurps, a little victim of a growing crisis. a photograph of the body of a child that was washsed up along the beach in turkey, a symbol of the situation as it continues to unfold throughout the continent of europe. we'll have more on that coming up later in the program. the boston globe has this opinion piece, concerns about iran go beyond the nuclear deal
saying congress returns from summer recess this next week bringing with it enough votes in the senate to ensure the president to win a nuclear deal with iran. yet the irony is that while they trumpet, it's a deal of soft power, diplomacy over hard power. washington's efforts to assure anxious arab allies in the deal seem to reinforce their capacity to engage iran militarily. authur is next from memphis, tennessee. good morning. welcome to the program. >> caller: i was going to say, this is not a treaty. this is a deal. anytime dick cheney is against something, you better believe it's a good deal. >> let me share with you what senator mikulski said yesterday, asnounsing she would be the 34th senator agreeing to the deal. no deal is perfect, especially
one negotiated with the iranian va jet stream. i've concluded that this is the best option available to block iran from having a nuclear bomb. for these reasons i will vote in favor of this deal. however, congress must reaffirm our commitment to the safety and security of israel low pressure teddy from florida, republican line. good morning. >> caller: hi. how are you doing? >> fine, thank you. >> caller: what's on the table to keep them from backing out of the deal. after they get the money, the funding. and i agree with the caller from oklahoma that we're dealing with people that have hostages, american hostages. we didn't do anything to get them out. but we gave them the terrorists that we had in guantanamo bay, we gave them five of them. so i'm wondering what's the consequence for them backing out of this deal. it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. i agree with the vet that could
from aem. >> thank you very much for the call. if you're interested, the hill newspaper is keep track, its own whip count and that's available online. we're going to turn our attention to presidential politics and a meeting taking place in morning in new york between donald trump and the rnc gop. requesting that they sign a pledge to support the nominee. roger stone, a former senior adviser and longtime confidant to donald trump will be joining us. and later we'll check in with bill frayly, to talk about the situation as it unfolds, the horrific situation across much of europe as migrants from syria and the middle east flood the continent. you're listening to washington journal on this thursday, september 3rd. we're back in a moment. ♪ this sunday night on q&a,
stand forlaw school professor talkeds about her book "the trouble with lawyers" which take as critical look at the legal profession in the united states, the high cost of law schools and a lack of diversity in the profession. >> i think we need a different model of legal education. that includes one-year programs for people doing routine work. two-year programs is an option for people who want to do something. specialized in the third year. and three full years for people who want a full general practice legal education that we now have. it's crazy to train in the same way somebody who is doing routine divorces in a small town in the midwest and somebody who is doing murders and acquisitions on wall street. we have this one size fits all model of legal education that's extremely expensive. the average debt level for a law
student is $100,000. and that assumes that you can train everybody to do everything in the same way. i'm licensed to practice in two states and i wouldn't trust myself to do a routine divorce. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. washington yournl continues. >> joining us from new york is roger stone, a long time republican strategist, a former adviser to donald trump. mr. stone, thanks for being with us. appreciate it. >> thank for having me. >> politico reporting there's a meeting between donald trump and head of the rnc committee. the republicans want a loyalty pledge signed by all of the candidates. this is being viewed as a move to box in donald trump. what do you think he will say
today? >> well, first of all, i think it's important to understand why donald trump has left the option of running as a third party candidate open. the in a very important piece by maggie haberman that three of the major candidates, in fact, the lee just behind trump in the poll, rubio, bush and walker, were engaged in talks regarding boycotting a fox debate. in the event that trump was in the debate. in 15 or 19 states, the republican bosses, the republican establishment, can keep trump off the ballot with a stroke of a pen, so, trump i think, has said that he would only anticipate running as a third party candidate if he didn't get a fair shake from the republican party. the fact he was in the fox debate, he will be in the cnn debate at the reagan library,
the fact the national chairman is coming to see him, those things indicate trump has gotten what he wanted. which is a level playing field in the republican party. also, in terms of the lodgistics of running as a third party candidate, in all honesty, at the very shortly, within less than 60 day, trump would have to change his new york state voter registration in order to be el vibl in a number of states to run as a third party candidate. running as a third party candidate, actually, as an independent, is enormously expensive and time consuming process. you would have to start now. so, the truth is, i think trump has gotten what he wants. he's giving up nothing. he's the strong front runner for the nomination. i expect he will sign the pledge today. >> you wrote an essay for "usa today" calling trump bold, progressive and interesting, but is he presidential? >> yeah, i think he is.
he is, he's different than your other presidents, but the president we have now is different than our other p presidents. he's a larger than life figure. i think voters are responding to his action. his patriot israel m, his can do spirit. the idea that yes, we can build a wall, fix our immigration system, yes, we can have a boom economy. jobs again. i think trump is very much like reagan or jack kennedy. he's charismatic. he has enormous presence. he fills the room. now, is he an excentric on some things, yes, but we've had a number of prts that are. it's not coincidental that the two greatest presidents of my lifetime have come from outside plix. wisen hour and reagan. the voters are responding to the fact that trump is not a career
politician. he's not part of the washington buddy system. he's not holed into any special interests. >> when did you first meet trump and how long did you work for him? >> in 1989 when i was sent to new york to organize reagan's campaign. i was given a card file from nancy reagan, one of those little recipe boxes, that had index cards of the friends in, no. half the people were dead and the others were fairly prominent but among those was a card for roy cohen, the flamboyant counsel to the committee. a firment in the new york legal profession and major power broker here in new york, so, i made an poappointment to see hi
and one of the first things i had to do was set up a finance committee. oh, do you know fred and donald trump? fred was one of the original gold water, fred trump was a very successful developer of housing in the outer boroughs in his own right. built a substantial fortune as a developer. was a real hard line conservative republican. was a personal friend of barry goldwater's and his son, donald, was then moving in on manhattan real estate. i had the fortune to meet them. i liked him enormously. he joined our finance committee, but more importantly, he was just very helpful to the campaign telephone company told us there would be a delay. trump made a few phone call, those delays disappeared. we needed to fly our petitions
to be filed by deadline. it was a very last minute effort, getting petitions from all over the new york, west chest e, long island area. trump lent us his plane to file the petitions in albany. lest reagan would not have been on the ballot. we became very good friends. in 1979, when i was with some others, a founder of the firm of black, menford and stone, trump was among our first clients. i handled some issues for him that pertained to his kwaa kwas casino empire. it was a practice of interesting, but not very sexy issues. >> you say you left, he said you were fired, yet you continue to
support him, including here at cspan. what's the real story? >> well, "the new york times" and politico, both confirm ed with three separate individuals that i had confided in them my decision to resign and i had shared my resignation letter. i have enormous affection for donald trump. i have wanted him to run for president literally since 1988, when i arranged for the portsmouth chamber of commerce to a speech. the crowd was huge. he got enormous press. i think that george h.w. bush had been at the same forum two weeks previously. he had about 400 people. we had about 2400 people. it was a smashing success. some friends in mine in new hampshire, very enthusiastically organized a trump for president
committee. the first known draft as it were, but it was too early. in his career. he was still focussed on building his empire. fast forward the 2000, i was the chairman of the exploratory committee in which he looked at the possibility of seeking the reform party nomination. donald was not very impressed with george w. bush or al gore. the reform party at that time of course had federal matching funds. they would qualify the federal matching fund, so it was an opportunity to run a campaign on other people's money and i'm glad to say that he did take a hard look at it. at the reform party national convention in dearborn, michigan, that year, in 2000, there was a straw poll and trump won it. he ultimately did not run. three years ago, he looked again at running for president.
he did not think much of the republican field. he ultimately decided to endorse mitt romney, which i think he regrets. i certainly regret it. i think trump would have been a better candidate and that brings us to today. i resigned because i didn't feel i was having the impact on the campaign that i could have. i think campaigns are about issues. broad ideas, not about minutia and i felt i could have a more profound impact working as i have, totally pro bono. i've not joined any superpacs, so i am entitled to be in touch with dond trump. we have been friends for 35 years. i went to two of his weddings. his father's funeral and wake, his mother's funeral and wake. i resigned. no hard feelings.
i've spoken to donald trump. he remains a friend and i remain a strong supporter. i think he is the only figure with the financial independence and the guts and the passion and the hands on can do spirit to take on what i believe is a corrupt system. >> we're going to get to our callers, but i want to get your reaction to nikki hailey making a veiled reference to trump and his approach to the vottoers and on the issues. >> what i will say about mr. trump is he's a smart business man. he's accomplished a lot during his career. it accomplishes nothing to get mad at anybody that criticizes you, so every time someone criticizes him, he goes and m e makes a political attack back. that's not who we are as republicans. that's not what i want my south carolinans to do, what i want us to do going forward. yesterday, i think they started
actually talking about issues and got excite d because they were talking about policy. that's what americans wabt to hear is policy. they don't want the hear how someone offended you. they want to know they're sending someone up to the white house that's going to become and cool tempered, and not get mad at someone just because they criticize him. we would really have a world war if that happens. >> how would you respond? clearly making reference to trump's remarks toward megyn kelly or jeb bush? your reaction. >> yeah, i think the american people want toughness in their president. i think they're getting teared of getting rolleded at the negotiation table by the chinese, the mexicans, by a number of other countries. trump's anger is a controlled anger. he does it for effect, but if you go back to a piece that matt lay bash wrote back in