tv Washington Journal CSPAN March 12, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
after that, will marshal of the progressive policy institute will talk about the recent policy agenda released by the house new democrat coalition. we will also take your facebook comments and tweets. ♪ host: good morning, everyone, and welcome to the "washington journal" this thursday march 12, 2015. continue debate on capitol hill this week with tension between the white house and gop on full display on capitol hill. we will begin with your thoughts. the numbers are on the screen. you can also join the conversation on twitter or go to facebook.
and you can send an e-mail. the phone lines are open. you can start dialing in. let's begin with the foreign relations committee hearing yesterday where secretary of the john kerry was asked about his reaction to the gop letter. [video clip] >> my reaction to the letter was utter disbelief. during my 29 years here in the senate, i never heard of nor even heard of it being proposed, anything comparable to this. if i had, i can guarantee you that no matter what the issue and no matter who was president, i would have certainly rejected it. no one is questioning anyone's right to dissent. any senator can go to the floor any day and raise any of the questions that were raised in that. but the right to the leaders in
the middle of a negotiation, particularly the leader that they have criticized other people for even engaging with the writing to, to write them and suggest that they're going to get a constitutional lesson which by the way was absolutely incorrect, was quite stunning. host: the secretary of state yesterday on capitol hill, his reaction to this letter. 47 republican sending an open letter to iran saying that any deal that is struck could be undone with the stroke of a pen during the next administration. they're on the screen, you can see the letter signed first by tom cotton, freshman senator from arkansas who just won that seat beer heading the letter, and 47 total, including senator rand paul. he explained why he signed it. [video clip]
>> i find the letter to iran but the message was to president obama that we want you to obey the law and we want you to understand the separation of powers. if this agreement in any way modify legislative sanctions, it will have to be passed by congress. that is why i supported senator corker's legislation that says exactly this. however, i've told senator pratt -- senator corker privately that i think this is law anyway. why did i signed his letter? i find it because i signed it to an administration that doesn't listen to an administration that at every turn tries to go around congress because you think you can't get your way. the congress goes, oh -- the president goes, the congress won't do what i want, so i got a pen and i will do what i want. the letter should have been copied to the white house
because the white house needs to understand that any agreement that removes or changes legislation will be half -- will have to be passed by us. host: senator rand paul cleaning why he and his colleagues signed that letter. senator tom cotton spearheaded the effort, and hereof the opposing view in usa today yesterday, saying to miller thought to senator rand paul there, why we wrote the letter to iran. saying this -- marissa in montana, democratic collar, what do you think? caller: thank you so much for this opportunity.
thank you, thank you c-span for the wonderful light shine on the beautiful democracy in america, and thank you for the obama administration because they at least allow a public discourse. during the dark days of the bush and ministration we had no ability to talk without fear of being arrested. if the gop wants to send a letter that completed disagrees with everything, i don't know -- they act like a bunch of kids. but oh well. at least we can have discourse and dialogue in which we can accomplish so many things. thank you c-span and book tv and the founder of c-span. please put more topics in about animal rights and thank you thank you. host: ok. if uses thanks, we appreciate -- effusive thanks, we appreciate it. david in albuquerque.
go ahead. caller: the things that the republican party to you are crazy. i think it will get to a boiling point. i don't know what is going to happen, but it is scary. host: what do you mean it's going to get to a big willing point? -- boiling point? where is it going to go? caller: you know, i don't know but they keep doing crazy things. if they don't stop, then maybe there's going to be a public outcry. host: david, republicans are saying they are trying to assert their role as lawmakers in this process. caller: why can't they make it inclusive of the president? for instance, the thing of
inviting netanyahu to the human -- to the u.n., but why don't they say in a letter to the president this is what we want to do. we would like your input. we don't care what your input is going to be, but we would at least like to have your input. crazy things, why not talk about this letter to iran, this is what we are going to do, rather than just going ahead and doing it. host: ok. john in pennsylvania republican. hi, john. caller: i would like to comment that this year marks the 25th year that we are at war in iraq. it's more than 12 years ago that we declared that mission accomplished. why in the world -- we are
already bombing in libya afghanistan, iraq, and syria. why would we want to go to war with iran on top of all of this? host: do you think that is what republicans are pushing for here with his letter? caller: absolutely -- with this letter? caller: absolutely. they are following the advice of benjamin netanyahu. i'm at the point where i cannot find a republican that i can actually vote for. remember, it was president eisenhower who warned us about this military-industrial complex . and the republican party today is the military-industrial complex. they are not following the american people's advice. they are talking to israeli leaders.
as a matter of fact, if you look at the aipac meetings, i mean, this is the only place you will find nancy and dick cheney hugging and kissing. -- nancy pelosi and dick cheney having and kissing. if both parties. host: john, what evidence do you have that is solely motivated or mostly motivated, by aipac and their support for israel? caller: i don't see where this is in the interest of the american people. we are $18 trillion in debt and is there anyone out there who can say these wars in the middle east have been to the advantage of the united states? host: ok, got your point. ted in rhode island, go ahead. caller: thank you, greta, for taking my call. this is my favorite television program.
it looks like republicans are trying to outdo each other to show how crazy they are, and the crazier the better. they are never going to get along, republicans and democrats. my vice is so states can secede and the crazies can go their own way and have rush limbaugh as their dictator. and then we can have peace. host: jean, democratic collar --gene, democratic caller, you are next. caller: good morning. there's got to be something wrong in this country when you have a foreign leader telling us what to do. republicans hide behind the flag.
they think they're the only was there patriots of this country. they should be ashamed of ourselves. as far as republicans, they should be charged with treason. host: you think so? the cut of this letter? caller: absolutely. it's just wrong wrong. i guarantee you, if there was a republican president, we would already have boots on the ground in iraq. the worst mistake we made was going into iraq. host: all right. the times-picayune with the headline "gop's letter to iran stores hhue and cry."
senators that signed it, and decide for yourself what you think about this letter. that route, louisiana, aj, independent coaller. caller: i guess with all these democrats calling in and saying all this stuff we need to reinstate the testing for voting. if these people have been around in the 30's and 40's, we would be speaking german today. we've got to take a stand against this imperial dictator of a president. and i think the republicans are trying to do it although they are not doing enough. that's why i've become an independent. host: what more, aj, would you like to see you cope -- would you like to see? oh, i think we lost them.
we will go on to gerald in texas, republican. hi, gerald. caller: good morning, greta. listen, this is not the first time that this letter has been sent out by republicans or democrats in the house. they've sent this out in the past, and they do it all the time. they are making a big deal out of nothing. obamas foreign policy is the weakest i've ever seen in any president in my life. host: how so? caller: caller: he cannot go over there and fight a war like he's doing it just by bombing it like we are in world war ii. he's got to send -- he hasn't sent a message to those people that we are capable of doing anything. bush went to a rack and he took them out. that's the only way you can do it.
you cannot come to terms with these people. you cannot negotiate with the terrorists. it cannot be done. host: all right, jerrold. take a look at what marco rubio, potential 2016 presidential contender said before the senate foreign relations committee yesterday. here is his tying the issue to iran in the fight against isis. [video clip] >> i believe much of our policy in regard to isis is not upsetting iran to they do not walk away from the negotiating table. tell me why i'm wrong. >> because the facts do not show that. but i cannot talk about all the details. >> our military presence in the region and the fact that they would be a set if we increase military on the ground in the targeting of isis in syria, can
you tell me how iran would react to an increase in military action against isis? they are not fans of us bombing ice is because it involves our presence in the region. are you telling us that is not impacting the negotiations? or is that something you cannot discuss in this setting? >> they would welcome us bombing them actually. they want us to destroy isis. isis is a threat to them and to the region. you are misreading it if you think there is not a mutual interest with respect to every country in the region. >> sending more personnel into iraq as far as logistical and training they would support that? >> they would obviously be nervous about it, but they are not going to object if that is what it is. at the point is, you have bigger problems in that with that
particular scenario, because the shia militia in iraq might have something to say about it. host: back and forth with the secretary of data there and senator from florida -- secretary of state there and senator from florida marco rubio who may be seeking the presidency in 2016. by the way, secretary of state john kerry talked a little bit more during yesterday's hearing about the ongoing negotiations and how republicans are portraying them. [video clip] x there is no grand bargain being discussed in the context of this negotiation. this is about a nuclear weapon potential. that is it. and the president has made it absolutely clear they will not get a nuclear weapon. the presumption by a lot of people up on the hill here has been that we somehow are not aware of that goal even as we negotiate that coal. -- that goal. our goal is cap diluted to make
sure that they cannot get a nuclear weapon. and it is really almost insulting that the presumption is that we are going to do something that allows them to get a nuclear weapon will stop host: -- a nuclear weapon. host: secretary kerry on where the negotiations stand. this just breaking this morning with the headline that iran's top leader says it points to u.s. disintegration.
mary in california democratic caller, go ahead. caller: i don't understand how all of these senators are arrested for treason. basically what you just said right there, it is saying, a house divided against the health will fall. these senators -- against itself will fall. these senators, as long as i've been following politics, i've never heard of this. this is total treason to the united states. they have put us in a very bad situation, making us look weak and divided. and it's scaring out. i think they should be arrested. host: mary kay at some point
nancy pelosi traveling in 2007 to talk to the syrian leader they point to that as interference in the bush administration's foreign-policy. caller: i'm sorry, when the bush administration was a nuclear free speech was not allowed. i'm sure there was something that one on that allowed her to travel, because he surely would not have allowed that. the bush and ministration was over on -- over the top on people following the policies. i don't know the ins and outs of that. i didn't hear about her traveling over there without permission or you know, trying to counteract what america was doing. we are a unit, one, and first, when they invited the president of israel to totally disrespect our israel -- our president, it makes no sense. and it is showing that we are weak.
it is a house divided amongst itself. when pelosi traveled, that was never a statement of "we are dividing," so i don't understand how these senators are still able to sit in their seats and not arrested for treason. that is treason. host: ok. here is an article on the web that takes issue with this debate and how republicans are being deceived -- perceived. let's hear from michael lancaster, california,
republican. caller: good morning, greta. i listen to it every morning and i hear these democrats call in. as a republican, they are not seeing the picture here. they need to open up and listen to both sides. i do, i listen to both sides. some have good and some have bad. but obama, with his executive what do you call it -- overreach -- his pen, he has bypassed congress. he is the one that should be tried for treason. he should be impeached. that is not how america runs itself. and if they are ok with this the democrats, then they need to go -- maybe to i run -- maybe to iran. maybe they will live better over there. host: ok, let's take a look at
this. mark kirk, a republican, tweeting this out. take a look at what the former secretary of state, madeleine albright, who served in the clinton administration, what she said about this letter. she set down with usa today for an issue for you. -- for an interview. [video clip] >> i think it is unprecedented and fairly outrageous. what has been done by this letter is interference in foreign policy in a way that i think is or a damaging, because
we are in the middle of negotiations. groups of congress had written a letter to khrushchev during the cuban missile crisis and prevented some agreement to be made. i think perhaps if the sign of a brand-new senator who somehow has not even given his late and speech and feels he has to make his name. i feel it is totally inappropriate, and in many ways damaging to the system. i'm surprised it's even legal frankly. i mean, in terms of how you get involved in negotiations. i think it is very, very damaging to us. >> what you think iranian leaders think about this? >> i think they probably think we lost it. i mean, seriously. it weakens us and i think it really makes them wonder where the power is. it makes it very difficult for the negotiators. host: madeleine albright
those other profile pieces in the papers this morning on senator tom cotton if you want to learn more. john independent, go ahead. caller: this is really simple. well, there are two items here. the fellow from melbourne the republican that is bemoaning the situation with republicans that he cannot vote for any of them, they will do anything to grandstand, to make themselves look good for the defense industry, for sheldon adelson who was in the gallery at
netanyahu speech anything to raise money. they don't care what the american public thinks the stuff they don't care what we want. they want to raise money so we can stay in office and get government contract and weapons. it is the military-industrial complex in a different form. it is like the revival of the neocons. john bolton has been on tv. it is just bizarre. it is all about money. they could give a dam about what happens to the country. they don't even know where iran is on a map. it's about raising money. host: ok. steve in indianapolis, independent. hi, steve. caller: it is unprecedented what they did, just by listening to people -- other senators. they are just trying to undermine the president. the president has done a really
good job. he is actually trying to save israel from themselves. you got net nodule -- netanyahu and just like john mccain, he's a hock. they don't want to go to war with iran. republicans just to anything they can do to undermine what he does, and they don't agree with anything -- and he cannot work with them on anything. they will not work with him on anything. he's done a good job and they are jealous. they hurt themselves and this is crazy what they did. host: ok. fred in maryland, a republican. what are your thoughts on this this morning? fred, are you there you go -- are you there? i'm going to go to neil, democratic, hot springs, missouri. caller: my thought is, democrats are always wanting to impeach
some kind of democrats as the days of nixon. what needs to happen is tom cotton and every senator who put their signature on that letter needs to be thrown out of the office and impeached. they holler about his overreach in immigration. if this isn't overreach, i don't know what you would call this. this is nothing more than treason. host: take a look at this from 1984, a new york times story with the headline "congress sends a letter to the leader of nicaragua mirko members of congress -- to the leader of nicaragua."
this is from april 20, 1984, "new york times." what you think you caller: -- what do you think? caller: i think undercutting is undercutting. the old one that has business sending letters to foreign governments is the president of the united states. you don't send a letter out saying you're deal is only good for 90 days and that is when we will take it. that is why they think we are weak and divided. and republicans are constantly in one year and out the next, turn around and undermining what president obama has done. this president, believe it or not, has helped us despite the republicans. imagine how poor we would be if we had some help from them as opposed to all of the blocking
that they have thrown in his way. host: ok. let's hear from kevin in virginia. hi, kevin. caller: hi, greta. i've been listening to this debate and all i hear is a lot of editorial. the focus here is on iran. iran understand strength. and they take advantage of weekends -- weakness. we as americans have not forgotten about the 144 days that the iranians held our people hostage until the election came up during carter and mr. reagan. and it was then with mr. reagan coming into office, regardless of whether he's a republican or not, the iranians recognize the strength coming to the forefront of american international relations. and they responded to it because the configuration of a strong american president.
and the iranians released our people. and here is mr. netanyahu, and even the republicans and i have problems with the consistency in the republican party. but the fact of the matter is, they are showing the iranians there is an element of strength in these negotiations, and the administration can understand that they can take the position that they are, but the american people and others will recognize what iran is all about, which is the understand strength and they take advantage of weakness. these people are trying to influence the outcome of those discussions with an element of strength at play. it doesn't seem to be at play in the administration's provisions
in the negotiations. that is what i think is going on. host: all right, kevin. a previous color mentioned this is all about caller ca -- a previousller mention this is all about raising money. take a look at this bloomberg headline. it goes on with a link at the bottom to chip in. ken in beaumont, texas independent. hi, can.
-- hi, ken. caller: i've been watching this, and i think it is really amazing week elected the president. i think we need to allow him to rule. we need to allow him with his pen and the constitution to let this take place and move forward. missouri has done a great job in suspending the folks that come against him and putting them in jail. we need to let this president and forward and do what he needs to do to get his goals accomplished. i think we need to get obama to send mr. al sharpton, his go to man, to ferguson and support those guys who are shooting the police. host: i detect the sarcasm. caller: no, no.
i think our president is being very straightforward in what he's doing and i think he will lead us into a new world order. i think the sooner we let him do this, we will be happy with the results. host: in the "washington times," john boehner blasts the military aid to ukraine. also in the papers this morning on that hearing up on capitol hill it was entitled that it would be about the fight against isis and the authorization of
the president is requesting to go after the terrorist group. the three members of the administration, secretary of state, the secretary of the pentagon, and the joint chiefs talked about that as well. karen young with the "washington post. if you missed yesterday's hearing, you can go to our website www.c-span.org listen to that, and that debate about what to do about isis. the "new york times" on their front page -- and inside the "new york times" this morning, senator rand paul a member of the committee and
hopeful for 2016 expressed frustration. in the "new york times," more on that this morning. also, this front-page story on that, the "washington times," defense secretary ashton carter urges quick authorization of war as islamic state is metastasizing, he says. new to the office, his second or third time on capitol hill to talk to lawmakers to talk about
this. i want to show you a little bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> first, the proposed aumf takes into account the reality that isis as an organization is likely to evolve strategically. morphing rebranding, and is is dating with other terrorist state, will continuing to threaten the united date -- united states and our allies. second, it does not include any geographical restriction because isil already shows it is metastasizing outside of iraq. third, there is a great ability with military means we need with one exception. the proposed initiative does not
have large-scale strategy because it does not call for them. instead, local forces must provide the presence needed for an enduring victory against isil. host: defense secretary ashton carter on capitol hill yesterday calling for quick passage by congress. the reaction from senators -- you can see right there with those two tweets what the democrats want and what the republicans want this aumf to say, granting the president
authority to fight this terrorist group. janet in new york, democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning, greta. i've been listening to a lot of the comments. for the virginia caller who wanted to talk about how strong president reagan was he swapped arms for those hostages, sir. find out what you are talking about before you say something. and as far as senator cotten is concerned, anything that he says that he is echoing from bill kristol, who was so wrong about iraq, bush lied his way into iraq and now has all that power because we went in and destabilize the region. we had no business stabilizing. it is -- destabilizing. it is ridiculous to think that what they're doing is going to help america. they have been thwarting this president from day one.
almost 600 cloture and filibuster votes in the senate to stop anything to help the american people and the economy recover. i'm at a loss for words when it comes to someone saying that what is going on is unpatriotic. i have to concur with that. all they do is deflection. i know, i did it, but they did it, too. i'm sick of this little boy schoolyard mentality that i'm seeing from the republican party. roll up your sleeves, and get to work with this president for real instead of paying lipservice and help the american people out of the many, many problems that this country is facing right now. host: ok. now, california, marion republican. hi there. caller: hello. i disagree with the letter that the senate sent to iran, but i do want to say a frustration.
the president has absolutely no power to do what he's doing without the approval of congress , according to article two section two, clause two of the constitution. all treaties are formal agreements between nations. he not only has to do these agreements with the advice and consent of the senate and it requires a two thirds majority of those in the senate who happened to be present at the time. this is just the president trying to go around congress again. host: ok. that is the exact point that senator tom cotton makes in the usa today opposing view in the paper that was talking about the two thirds majority that is needed, and that this is something that is happened in the past. we will keep taking your phone calls on the republican letter
to iran. at first shifting to other headlines, following up on yesterday's topic with the former secretary of state and former senator of new york hillary clinton's news conference. usa today ap classes to the state department over clinton's e-mails. and now, the associated press is going to be suing the state department over not getting those e-mails from the former secretary of state. and the "washington times," they
posted this on the clinton e-mail story. this according to one open records expert who talk to "the washington times" yesterday. he went on to say that it would be difficult to prove and difficult to charge the former secretary. in the economy, the russian post this morning with the front page , the economy faces a surprise risk, the surging dollar.
also on the economy, two different headlines on the same story. the "wall street journal" says big banks are struggling to clear the stress tests that the fed put on them in the wake of the 2009 financial crisis. and the "wall street journal," there -- their headline on this "now healthy, banks gush cash." eric, independent, go ahead. caller: before we get going on this issue i have heard you correct colors --callers in the past. what is your criteria for when they say stuff that is not right? host: do you mean, on facts?
caller: yes, let me give you an example. the first caller. the ladies of the people were arrested for free speech during bush's administration and -- the lady said that people were arrested for free speech during bush's administration and i'm not aware of that. you have said that people: with racist speech before -- have called in with racist speech before. host: whoever sits in his chair cannot be a walking encyclopedia and fact checker at every turn. caller: but you know that people did not get arrested for speaking out during bush's term, don't you? host: that is an instance where you can ask the caller and many do whose fitness chair, where did you find that? and let other people call in
like yourself and challenge as well. caller: i appreciate that. i think the issue that we are dealing with here is the lack of knowledge of how our government is supposed to be set up, from the left and from the right, the president is not a king. he is a commander and chief oval -- only of the military, not the civilian population. all of this talk about how it is disrespectful for what somebody has done. i think you have to have respect for the office to begin with. i have to ask people honestly, -- and you cannot just ask people who agree. do you think the president is respectful to his office? i have been hammering both sites. my goal is for people to have liberty and a constitutional republic.
it's very frustrating to hear people call in and say stuff that is obviously just so wrong. one of the senate republicans done wrong in writing that letter? what illegal thing have they done? we are just rationalizing what bad people have done in the past. and i think in the face of obama's policy, i think it is pretty legitimate that people say, this man is probably not speaking for america. he did not speak for me. where is my right to have my representatives oppose policies that, friendly, ics socialist -- i see as socialist? and i can tell you why. host: ok,. a couple of headlines before we move on this morning. so the secret service looking into yet another incident with that agency.
also in the paper this morning "the washington times" has the headline that the ferguson police chief resigns one week after the fed report." -- said report. and two police officers were shot outside of the police department. more news on that story in ferguson, missouri this morning. doris in chicago, democrat. you are up. caller: good morning. i think when of the things is, too, the absence of an independent media in this country. i think the media is just horrible. this deal -- agreement, nobody said treaty. this agreement is being brokered by six countries. five of those countries are
permanent members of the un security council. they are the u.s., the u.k., france, russia, china, and the plus one is germany. they are called p5 plus one. at no time this morning have i heard you say that. that this is not just president obama and the u.s. these are other countries. number two, i've not heard anybody mention that this mr. cottoen, this other author of -- this author of this traitor letter, immediately had a closed-door meeting with members of the defense industry echoed why? is he planning war? host: where did you read that? caller:
this was in the sun-times and also on all the blogs. haven't you seen that? host: i haven't yet, doris. they were having some kind of behind doors meeting. he was invited to speak. host: there it is. thanks for bringing it up. and we did let you all know when we read the associated press from the wire that it is not just the united states in these negotiations, but as doris says is the p5 plus one, the five permanent members of the un security council, plus germany negotiating with iran. bob, independent. you are on the air. caller: i have a request. he referred to the republicans as republican colors.
and in the democrat coalle are referred to as democratic. they should be referred to asrs democrat -- as democrat callers. as far as the treaty, president obama does not have the right to negotiate any agreement without the approval of congress. i appreciate that. but if you would, try to say democrat instead of democratic because they are not always democratic. they are democrats. host: all right, bob. another hearing before the senate foreign relations committee on capitol hill. right before the secretary began his opening statement, he was interrupted by protesters. take a look. [video clip] >> when i came here last time, i mentioned --
cracked the american people are speaking up, secretary kerry. we are tired of war. >> the meeting will be in order. look, we appreciate -- >> the killing of innocent people. >> if this happens again, i would ask the police to escort people immediately out of the room. >> killing more innocent people. >> killing more innocent people, i wonder how our journalists who were beheaded, and a pilot who was fighting for freedom who was burned alive, what they would have to say to their efforts to protect innocent people. host: secretary of state yesterday, reacting to the protesters in the room, code pink there before the senate formulations committee. secretary kerry once himself a
protester before going to congress. howard in california, good morning. you are on the air. what is your reaction to the letter sent by republicans? caller: first of all, i have to say, greta, you are a godsend. i don't know how you can sit there and listen to so many uninformed people about what goes on in washington. the gentleman from virginia was talking about why don't we call the democrats "democrats" and not "democratic," well, everything meeting five or six years ago where they just decided it. overall, republicans will be
called republican and democrats will be called democrats. does that help at all? host: ok. do you have any thoughts on the letter? caller: i have a comment on the iranian deal. i did not watch yesterday, so i don't even know if you covered it. if the "wall street journal" on wednesday, march 11. the headline is "fatal flaw in obama's dealings with iran." it's very simple. the president, and of course, the secretary of state consider their approach as cooperative. whereas the other approach is a coercive one. and this is what netanyahu is saying. and the president says, oh,
excuse me, you have two options cooperation or war. but the third operation -- the third option of the president has never talked about at any length is the fact that if we put serious sanctions on those people, worse than what they have now, that is why they are negotiating. if we put serious sanctions on iran, you can bring them to their knees. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: howard, thank you. thomas, scottsville, kentucky, democrat. caller: constitution says "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain -- inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." liberty has gone out the window.
democrats and republicans have been fighting each other for years and years. not very many people remember, but a lot of people to remember, the cuban missile crisis with john f. kennedy. they were senate their icbms to cuba 50 miles away from us and he backed them down in the senate, and the representative backed john f. kennedy. and the icbms went back to russia. today, iran is developing icbms to send off fireworks into the sky. they are attacking isis for one objective, to take over the country that we couldn't straighten out. when we were over there during bush's reign. we do not know what the committee is deciding. this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. if we don't have republicans and democrats get along together in
congress and quit fighting each other, we've got a divided country. host: ok, thanks thomas. the financial times out of london, the editorial england, the united kingdom, one of the countries negotiating saying this. "where the senate making direct diplomatic -- two leaders. it's rightly belongs to the executive branch. -- we showed you earlier the associated press reporting from
iran. the iranian supreme leader saying the letter from these lawmakers points to u.s. integration, the collapse of political ethics in the u.s. systems internal disintegration is what the iranian leader is saying from the associated press this morning. randy in michigan, and independent. caller: this free-speech thing. bush and reagan both stomped on free-speech. i have got the list of the poison data system in the united states from 2012 at shows who died of what. nobody has ever died from pot. 13,000 people a year are jailed for this pair that is not free-speech pair the next time someone comes on, marijuana, you
die from marijuana, please bring on the poison data system and show the people what we are really die in of. -- dying of. host: you are going off on another topic. was go to randy, independent caller. caller: joe mccarthy and eisenhower were right about what is going on in washington, with all the communists on both sides of the aisle. what the gop did, well, you know, they are both guilty. a lot of the charge for treason is the obamas, the clintons, the bushes, little georgie, they are all a bunch of crooks. both sides of the aisle, we are a republic and not a democracy. they keep talking about a democracy people at --
democracy. people do not understand these people are bought and paid for. thank you very much. host: coming up next, we will talk to a conservative group recently ranked members of congress who vote on base -- these issues. we will talk to their president david mcintosh. we will hear from progressive later on. will marshall from the progressive policy institute will be with us later in the program. we will be right back. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] ♪ >> this sunday, dr. aetrium
director of the georgetown university medical center watchdog project on how pharmaceutical country -- companies lobby doctors on what medications to describe. >> the promotion of a jug starts seven to 10 years before drug comes onto the market. it is illegal for companies to market a drug before it has been approved by the fda, it is not illegal to market a disease. so drug companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug, for example, and then blanketed medical journals and medical meetings and other venues with messages meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug and also to prepare the minds of consumers
to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> this week c-span's in new hampshire for road to the white house coverage. several potential republican white house. former texas governor rick perry live at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span two. tonight at 8:00, south carolina senator lindsey graham, who spent she does phase in the granite state. five you and i seven: 45 live on c-span, we will take you to a house party in dover new hampshire with jeb bush. saturday, live on c-span, scott walker at a republican party grassroots workshop and sunday night at nine: 35 on c-span, senator ted cruz of the annual lincoln center.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back to our table david mcintosh, who served in our congress representing indiana from 1995 to 2001. welcome and thank you for being here. let's talk about club for growth per remind our viewers what the group is and what your goals are and as the new president, what do you hope to do differently? guest: it is elitist political and policy organization for free market progrowth limited government policies. taxes to create private sector economic growth, free trade, and stable money supply. those are the policies they advocate. they recently have just come out with ratings for all the members
for last year's vote. we do that and make it available to the public so they can see how their members stack up on key votes. host: why do you think it has an impact? guest: it is for constituents and voters to know how their members stack up. they campaign saying they will be a free market strong supporter and what they do is tell them house -- how they were on those issues one after another here in congress. host: we are showing our viewers the five top house members. why these five members? guest: those members were at the top of the list when the added up all the votes. justin had a perfect 100%.
always a progrowth vote. he also has a lifetime score of 100%. there were, i think it was a total of 34 members in the house and senate who received our defenders of the economic freedom award, which meant they scored 90%. we recognize members will differ from time to time on various issues, but that is a consistent, time after time voting for free market progrowth. host: the top five senators for club for growth. but tell us specifically what legislation recently, high profile legislation, that they supported or opposed, that gave them a top rating? guest: these were for 2014, all the bills considered whether or not they would be in the scorecard from last year. voting on the keystone pipeline, for example approving that
would increase economic activity and increased jobs. the budget bill, the crowd -- the club for growth opposed the budget because of the failure to get to a balanced budget. we did not score paul ryan well on it because you look at the policy rather than the personality. that bill continued to have runaway spending and economic growth, did not have any tax reform that would lead to economic growth, and then the farm bill, a huge subsidy. one thing the club stands firm are -- on his do not let the government intervene competition, not government subsidies. host: how is john boehner doing?
guest: we would like him to move to progrowth tax cuts, a balanced budget, legislation that would help us overturn a new internet regulation the fcc has. in one case, the import export bank, simply make a decision not to put a bill on the floor and then it would expire. host: would you like to see a challenge by one of the house members giving a 100% score? would you like to see a challenge? guest: we are not about challenging the leadership. the house has chosen speaker boehner. our goal is to have him lead and have the house passed legislation that would help the economy. we do not get involved in those types of leadership questions. host: upshot column in the new
york times about the republican tax plan. they write -- which one should it be? guest: we would vote in favor of those who create economic growth. for example we are a strong supporter of tax reform that would reduce the corporate rate both for large corporations and family businesses run by individuals. cut the individual rate as well you will see a lot more employment and job opportunities, particularly for our young students who have been facing a situation when they go to college and cannot find a job when they are done. those are the kinds of tax cuts we prefer.
we strongly support members who advocate for those. host: marco rubio came out with a plan that seeks to resolve the debate by giving both sides what they want. big new cap -- tax cuts for families, like a tax credit, as well as big tax cuts for owners of capital, including a tax rate of zero on dividends and capital gains. guest: i think that is a very good bill. the parts we focus on are the progrowth elements of it. they include the middle-class family tax. it will not necessarily have the economic stimulus we are looking for, but that type of bill and the a creative approach is what we hoping they will send to the floor. host: let's talk more about the export and import. writing about that this morning
saying, it bank with congress in its pocket, saying both democrats and republicans support the export import bank because it benefits constituents companies in their districts and in their state. guest: it is no different than the earmarking going on in the appropriations bill. members want to go home and create credit. in order to benefit our district. our view is the private sector will provide the same financing. the companies, boeing and ge, that used the export import bank , have said in their public disclosures, if it goes away, we can still finance sales of the product overseas. a direct subsidy to big corporation. a political payoff. members have told me we want to be with you on this, but we had 20 different lobbyists this week tell us export import bank.
they are representing a constituency that gets that old subsidy, like welfare for operation. a better, free market approach, is to say to let the private market take care of it. it can be done, will be done, and then as george points out, you do not have congressman putting their thumb on the scale, i want a loan for my constituent and politics does not enter into it and the taxpayers should not be paying for that. host: what have you heard from lawmakers about the debate? authorization for the agency expires in june. guest: what we have been hearing from a chairman is that he is confident the majority of the republicans would like to see the whole program just expire. we hope the speaker will listen to this conference and
understand that is consistent with republican views of free market, we hear them campaign about it. they'll campaign on it, make the decision and say, we do not need to schedule that will. host: let's get to calls. chuck, democratic caller. you are on the air. caller: good morning. you said you track everybody's voting record. i would wonder if you could tell me who inserted the language to get rid of the dodd frank stuff. like yesterday they were all stating what they put into the bill for human trafficking. they aim debts they inserted the part about abortion but everyone was bragging about what they put in and i did i hear nothing on the abortion thing. i was wondering if you could tell me. guest: i can't do that is not
one of the issues the club has followed in the economic agenda. on the dodd frank question, you have asked a good one. the work done in the house to try to pull back onerous regulation, there has a lot of headlines today saying the banks have struggled to deal with the bill. it ends up holding them back from creating new and innovative financing products. the main people who have been working on that are the chairman and his committee that have some a lot of reforms. host: headlines this morning about big banks struggling. four of the biggest names -- guest: what i think this shows
is that the whole program does basically not work. investors are confident in them. instead, they have to dedicate a lot of time and manpower and money and resources complying with a plethora of federal regulation. capital requirements the market may or may not require. the reason the federal government was doing that is because they subsidize them in a too big to fail program. much better to let the marketplace work the way it is supposed to work and have the discipline of competition and the threat of failure and the shareholders will then demand the banks have the right risks for portfolio because they do not want to lose their money. and that, we have replaced the market discipline with government regulation that wastes a lot of time, money, and effort, and has proved to be a huge burden. host: supporters of dodd frank
say the space were not regulating themselves and that is what led to it. you say do away with the requirements that make thanks have skin in the game and then have them fail? >> i would set reasonable capital requirements and then let the marketplace discipline them on it, but tell them, if you fail, you fail. we will not be there to bail you out. host: ok to michael in seattle democratic caller. you are on the air. caller: i wonder why on god's greater of anyone would ever listen to anyone -- anything this gentleman and his group ever had to say about anything ever again. their version of a trickle down iran survival of the physics economics has proven to be a spectacular failure anytime it has ever been implemented. exhibit a is resident clinton came in office and increased taxes in his first budget.
every republican voted against it and every republican sounded like chicken little on megadoses of acid. everyone of them was wrong. a booming economy, 23 million jobs graded, left a record surplus. at the end of george bush's catastrophic reign of error, a massive chain dollar tax cut which left the economy and skip -- in shambles, a surplus, and created a poultry 2 million jobs. 20 million jobs for president clinton, and 2 million jobs for george bush will go down as history as the worst president in the history of the united states and even a staunch conservative republican said that in 2010, george bush "had the worst fiscal record of any president ever. " it" "
it has been a spectacular failure and will be. guest: bill clinton had a terrible economy for the first two years and in 1994, the american people said, this is not working, and senate republican congress that actually passed tax cuts and bounced to the budget, we saw the economic growth. it is not the personality, bill clinton or no per -- or no bill clinton, it is the type of policies they passed. they went from big government and failed economic policies to lower taxes, balanced budget deregulation to make sure the internet was not regulated. then we saw on economic boom and 23 million jobs created. host: linda, michigan independent caller. caller: this gentleman is just espousing the same policies we have heard from republicans since reagan or trickle down more tax cuts for the wealthy
and sticking it to the middle-class as usual. it does not work. he did not work under reagan. it does not work now. we throw tax cuts at wealthy businesses. it is just "here, let's throw money at you and hope you do something for us with it are co- tax cuts do not create jobs. demand create jobs. people making a decent living create demand, which creates job. throwing money at wealthy people, they put it in their pocket. you basically financed our own job loss. this money, ok we will take that money and invest in machinery here, outsource the jobs, in source the label -- the labor. it is the same old scam it has always been. guest: the middle-class have suffered the most under obama's approach of handing out taxpayer
dollars in subsidies. our view is, do not bring the money to washington and try to recycle. leave it with people with their own families and their own businesses, and they will create their jobs. we have seen it work time and time again p or do we have more of their money and are free to make decisions on how to use it, spend it, and invest it. that will be the best for the middle-class. it is a much better deal for the middle-class when you have free market courses. the people who suffered the most are not the largest corporations in america. it is the middle-class and small businesses. that is where our economic program will do the best good. host: talk about the scorecard a little more and how it translates to money for those who score high and those who score low. guest: we advocate for free
market positions. we have an affiliated political action committee and that makes decisions, looking at the scorecard, the members who score well, we support. sometimes, there are members who score badly. if they end up having a challenger in a primary, the club for growth says, we will not only blindly support republicans. we will support members and challengers to members who would do a better job on our issues. this year, and this cycle getting ready for 2016, we have identified as a chief priority. six of the senators we supported in the past to help them get reelected because they all scored 90% or above on our scorecard. ron johnson, mike lee, marco rubio, rand paul, tim scott
those are the six and the political action in the club will support in the election. host: here is a piece in defense of john boehner's speakership. -- host: as a member of congress yourself who came into the 1994 wave and worked with speaker newt gingrich, isn't there something to say about having party unity, everybody on the same page, and not working against those in your party? guest: i think the key is a pretty simple formula about how
to govern based on an election. tell the voters what you will do. you win the election and get the majority. then you do what you told them. the problem with republicans in this congress is they told the voters, for example on repealing obamacare, we will make that our number one priority for three elections, they told the voters that. we will see how they do. it is a big test coming up. will they use the budget process, reconciliation, to fully repeal obama care? if they do that, the voters who sent them there say yes, we are confident you will do what you promised to do. a rule of the club is to call them on it and say when you said this in the last election, you are not doing it. that is where the members we support feel emboldened to tell
the leadership, get with the program to this is what we tell voters we will do. host: that is the next fight you see, the next debate, whether or not we see the process of reconciliation to do away with the affordable care act? guest: i think that is kp at week knowledge president obama's is unlikely this to sign the bill. the voters recognize that care what they want to see his congress doing everything it can do appear that is the next step it could do to move that along. when i was there in the 1990's, president clinton did not like welfare reform. we used the legislation process to send it to him three times and it finally passed and proved to be successful. my hope is if the -- if the republicans in congress follow the pledges they made to voters, do the hard work, it could someday change. host: anthony in massachusetts, a democratic caller, you are next. caller: the first thing you said
when he sat down is that tax cuts for the rich was the answer. i would like to talk to you about president herbert hoover in 1929, who made a whole lot of rich people, called the roaring 20's. we had the worst recession -- the worst depression we have ever had in the world. 1958 president eisenhower had a crash in the economy. president nixon froze wages on people and he had the highest unemployment ever created. president reagan cut taxes on the rich in 1981 and he had a bad economy because in 1984, he ran for reelection and said the
economy was really bad and he blamed it on president carter. he had the highest deficit tripled the debt. then he had the highest deficit ever created by a single president in the united states at $2.8 trillion. he had 11% unemployment. i bought a home in texas under his regime in 1988, and i had to pay 11.2% in the interest rates on a home. president george w. bush cut taxes on rich people for three times and he created this crash and now you claim that this president had a difficult time trying to get people back to work without your help ever?
guest: actually, i did not make that claim at all, nor that i say taxes for the rich paradigm for tax cuts for everybody. if you're wealthy and you invest, you should have a low tax on that investment. if you are poor and you invest you save a little money because you want to send your kids to school, you should pay low taxes on the savings you do or the investment you make. those types of programs economic taxes are for everybody and the truth is the middle-class and the lower classes benefit the most because they see economic prosperity and can have a good job for their family and save, work, and live in a society where they have got hope for a better future. we do not see that with this president's economic policy. his hope is that you can sign up for a welfare program. that is not the time just the type of thriving and prosperous society the club for growth is looking for.
you look back on the history and herbert hoover did not cause depressions with the tax cuts are he made it worse because he decided to increase taxes and put protection was limits on free trade. it is those crisis moment when government says, oh, we are going to throughout these free market principles that become worse. he saw that in 2007. 2008. when the banking policy, not the tax cuts, the banking policy created this huge bubble in real estate with artificially low interest rates. and the government then turned away from free-market principles and said we are going to have a huge bailout. that made it worse. we saw a 20% loss of capital and value in the marketplace as a result. so, the real history of these economic crises is if you turn away from free-market principles, you make it worse. people suffer more, it last longer. as we have seen this long kind
of anemic recovery from the policies of 2008, and then president obama after that. host: louisville, kentucky. everett is watching us there. caller: yes, sir, i wanted to thank you for all their good work that you do in your organization. the club for growth is a counterweight to the george organizations and the liberal labor unions that spend millions of dollars against a pro free-market candidate. thank you very much. but my question was, here in louisville between 1996 and 2006, we had a program of free enterprise republican congressperson, and we certainly would like to have one again. john yarmuth, our congressman here is far to the left and is a sort of celebrity for msnbc. i really hope that you would look into finding somebody who
could be a great candidate here in louisville. it is a swing district. in my fan of question is, if obamacare will be approved by the supreme court, with the individual mandate be repealed? thank you very much. guest: thank you. thank you for that mode of confidence, and encouragement for finding a good candidate in louisville. i remember and northrup -- anne northrup well, and how she serves that district well. the question about obamacare is a difficult one. as you mentioned, the supreme court is now considering a case titled king versus burwell that essentially asks the question can the president ignore the way the law is written and extend both taxes and subsidies in states that don't set up their own obamacare state exchange?
the democrats who wrote the bill in congress, every republican voted against that, purposely wrote a provision that said those type of subsidies and the taxes and mandates that go with it only apply to states that set up an exchange. and the reason they did that if they wanted to create an incentive for every state to set up an exchange. well, pretty quickly, whether they were red states with republican governors, or blue state like or gone with democratic governors, many of them figured out this is a terrible program. and or gone try to set one up, couldn't do it, and finally -- oregon tried to set one up couldn't do it, and finally used the federal program. they don't work. the whole program is flawed fundamentally. there is no marketplace. there is no ability of people to make choices of what they want. and you are having to execute
these huge programs of mandates with businesses demanded some individuals. so haven't set up the exchanges. president obama has unilaterally said, ok, we are going to ignore the law and say the taxes and subsidies. the court is going to decide that. who knows how they will decide. there is a strong argument that the court will say this is a political question, we are going to follow the law as it is written. and the president needs to follow the law as written. he is not above the law. he can't just change it by himself. and then it gets tossed back to congress and the president to figure out what to do in most states -- those states. host: if the court were to rule in your favor and city subsidies are not legal, should republicans allow them to stand? should the have a way for those
to get subsidies to continue to get subsidies until there is an alternative put in place? guest: what i would suggest they do is have a, you know, temporary measure that basically says to the insurance companies who written these policies, he took the risk, you are committed to these insurance policies. keep them in place. then that would give time for congress and the president to pass hopefully free-market health care legislation. i saw an article by governor dall in louisiana, and he said the best thing to do is for the congress and the president tuesday out of this. let us in the states set up a program that exley works based on free-market principles, the privity between a doctor and his patients so that individuals can choose the best health care for their families, and we don't have the federal government coming in with these mandates and regulations that make the health care policies so expensive to begin with.
so, my hope is that what will happen is congress will say this didn't work, but let's free up those states who chose not to have an exchange. they don't have to be a part of obamacare anymore. host: john in new jersey. in independent -- an independent. thanks for hanging on the line. caller: yeah, thank you. i just wanted to comment. when clinton was in office and passed the everybody should own a home actor bill they work at mcdonald's but can't afford a $350,000 house. but they were giving these mortgages, and that what crashed our economy. most blame george bush, but it was executed who did that free homes act where every american was entitled to own a home, even if you didn't have enough money to make the payments. you had these mortgage guys giving you these balloon loans
and that is what crashed our economy. caller: you know, you are right. the bubble in the real estate marketplace was driven in large by fannie mae and the policies that said lenders ignore the credit worthiness. in other words, don't worry about whether someone can repay their mortgage. go ahead and make the loan because we want everybody who wants to have a house. when you try and get those economic principles, something is going to give. in this case, the whole financial market collapsed because they took those mortgages and they created securities out of them. essentially, they package them up and started telling them -- selling them to investors. investors thought mortgages were very safe. we might have a few defaults here and there. what they failed to do was examine the risk involved systemically when you have these type of regulations that promoted, essentially, making
most the people who would never be able to repay them. and the caller is exactly right. that type of interference eventually piles up and we all pay for it the economy collapses. host: stephen and pompano beach florida. a democratic caller. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i have a question for mr. mcintosh that deals with the transpacific partnership. tpp. the president at this point is asking professed check authority from congress for the tpp. aside from the trade aspects there is something else inserted that disturbs me. i can tell you how much. i would like a comment from him. specifically, its enforcement. i will give you the, you know the publication where i found
this. if a multinational corporation feels that it will lose money by virtue of a particular piece of legislation, and that could be legislation at the local, state or federal level, then they essentially can demand that the legislation be reversed. in other words, we are losing much of our democracy. the criteria is multinationals losing money or claiming to lose or to profits. host: stephen, we are running out of time here with our guest so let me let him respond. caller: stephen, thank you for mentioning. this is an issue where the club for growth, because we are strongly supportive of free trade, disagrees with some republicans who say we shouldn't
give any authority to president obama. we don't trust him, we don't think you should get it. our view is he is committed to free trade agreements. we think that is the right economic policy. and so we exley support congress giving him that fast -- actually support contract -- congress giving him that fast track authority. your question is a provision that i am not as familiar with, but my view is the way these free trade agreements work should work, is without particular subsidies to businesses or, as you are describing it, ability for private corporations to say state or local laws will be removed if they interfere with our profits on that. now, if the state or local laws try to impose trade barriers, then the trade agreements traditionally have said this is the national law agreement between the countries approved
by congress, and those trade barriers at the state and local level will not survive. so if it is removing something that prevents free trade, we would support that. if it is simply saying that the business can get a subsidy by trumping these various local laws, we would be opposed to that. but we are very strongly in favor of the free trade agreement. host: let's get in one last call. douglas and or gone. a republican. caller: good morning. greta, you are a saint. c-span is the best thing on tv. david, would you take the last couple minutes and earthlink address our national debt, the interest, what is going to happen when the interest rates go up? host: thank you, douglas. i will have him do that. caller: thank you, douglas. -- caller -- guest: thank you douglas.
you are absolutely right. it is already at $18.1 trillion. a huge burden on the future and a huge overhang in the economy. your point specifically is what is going to happen when we return to normal interest rates. and the federal reserve is signaling they are going to and the quantitative easing and gradually get us back to a more normal interest rate structure. at that point, there is a huge liability for the united date. basically, a requirement to pay a much higher interest than they do now. as we return to normal interest rates in a matter of five years or so, the interest portion -- just hang on what we've have -- what we have borrowed in the past -- exceeds the united states military. and a huge number of other domestic programs that congress supports. so, it has become suddenly this looming burden on the future. our view is you should only
extend the debt ceiling if you have -- the way boehner approached it last time -- an equal amount of spending reduction so that we start to get the whole budget under control and don't continue to add that. eventually, you need to start paying down that debt. host: mr. mcintosh, 2016 around the corner here. who will you target, what republicans will you target that are up in 2016? specifically, "the hill" newspaper with a question. will you take on the congresswoman from alaska? guest: we don't target anyone in particular. we wait. we are hoping that her score will improve. she was the lowest ranking republican on our scorecard last year. host: 27% guest: 20 -- 27%.
guest: we are hoping that she will support a repeal of obamacare, a balance of budget, a lot of things that would raise her report. we wait to see a race develop, and we don't see one developing at this point. host: "political" says you'll get involved in the presidential race. what now do see as the hopefuls? guest: we typically do not get more involved for this candidate or not. we have pointed out all the records. i would love to come back and share those with you. we have pointed out when a republican says they are conservative but increases taxes and really unconservative on the economy. this year it is different. we have a great field out there. three of them are people that the club supported in the race for senate. thinking about it, at least.
marco rubio, rand paul, and ted cruz. the club is thinking about you are going to talk to our members. if it comes down to a point that one of the good guys -- and you have some governors who look very appealing on our issues, as well -- if it comes down to somebody really good like that should we consider being involved in the race? my job is to make sure we as the members and the donors money wisely. not just to make a headline. so if we can make a difference i would love to support good candidates. but if other people are already doing that job, wheels the to our knitting in the senate and house. host: former congressman from indiana. the current president for club for growth. guest: great to be here. host: up next, we will be joined by will marshall of the progressive policy institute. get his view of a program wing of the democratic party.
the civil war. and sunday at 1:00, we continue our live coverage of the festival with panels on the obama administration, the future of politics, and the issues of concussions in football. and saturday morning at 9:00 eastern on c-span3, we are live from longwood university in farmville, virginia for the 16th annual civil war seminar talking about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865. and sunday morning at 9:00, we continue our live coverage of the seminar with the remarks on immigration of confederates to brazil. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at (202) 626-3400. email us at email@example.com. or send us a tweet @cspan #comments. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter.
the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there are also 108 women in congress. including the first woman veteran of the senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the page has lots of useful information, including voting results and statistics about each session. new congress, best access. on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. the sunday on "booktv," -- "q&a ," on the watchdog program, farmed out. >> the promotion of a drug actually starts seven to ten
years before a drug comes on the market. while it is illegal for a company to market the drug before it has been approved, it is not illegal to market a disease. so, drug companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions, or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug for example. and then blanketed medical journals and medical meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the mind of clinicians to accept a particular drug. and also to prepare the mind of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." "washington journal" continues. host: will marshall is back at our table this money.
the founder and president of the progressive policy institute. the role of democratic interests in 2016. let's start with what is pbi -- ppi. guest: the progressive policy institute is a think tank. we were once known as bill clinton's idea mill back in the day. ppi is a progressive think tank that is focused on developing because of ideas we think can expand the progressive coalition and make it more successful. host: what is a new democrat? guest: under democrat was really a term coined back in the 1990's around the bill clinton presidency. it really meant trying to update what was seen at the time is a very old and tired stale agenda. kind of tax and spend an interest group driven priorities that defined the democratic party. and clinton and the new democrat
said, no, we need to reserve is the party on economic growth, upward mobility into the middle class, while government reform and -- unfortunately, it's instant have fallen by the wayside recently, but this is as important now as it was then. and a can of commitment to internationalism. american leadership for an open rules-based trading system and for liberal democracy. defending it around the world. host: pro trade. guest: definitely. that has always been an important plank. host: and a debate i could heat up i the capitol hill during the hundred 14th congress as the president tries to negotiate trade deals. guest: that is a very safe addiction. where already seeing a lot of skirmishing around the trade issue. unfortunately, it is one of the issues that kind of great a response -- create a response among some. we are going to hear about this ancient trade agreement called
nafta, now more than 20 years ago, but some people never tire fighting the battle over. but yes, the president has a very ambitious trade agenda. the transpacific partnership agreement and a big transatlantic agreement. he needs his parties support to get that over -- party's support to get that over. but he has some work to do. host: supposedly the paper's reporting recently that there is a warroad of a capitol hill to try and persuade -- war room up on capitol hill to try and persuade the democrats. the new democratic coalition on capitol hill. our strong is that coalition echo -- coalition? guest: there are about 40 new members. that is obviously down from what it was before these two big wipeouts and midterm elections in 2010 and 2011 -- 2012. we saw lots of pragmatic democrats contended in swing
districts. they lost in these republican suites. so the pragmatic center, if you will, of the democratic party has diminished, but still feisty and focused on how we get those seats back. host: how do you differ from the so-called war -- war and -- warren wearing? guest: i would say that the new dems have a more growth oriented outlook. they are interested in seeing how do we get this economy, which is fenced the ground 2% growth. they would like to see us get back to something more like the robust growth which we saw in the late 1990's. the last time our economy really works for everybody in this country. we are talking about 4% gdp growth a year. doubling the basic rate that we have had in the past 15 years. we are beginning to see some robust growth, thank god. the unemployed numbers are
coming down, but it hasn't yet worked its magic on wages. we really need to see sustained robust growth in order to get upward pressure on media -- medium wages. host: just a headline from "the hill." senokot dems are ready to strike against the warren wearing it for months, many have kept silent as elizabeth one -- but with the race for the white house at the begin, they are moving to seize back the agenda. the new democratic coalition earlier this month outlining proposing a new policy platform for democrats. what did it say? guest: well, they put out in -- an american yesterday plan. one, it shows that these pragmatic democrats are determined to reassert their
intellectual and political leadership in the party. they are leading with ideas. this is, in fact, with the new democrats did in the 1990's. the house democrats, to their credit understand that the party needs a more inspiring and energizing message. in order to win back a lot of these competitive district. the suburban swing districts. democrats are never going to get back into the majority in the house without. the best way to understand this -- there is a lot of drama in newspaper headlines -- but the best way to understand this is that democrats in the house and also the senate do not want to be in the permanent minority. they want to know how democrats can win congress back again, in a votes, and break this -- unite votes, and break this stranglehold on politics. they are thinking strategically about the kind of ideas that expand the democratic party's appeal, win back the seat, and
take back the majority. host: does hillary clinton represent the best candidate to put forth that agenda? guest: she certainly is running way ahead of everybody else. until somebody else comes along to challenge that, i think it seems highly likely she will be the standardbearer. she has one foot in the experiences of bill clinton, her husband, and a new democratic policies of the 1990's. and she has served in the obama administration. so she has broad support across the breath of this very diverse coalition. i want to stress that because there are a lot of people who want to make a big fight out of this. there is going to be some creative tension there, but the important point is that unlike the republicans, the democrats are a diverse coalition. a heterogeneous coalition. we have about 37% liberals, 37%
to 38% moderate. a large percentage of democrats ask a call themselves conservatives. so we have to have a governing agenda and philosophy that encompasses more diversity than the republicans, who are much more appealing conservative hearty. it is not that one side or the other has to defeat one of the other, it is the important thing to create and bring everybody in and broaden the coalition. host: given the headlines recently about the private e-mails that the foreign secretary of state used, the "washington post," is clinton ready? some in the democratic party are having doubts. how do you answer that? issue ready? guest: i think she is. 90% of american voters could care less about it. it doesn't keep me awake at night. bureaucratic infections around
e-mails come if there was even an infraction around here -- but in this weird. . -- the are going to get more attention than i think they deserve. host: the "new york times" this morning. the story says democrats are not just excited about hillary clinton, they are desperate for her. saying that congressional democrats are counting on a strong clinton campaign to help lift them back into the majority. they want her fund-raising help and demographic appeal. from the top of its party to the grassroots, mrs. clinton's pseudo-incumbency is taking over significant disadvantages. many say she is simply too big to fail. guest: well, this is an unusual situation for democrats. usually we have a big,
rambunctious primary we have a lot of different candidates resulting -- representing the diverse city in this party and battling it out. usually it is the republicans were have one big care -- heir. but i would say that this is unusual for democrats. we are not rich or what to make of it. it is very unusual for the media, which -- again, i think you are going to hear a lot of anonymous sources about is hillary ready? issue rusty? all these kind of things. there is no race there. host: should she and out early and come out in strong support of these trade deals? guest: well, i hope she will. the president's goal is doubling
u.s. exports abroad, so i cannot imagine she would not hear it it was her husband that fought a losing battle over nafta back in 1994. but it wasn't just nafta, it was a whole array of trade expansion agreements that played into that prosperity in the late 1990's. very robust growth. host: with that for our viewers to ponder, let's get the calls. mark in georgia. an independent caller. caller: good morning. we were at a meeting last tuesday in atlanta, and the man that talked at this meeting said how it was a last chance to make an elf a c 40 state -- alpha state in the middle east. and about hillary and how much of the information is on there. dr. foley was there speaking. he is a present of a seaport cities project and leaders group.
and he is really in a panic. if this fails and there is not a state out of iran, who will be next? do think hillary will let out the whole agenda and everybody will see everything about the treo -- trio? guest: well we have been wallowing in this pseudo-event about e-mails, something really important happened. which is 47 united states senators, all republicans, sent a letter to iran that undercuts the foreign policy of united dates. president obama's attempt to divert -- avoid a war with iran. you could say that the shape of this deal, which we don't even know the details of this yet that is legitimate, but when 47 senators decide to go around the president and sabotage his
diplomacy by saying whatever deal he agrees to with the iranians will not be honored by the congress. that is an unprecedented violation of the old principle that america should show unity when it works abroad. well we are all obsessed, at least some people are obsessed, by the in of, one thing that is important against the very serious threat is something we ought to be focused on. host: where does your group come down on foreign policy? what should be the agenda in your terms? du a line with liberals anybody on that? guest: we are internationalists. we think that the liberal international system built up since world war ii has made the world a safer place, a more prosperous place, a more just place with a whole articulation of international laws, protocols, and institutions that help us solve common, global problems. and that this didn't happen by accident. it is a creation of american
leadership. so the united states, more than any other country, built the system. we think our leadership in maintaining it and defending it is still actually critical. in the post-iraq, afghanistan. period there has been a feeling of laying down the burdens of global leadership. you hear it sometimes on the american left. sometimes you hear it on the american right. the rand paul right that wants to say the world is a messy place, let's pull back from it. that is not argue. american leadership is important. host: andre. a democratic caller. caller: yes, i would like to ask you a question. during the clinton administration we had what was known as a dot com boom. but what can we do now besides these electric cars that really they thought was the best thing
since the wheel, what can we do now in order to stimulate the economy? do think we need to do some deregulation like we did back during the clinton administration? guest: that is a great question. we did have a dot com boom during the forefront of this technology go revolution -- technological revolution. what is the hottest product in america? is the ipods and cell phones. we have done research at ppi that shows that most of the investment is going into the digital sector. to the internet, the basic infrastructure, all the devices and social media search engines, all of this is an incredible source of dynamism and growth in america. and we have to nurture that that economy. we're also seeing the same thing happen in the energy sector. the shale, oil, and gas boom has been a tremendous windfall for the united dates. again, lots of investment in the
energy sector. a lot of good job creation. we always talking wealth middle income jobs. well, that is where they are being created. one of the messages from the new democrats is let's understand that this is good for america. not let pretend that we can somehow -- some of our friends on the environmental fringe thing, keep that energy in the ground. let's use it, but let's put it into a broader framework. host: does that mean you are for the keystone xl pipeline? guest: no, i am not. the united states last two became the biggest oil producer in the world, surpassing russia and saudi arabia. we are awash with oil in the united dates. -- united states. and yet, the republicans are the most important issue facing america is to import canadian oil we already have more than what we know how to handle. it just doesn't make any sense.
the big question i think the democrats should of cannot -- should have counted is how we are going to pick this american oil and gas and begin to export it. host: the republicans are the keystone pipeline would be used for the shell and united dates. guest: a very small percentage of that pipeline would be devoted to moving sale. it is mostly devoted to moving oil from canada. this is really just an issue that republicans pushed because they thought it would divide democrats. it has nothing to do with our energy outlook. if i could just address the callers -- caller's issue. and that is if you really are for growth, if you really want to see this economy take off and war -- roar, you have to understand that the kin relations of a galatians over decades -- a galatians and they need to be passed, but the problem is in washington they
are often brought to never passed. it creates lots of impediments for entrepreneurs, economic innovation and united dates. we believe between the extremes of the republican saying that every -- is a job killing thing as false and that we have too many regulations. there is ample room for common sense regulatory improvements. host: let's go to the in kokomo, indiana. the democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call this morning. on this e-mail issue, i think it is much to do about nothing. but do you think it is going to go away, if the agenda that mr. obama is pushing just think anything is going to be approved as long as you have so much hate against the man? i don't hate him, but they do. do think the e-mail issue will go away anytime soon? rush limbaugh is pushing it.
three hours of they -- a day of bashing mrs. clinton. to me, it is much to do about nothing. host: we will have will marshall jump in. guest: i agree with the premise of your question. there is a lot of hate. and certainly the republicans will keep pumping way at the e-mail issue. they are still working on benghazi. they never give up, like a dog with a bone. so we can count on that. but they are mostly preaching to the choir. people do not like hillary clinton, barack obama. so i dump what much store by that -- i don't put much store by that. but when partisanship becomes so rabid, that it begins to undermine our ability to govern in this country. that is what is happening in washington. they are paralyzed now by the 16 bipartisanship. i have to say that, you know,
there are problems on the democratic side, but the problems come from the republican side. host: we will hear from a republican,hi, dee. caller: i have two things i want to talk about. first of all, this gentleman just mentioned that there is a lot of hate in our party. well, that is probably -- i was around when bush was in there, and his skin is white. and he was hated. terrible, terrible things were said about him. he marched. use on that picture with the president marching. but the liberal media did not show him on there. so i think you should they something about that, and i think your name should be -- d-span. because you have democrats calling in. and you look just like bill clinton. guest: no relation. no, no relation at all to the
president. thank you. look, i mean, was there a lot of polarization back in the bush days? yes, there was. and a lot of it was engineered as a strategy by president bushes -- bush positive -- bush's karl rove. but i'm not going to deny that there were not over-the-top attacks by president bush by some on the left. there were. but it has gotten even worse. and when you have a republican party that is more interested in this president area -- president's daily or -- failure than america's progress, that is a law. host: -- caller: why would you think that any of us -- i am a former democrat, and i would never vote for hillary because of her character. i mean, she has proven to us that she is a contemplative.
-- con lady. the whole irs scandal was the one that got me. what makes you think that she would? host: so, john, you don't trust the former first lady, senator, and secretary of state? caller: no, not at all. host: a headline this morning. guest: well, i can't really -- i don't know how to change the caller's mind on this except to say that i don't think hillary had anything to do with the irs candle. and this -- scandal. and this administration has called for the irs to deal with him. i think that they have tried to address this problem. but there are a lot of conspiracy to raise kicking around. you know, which are fostered,
again, and a lot of the right wing media. and a kind of a paranoia about the irs. i don't think it is going to be an important part of the presidential debate. or at least, i hope it won't. host: the "wall street journal" this morning, by the way reporting that the house committee looking into the benghazi attack plans to broaden its programs of the clinton e-mails, saying that they will request additional records from the likely 2016 presidential candidate and seeking testimony or documents from members of her inner circle. robert. arlington heights, illinois. a republican. caller: hello. good morning. host: good morning. caller: yes, well, if miss hillary clinton is so great and she is so, you know, much for the working people, she represented walmart.
i am sure you are fully cognizant of that. who benefited more than anybody from nafta? walmart. she represented walmart. i think a lot of people forget about that. and that was a job killer to a lot of folks in the 1990's. now, you are all about the trade while it benefits walmart, apparently. host: will marshall. guest: here we are again. this 21-year-old trade agreement. it passed in 1994. and then from 1994 to 2000, we had the largest expansion and growth and united states since the 1960's. so we didn't see a cratering of jobs as many predicted, we saw an explosion of jobs. not only did the economy grow, but all groups in america. the top 20% and the bottom 20%. in fact, people at the bottom,
their income rose faster than theirs -- those at the top. so i don't think the evidence bears out the claim that somehow this was bad for america. there is a more sophisticated argument about trade, which has that, you know, we have lost jobs to china and other cheaper any fracturing platforms. i think that is probably true. a global cop -- competition has weighted down some manufacturing sections. that is probably true. i am not going to sit here and say that trade always works for every particular person, but on balance and in the aggregate, it is good for prosperity. america cannot grow in isolation from the rest of the world. in fact, everybody is trading.
and everybody is trading more these days. you pass a trade agreement not passing a trade agreement is not going to end world trade. countries are going to continue to trade because that is how to create jobs for their people and get things for their economy that they need. the only question here is not whether it there will be treading, the real question is under what set of rules and which countries are going to set those rules -- and we have to think that it would be better if the united states sets the rules that china does. host: michigan. jim. democratic caller. caller: good morning, mr. marshall. your problem is just what you said, ok? you didn't see the grading of jobs -- creator -- cratering of jobs. that is why hillary should be present. and that's why we need a robust
debate instead of just a coronation of hillary clinton. the clintons, i mean, this trade thing that you like put lots of us out of work. you created poverty at the bottom. in the democratic party. which is my party. you created a loss of jobs. the top, yeah, there is prosperity up there. but we are not seeing it. you see it, but we are not. host: and your sentiment echoed on the pages of the "wall street journal" this morning. guest: well, you know, that is a legitimate worry. i like cap addition on the economic side, and also in politics. the only answer i can offer the caller on that is that, well, this is a free country. bernie sanders can get in. elizabeth warren can get in.
anybody high on trade agreements can get in. it is an open field, and people can get in and challenge senator clinton if they think that the party needs a real choice. and so no one is preventing them from doing that. on the trade point, poverty point, i will just go back and reiterate what i said. not only did employment go up after nafta
i guess i would disagree with the collar about how horrible u.s. market democracy is. but her point about the politics of hatred is a serious one. what it meanswhat it means is that the machinery or government reince to a halt. when we put extreme partisanship over the old ways of governing that has compromised negotiations and bargaining, we can't get anything done in this country. that is where we are, cut up stuck in the mud. at least with the national government is concerned. so this is a serious problem. we will embrace a style of politics that makes it impossible for rest to solve a problem. i think this is going to be one of the big issues in 2016. how do we break away from this extreme polarization. the last thing we should do, and i think this is where the new democrats and house are so important, is at our voices.
we need to say that we need to be looking for, ground. looking for ideas when we can get our news -- partners. working across the aisle to help move the country four. that is critically important. and that reinforcing these that i like stored polarization and governmental paralysis. host: do you think the current leadership for the democratic party could do that? increase the portland station -- polarization? guest: look, they are party leaders and have to represent their caucuses. but the point is that there was a decision made early on in barack obama's presidency, a strategic decision, not to work with us. not to be partners with them. so i think have pretty much stuck with that, to the detriment of the country. that is a fundamental change in american politics.
our policy is good towards compromised. it is not a parliamentary system. you can get anything done on a strictly party basis. no matter how much you win an election by, one party cannot govern by it self. a lot of people on the republican side think we are in a parliamentary system. host: the is next in jacksonville, north carolina. a republican. caller: good morning mr. marshall and c-span. you made a comment about the senators sending a letter to the iranians. but what i don't understand is we had a syrian redline, a russian reset, libya is a good success story, the arab spring, the muslim brotherhood, ukraine policy, and for a minute the democrats think that the senate and the house shouldn't have a concern the white house has put forward?
right now, they are working for the opposition of the current prime minister. i find it almost comical. we talk about the economy and such. you talk about the internet boom as if it was something great. there was also the internet bust. we lost thousands of jobs when the internet busted. in 2009, when this president was elected, he basically told the republicans their help wasn't needed. thanks for your time. host: will marshall. guest: thanks, caller. i just have to is agree with your last point. in 2008, 2009, president obama ran explicitly as a post partisan president. he reached out his hand several times to the republicans and headed kind of slept away.
and received no cooperation whatsoever. as a matter of party strategy from the republicans. again, this is can of new in american politics. when people come to congress -- nothing good can happen. i am afraid that is where we are. i want to clarify one other point. i am not saying that congress doesn't have a role in foreign policy. i am not saying there should be a robust debate about foreign policy. there always is, there always should be. there is a line that you don't cross. which is to undermine a president in the middle of a delicate negotiation with the country, iran, that we have been at loggerheads with for a generation. in developing the capacity to go nuclear, get nuclear weapons. this is a really important security negotiation, and there is a right way to to oppose it and a wrong way. the wrong way is to seize a deal
that the president comes back with an say, ok, in good conscious i can support it or i can't. the runway is to write a letter to a foreign leader and say, hey, don't worry about what this president is telling your because whatever he says, he can't make it stick. what they were saying is he can't negotiate for the united dates of america. i'm sorry. for the constitution, that is the right. that is the line he crossed. it is unbelievably unpatriotic. i think that is a big story, and a much bigger scandal than 47,000 e-mails stuck on a server. host: and we had our viewers weigh in on that earlier this morning. we will do so again coming up here in a few minutes. don in michigan. a democratic caller. hi don. caller: good morning. good morning, c-span. i disagree with you, sir.
i think nafta really hurt this country. i am from the flint, michigan area, and i have seen jobs factories just shut up, and delete. they went to mexico. those 49 senators who signed that letter, they should be brought for treason. i think the justice department should be brought in to look at it and find a way to have these guys arrested. or pulled out of congress. what they did was treason. host: ok, don. i will have will marshall address the letter. let's talk about what you said on nafta. he said he is for fair trade. this is what lawmakers of our
capitol hill, democrats, are hearing from their constituents. guest: they are hearing some of that from constituents, but keep in mind that 60% of democrats -- both the big trade agreements -- are a good thing for america. and an even higher percentage of millennials, young voters, think it is good. when we get around to the next election, 2016, a large percentage of the electorate are going to be either people who were not born or too young to remember the nafta debate. so really, it is time to move on. your caller raised a much more important point. we have seen the deindustrialization of america. that started well before nafta. this is from the 1970's on. we have seen all those great manufacturing sectors in his part of the country and the industrial empire in the midwest just slowly decline. that is a function of the change
in the global economy. of the fact that these jobs could be done a lot more cheaply in developing countries. that is not to mitigate the pain and the dislocations that cause the decline of manufacturing and employment, but that is a reality that started well before nafta. it wasn't all that much affected by it. that is a fundamental shift in the structure. host: let me squeeze in one last phone call. ed in fort myers, florida. a republican. hi, ed. caller: hi, good morning. another caller just touched on it, this letter from the senators. your guest had earlier in the show -- maybe it was a faux pas -- that the republicans were not honor, would repeal, or whatever , if they got a deal because it didn't go through congress. i read the letter. you have it on the screen. it says could. the word could this not mean it
will. it means it could. and you said the republicans would do it. thank you. guest: i am not sure i follow the difference that you are pointing to hear. the point is the republican letter also is embarrassing because it is false. it starts by saying that the iranians don't understand the constitutional system, and then goes on to misrepresent what the constitution actually provides for. and what it provides for is the president of the united states conducts these foreign negotiations. and this is an agreement, not a treaty. so it doesn't go through congress for and -- an up or down vote. it doesn't require senate approval. the congress could though, this rate the treaty by not honoring its terms by adding on sanctions
if the treaty calls for a gradual rationing down of sanctions. congress could say no, we are going to add to them. oddly enough, the republicans didn't even quite know what they were talking about when they sent this letter, which makes it doubly embarrassing. but the point is, you know, we have one president. and whether you voted for him or you didn't vote for him, it is kind of a material it comes to dealing with the outside world. we have 2% -- have to present a unified face. if congress doesn't like the deal, they are within their rights to say so and act accordingly and vote as they will. but trying to sabotage the deal before it is even completed is unacceptable. host: will marshall is president and founder of the progressive policy institute. thank host: we will turn back to our debate earlier this morning. what is your reaction on the
letter sent by 47 republicans on the deal the white house is trying to broker along with five other countries to stop a nuclear power from being achieved by iranians in return for a relief of sanctions? we will get to that next. ♪ >> keep track of the new congress. on c-span, the c-span2 c-span radio, and www.c-span.org. >> this week, c-span is in new
hampshire for "road to the white house." tonight at 8:00 on c-span, we will be in manchester for a policy event with south carolina senator lindsey graham who spent two days in the granite state this week. friday night, beginning at 7:45, we will take you to a house party in dover, new hampshire, with jeb bush. saturday just afternoon wisconsin governor scott walker at a republican party grassroots workshop. on sunday night at 9:35 on c-span, senator ted cruz and annual lincoln-reagan dinner. "road to the white house does vote on c-span. -- "road to the white house >>" on c-span. host: we are back. getting your thoughts on negotiations with the country led by the united states and
five other countries trying to stop iran from obtaining nuclear power in exchange for release of those nuclear -- sanctions. the tension between the administration and the republicans was on full display. secretary of state john kerry testifying, along with his colleagues and joint chief, the secretary of state john kerry asked his reaction to the letter. here it is. john kerry: my reaction to the letter was utter disbelief. during my 29 years here in the senate, i never heard of nor even heard of it being proposed anything comparable to this. if i had, i can guarantee you no matter the issue or who was president, i would have certainly rejected it. i think no one is questioning anyone's right to dissent.
any senator can go to the floor any day and raise any of the questions that were raised in that. the right to the leaders in the middle of the negotiations, particularly the leader they have criticized other people for engaging with poor writing to, they suggest that they are going to give a constitutional lesson, which was absolutely incorrect and it is quite stunning. host: secretary of state talking about his reaction sent -- reaction on the letter sent by republicans. rand paul, a potential presidential contender in 2016 and a member of the foreign relations committee, he talks about why he signed that letter yesterday. rand paul: i signed the letter to iran, but you know what? the message was to you. it was to president obama that
we want you to obey the law, understand the separation of powers. if this agreement in any way modifies legislative sanctions it will have to be passed by congress. that is why i supported the legislation that says exactly this. however, i have told them privately that that is the law anyway. you cannot undo legislation. why did i sign this letter? i find it to an administration that does not listen. that tries to go around congress because you think you cannot get your way. the president says, oh, but congress will not do what i want, so i have a pen and i have my phone, and i will do what i want. the letter was to you. the letter was to iran, but it should have been cc'd to the white house. they need to understand that any
thing that moves legislation will need to be passed by us. host: one of the 47 republicans who signed the letter to iran. from the associated press the letter from the republican lawmakers warning that any nuclear deal could be scrapped by president obama's successor and it is a sign of disintegration in washington. the supreme leaders saying that the collapse of obama's successor as a sign of disintegration. jason in springfield, illinois. you are up first. caller: first of all, whoever the supreme leader you are talking about -- a democratic
republic is messy. that is just the way it is. anyone going around saying that this is all disintegrating washington or whatever, this is the way it is. this is the way it has been for 250 years and the weight will be for another 250 years, ok? -- and the way it will be for another 250 years, ok? host: so what is the debate? caller: i'm a political scientist and the more i study the more i know. it has been worse than this and people are very dramatic nowadays. we watch on tv and we want drama. you know what? i was a registered democrat. the president should -- i am
really having a problem with voting democratic this time around. anyway, as far as -- real quickly, as far as the letter goes, once again, the president did make a comment that he will not advise concerned with congress, so congress did make a decision to write the letter. if you would not be going around saying he would veto everything or seek the advice of congress, and he hasn't. in almost every instance when he should have, he hasn't. it is stunning with what he has been doing, and i don't think the letter was wrong for them to do it because they are not being participants in the democracy like they are supposed to be. host: all right, jason.
lobbying colleagues and making many phone calls last week and into the weekend to try and get 46 of his colleagues to sign the letter. james in fort worth, texas. caller: good morning. i do not think john kerry and president obama could negotiate their way out of paper bags. host: why not? caller: john kerry will give away the store. and president obama will to, just to get a treaty. the training will not be a good deal because if he thinks iran will let inspectors in there to look at sites, then they have blind folders on. host: gordon in salem, new york, high. -- hi. caller: i am just curious.
correct me if i am wrong. did our cia in the 50 -- 1950's assassinate the iranian elected leader? it seems to me that i remember reading about that. the iranians overthrew and held our diplomats for a better part of a year. didn't we find out that israel was selling military equipment that we had given to them -- to iran? i remember some senator in the government saying they would stop that because we are going to withhold our foreign aid to israel. someone pointed out that was one of the first appropriations we made this year. host: what are you getting at? caller: my point is that -- you know, i am not for iran, but we keep on pointing out that this is a terrorist country run by terrorists and whatnot. our hands are not entirely
clean. didn't we provide iraq the chemical weapons, weapons of mass distraction when they were fighting iran? i think shaming -- i think cheney had a lot to do with that. i don't know. i can understand to some extent the iranian position that they do not trust us as much as we trust them. host: ok, oscar in virginia. good morning. caller: i agree with the previous caller. he is absolutely right. i did not appreciate the way that john kerry was stopped in his speech. the chairman actually interrupted his response to the question of the letter. john kerry should have been given a chance to explain himself. your guest speaker actually a political student of the letter,
he actually rejected the letter himself. the senate needs to wake up because back in 2003, where were these republicans when cheney and w bush decided to attack iraq? host: hello, from wisconsin. a republican. caller: it is lover. -- laverne. host: sorry. caller: it's ok. i wanted to bring up how your previous guest talked about how it was not a treaty and did not need to be ratified by the senate. yes, that is true. it is not a treaty. but the thing about that is that -- and maybe you should play the clip -- was yesterday when senator -- secretary kerry said during the hearing that yet, it
is not a treaty. it has no force of law behind it. you need to find that clip and play it. host: yeah, and for those who missed the hearing yesterday and want to see that part that we are referencing. just go to our website at www.c-span.org. you can type in keywords and go to that exact part in yesterday's hearing. courtesy of the museums here in washington, gop letter to iran and understatement. the open letter from 47 republican senators. morning i run leaders -- morning iran leaders that they might --
there it is on your screen. they sent a letter to iran. they say the stunt risks of war. the governor of louisiana tweeted this comment after president just after vice president joe biden tweeted this comment. saying, -- independent caller john. good morning to you. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me speak on c-span today. i am a 79-year-old korean war veteran. i am a black american. what i have seen with this whole thing, we can go through benghazi, we can go through the
letters that were written to iran, we can go through all of this. but this whole thing is racism. racism is at the bottom of this cold thing. the republican hates the president. not because his name is barack obama, but because he is black. the republican party has shown me that they are not interested in having anything to do with black people. host: when you say something like that, where do you .2? what do you .2, what action, what word? -- what do you point two? what action? what word? caller: they have tried to go around the back door so many
times and they are still trying to go around the back door. they need to go through the front door and they keep sleeping racism under the rock. host: you view this disrespect as being based in racism? caller: yes, i do. host: ok, karen. democratic caller. what do you think? caller: i tend to agree with the gentleman i just heard because the president is african-american or white. this just shows another roadblock they are trying to put in front of the president because they do not want him to achieve anything. i do not see why the americans do not see that. host: tom cotton, the republican from arkansas, asked his colleagues to sign this letter and wrote an opposing view in "usa today." he says that the critical role
of congress in the adoption of international agreements were clearly laid out by our founding fathers in our constitution, and it is a principle upon -- among democrats and republicans have largely agreed -- president joe biden led his foreign policy committee on his tenure in capitol hill and he goes on to say that it was not because the president was not interacting with the senate that they chose this route. the senator of the "new york times" noting that he has been in the senate as of wednesday for 65 days. he just served to death years
representing a house district in arkansas. 37 years old, the youngest member of the senate, graduate of harvard law's goal, and he served as an infantry officer in the 101st airborne division of iraq in 2006 -- one of the bloodiest periods of the war. hi debbie, -- caller: i have called before and i will tell you, i really upset. before i get to the letter, i would like to say something. i am white and your callers seem to be putting something there. the president is not just black so if we are racist republicans in this country, we are also racist against the white part of because we are white. there is no racist for republicans were listening to them talk. we are not the senators sitting out there. we are republicans in this country that are white and he is not a full blooded african-american.
because ben carson -- we would vote for him in a heartbeat because he was for black and white poverty. he is a very good person and i remembered you asked me that because i wish i had remembered because carson is a very good guy. the letter -- you were playing that clip with kerry talking and i did not live here then, my dad was overseas and the service but yesterday a caller came on and he talked about secretary kerry when he was a senator when kissinger behind the president's back at that time and talk to against the treaty. post you went to syria -- polos ki went to syria and talked behind president obama's -- -- back. and they are calling them traitors.
i'm glad they're doing some of the things they are doing to the country can hear what is going on because some people do not listen to republican channels and they do not know what is going on. if -- they are not traitors because he would have to say the president is a traitor when he informs on the news and live streams that we are not going to this on the ground, so we are coming in june to take over and we are not going to -- they are not allowed to protect themselves which is something bush would never have done. he lets them know, so that is actually a traitor too. anyone who tells someone what they are not going to do -- what they are going to do -- they can hear that. host: all right, debbie. this is in "the washington post." the chairman of the foreign relations committee chose not to
sign the letter and republican of maine, susan collins. and she is quoted here saying -- caller: i knew a lot of people said it was probably inappropriate, but i kind of agree with the one senator who said this was actually a letter. the president does not listen to the senators. they do want to be a part of it and they really have not been a part of it at all because i have not heard anything. they would not be so upset but you know, if they go ahead and do this behind the republican's back and the next president to comes in they have to go through this whole thing again if they do not make it in to a bounding treaty where congress is talking to the president. they would have to go through it all again. host: peter baker had a piece in "the new york times" yesterday.
it has been passed tradition that presidents do not undo agreements that their predecessors have made because when they are in office, they do not want the next person to undo what they do in office. so it has been an issue of tradition that presidents have adhered to. agreements that the previous people made, international agreements, so you can find that during their it is on your screen. "politics and tradition collide over iran nuclear talks." out from california, independent caller. -- al from california independent caller. caller: i think they should be sent to prison for treason. mr. cotton -- host: weights, he got one way in dollars from aipac? where did you read that? caller: it was in the newspaper
yesterday and you go online to find it out. the fact that they did the same thing to iraq in 2002, it is the same thing. iran has been -- has never attacked in the country for the last 2000 years. israel attacked over 100 times in the last 67 years. why do this to america. we are america. [indiscernible] this is a terrible state thanked the u.s. liberty? the owners have false flags -- the area is very small and iran has a very big army. these warmongers are singing these games. host: the "associated press"
reporting that a new person is jumping into the race and for congress. former lieutenant governor anthony brown says he will run for congress. the fourth congressional district includes a substantial part of print -- prince george's county. gail in florida, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i just called to say the letter that came from the iranian leader is basically saying that we as american people that it is not appropriate. it was disrespectful to the american people. it is not about barack obama, it is about the american people. we should all be ashamed for
what has happened, going behind the president's back to send the letter. there is the congress and we do have three branches of government. let's face it. the congress has basically been working against that. this business about the president cannot pass legislation, so the congress needs to do what they are supposed to do. it worked together and come together as democrats and republicans, and get things done to better the country and stop all of this backbiting -- that is my comment. host: richard in edinburgh, texas. a republican. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. thank you for c-span. i have been getting a big kick out of this i have been listening since 6:00 my time. i know that what the senators have done is right because you can always tell because all the
liberals -- all the democrats -- you are mad because they did something that they should be doing. remember, we send all these republicans to washington to stop obama from his unlawful actions he is doing constantly. we love our country. we love our america, and we want america by the constitution and not by socialism. host: before you go, can i ask you your thoughts on the paper this morning on the iran story drives -- grabs the 20 16th spotlight as the gop field and braces at this hard-line -- those that are eyeing a bid in 2016 for the republican field have all either signed on to the letter or have agreed with the letter sentiment. senator marco rubio yesterday his reclaim america pack and
sending out a letter to supporters asking for a donation because of this letter. he says that last year, reclaim america pack bigger risk -- at the end he says this is an outrageous attack on tom cotton and marco. and they say if you agree that republican senators are not traitors, i hope you contribute. caller: i understand because i understand that politicians want to be reelected. i wish i could give more, but i am on a fixed income and i really can't. i would gladly donate money. not to the people who call in, to republicans. host: this story is enough for you to want to contribute to republicans? caller: oh, yes. not just that story. everything.
i really appreciate you taking my call. we are down here in south texas, right on the border of mexico. we just love everybody down here. host: thank you, richard. we will go to jolt in california. an independent color. -- jeoloel in california. an independent collar. caller: i am shaking calling into you. i used to it. you look very cute and red. iran is self-destructing its own political system. the iranians are going to give up and not accept nothing. this is all they want to do. they want to stall. they already have nuclear weapons over 35 years. pakistan, north korea has it. the irony is, the government is not thinking straight anyway. host: alice in detroit
democratic caller. -- al in detroit, democratic caller. caller: you do not go behind the president's back and disrespect office because of political brainwashing that the department has been doing. this man has been undermined since day one of office. basically, it is racism. this complete on corporation is affecting the country as a whole . people have got to wake up and realize that we'd to stand behind the president, support him. there are no details about the treaty. it does not make sense to me. host: roy of iowa. what do you think? caller: i think that mr. obama
acts like the king. this is a democracy, no, republic. as far as racism, i don't think president obama would be in office if it wasn't for white people voting for. -- voting for him. i don't think anybody wants to fundamentally change the united states -- you know, he is not a king. they don't even teach the constitution. they do not even teach government in school anymore. these young people, you ask them questions and they have absolutely no idea how this country is run. they do not know their senators their congressman, and they are able to vote. i appreciate it. host: all right, anthony is on the line in d.c. good morning to you. caller: before i say this, i would like to address the issue
of to demo their colors talked about biracial. unfortunately, in america, you can be biracial, but you are considered black or white. you can see that procedures what they want to be. right now, the president considers itself to be african-american. getting to the latter, basically goes to what runs to foreign policy. the senators know that. for rand paul to sit up there and say to secretary kerry -- come on. if you want to write a letter to the president and secretary of state, you can easily write want to them. the sad part about it is that if they sabotage of this deal which they probably will, there are five other countries that are still in with this. if they sabotaged this deal, one of the earlier guess was