tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 6, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
a conversation with diana owen about the housing market and the real estate industry. you can join the conversation by phone and facebook. >> the senate's arm service committee is for general sanders. we will be asked about the deadly bombing on the afghanistan hospital. by doctorsekend run without borders. you can see that it 9:30. the clinton campaign has a new ad out today. republicans using the house committee on benghazi for political gain. states the secretary of has come out for tighter gun control measures. this has recent polling showing they are not doing in key states of iowa and new hampshire. our first 45 minutes we want to
hear from democrats only on your view from hillary clinton. as a candidate and on her campaign. you can make your thoughts not you can make your thoughts known on the phone lines. (202) 748-8000 for those of you in the eastern time zones. (202) 748-8001 for you in the pacific time zones. you can also go to our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span. stories today about a new tv ad from the hillary clinton campaign taking a look at the topics of benghazi. clinton aims to turn the tables on the gop. seeksble television ads to capitalize on the leading congressional republicans candidate claimed that the
committee on benghazi has damaged clinton's standing in the presidential race. [video clip] >> the republicans finally admitted. >> republican kevin mccarthy saying the committee investigating benghazi and clinton's e-mails was created to destroy her candidacy. >> everybody thought that hillary clinton was unbeatable, but we put together a benghazi special committee. what are her numbers today? >> they spent millions fighting hillary because they support everything -- the because they oppose a re-think she supports. the: the same story from washington post. the story on the washington post site also has reaction from speaker boehner's office. he calls the clinton ad an attempt to distract from the probe. is a classic clinton effort to
oftract from the record putting classified information at risk and jeopardizing our national security, all of which the fbi is investigating. benghazi is also likely to be among the topics raised that next week's democratic presidential debate. your view of her and her campaign. you can give us a call on two lines. in the mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. we will start with john in new york. i'm sure i would announce it, but new york on the democrat line. john, good morning. caller: i have a question. all of this started -- are you there? host: go ahead. started whenf this they let -- what is his name?
donald trump get into it. define anything to knock hillary clinton down. so they came up with the e-mails. let's hear from you, john. what do you think of her as a candidate first and foremost? caller: i think she will win. republicans don't have nobody. george bush? come on. host: you mean jeb bush. caller: jeb bush. he ain't going to win. republicans opened up the pandora box. they hate what they've got so the only thing they have to do is knock hillary clinton down. that is why all the people out there say, we want joe biden. we want this person. there are other democrats in it. host: let's hear from terry in
ohio. for democrats only in this first 45 minutes, your view of hillary clinton, hi there. caller: this whole thing has been a smear campaign on hillary clinton. kevinhe -- benghazi and mccarthy coming out and telling the truth of what is going on. i think she will bounce back in the polls. once she gets out and does more campaigning to her constituents, but right now it is nothing but a smear campaign. all the news media have been pounding on her everyday. he cannot even turn on the news channel without hillary clinton being on it in the e-mails. there is nothing in the e-mails other than her personal life about what you think's pet food or her grandbaby. i think people need to realize what it is and look at what she is going to try to do for the country. host: what do you think the clinton campaign has to do to
change that? needs to getnk she out more and talked to the people. that is all you can do. the news media is not going to get over it. until we stop watching it and change the channel, once we do that, they will move on. right now she just dates to talk to the people. host: do you think she connects well with people? caller: i do. if you watched or the other night on "saturday night live," that right there shows she is a human being and a woman. want tos me that men tell other women what to do with their bodies and who they should vote for and what is best for them. as a woman, we get to make those decisions for ourselves and not a man. caller: the viewer mentioned -- host: the viewer mentioned at the former secretary of state did appear on "saturday night
live." >> rough night? >> you could say that. i am hillary rodham clinton. >> great name, i'm val. what brings you here tonight? >> i needed to blow off some steam. i had a hard couple of 22 years. >> what do you do for a living? >> first, i am a grandmother. second i am a human, entrusted with this one green earth. >> i get it, you are a politician. >> yet. >> how about you? ordinary citizen who believes the keystone pipeline will destroy our environment. [laughter] >> i agree with you there. it did take me a long time to decide that, but i am against it. >> there is nothing wrong with taking your time. what is important is getting it right. >> i will join to that.
i love a scalding hot vodka. >> i just realized, i never check your id. >> [laughter] id! please. i have a one-year-old granddaughter. she calls me madam president. [laughter] >> i never would have guessed. you give off such a young, cool vibe. you must work in brooklyn. >> yeah, somewhere in there, yes. >> mrs. clinton, i am so sorry to interrupt. i want to say my sister is gay, thank you for all you have done for gay marriage. >> you're welcome. >> it really is great how long you have supported gay marriage. >> yet. i could have supported it sooner. >> you did it pretty soon. >> yeah, could've been sooner. >> fairpoint. if you were to go to the pages of "usa today" this
morning, goldberg writes, did you see the snl ad for hillary? basically a hillary clinton campaign ad. you can read more on the pages of "usa today" this morning. (202) 748-8000 for those in the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. our topic for democrats only this morning. let's hear from sheila. caller: is that me? host: yes, you are on. go ahead. caller: i will vote for hillary. i like what she stands for. in, ir, if joe biden gets will vote for joe biden. nonsense, well, is
not nonsense. it was terrible. if you listen to the original hearing, where the chairman had to read the letter from steven's mother, because it was evidence, she put it in as evidence. you will find that this whole thing about benghazi, it was a tragedy. but -- host: if i can ask you, why would you first say you would support hillary clinton, but why would you change that to joe biden? caller: because i love joe biden. has one piece of baggage
that i don't like. that would be bill. i don't want bill back in the white house. if i have to, i would vote for hillary. if joe does not get in. host: let's hear from joanne in indiana. caller: good morning. i am not quite a fan of hillary. unfortunately, there has been too much baggage hanging onto her. not only benghazi, but a lot of things. i want a president that will get in there and do something for the american people. husband's global initiative -- i am leery about that. lawyer, that she is a and has got out of so many sticky situations, it is been a hairline between fault and non-fault, i would rather go
with bernie sanders. everything he has been saying is exactly from the heart. he has not stop saying that for 40 years. cases, that is where i stand. host: when you talk about baggage, what are you referring to? herer: i am referring to actual beginning in arkansas. everything that they had to do with the cover-up -- it wasn't a cover-up. they were slightly involved, because they were partial owners of the business. they were not the run -- once running it so they were not guilty of what they did. the business that they owned. that hasg said, carried with her through her whole life. i want a president that is on
the right side and not on the line. host: let's go to jamie and michigan, asking democrats about your view of hillary clinton. caller: i have a positive view of hillary clinton. i will be voting for her. i have followed her ever since her husband was governor of arkansas. she has been working for women and children and families practically all her life. i remember when bill was in arkansas as the governor, she helped out women and children and schools there. i have known her for a long time. all this other stuff is just put up to destroy her campaign, like before. she is a good person. mississippi is right next door and we got to know the clintons. he has relatives in mississippi
and i know them personally. nothing will change my mind. i support her 100% and i will be voting for her. host: that is jamie in mississippi talking about her view of hillary clinton, not only as a candidate but her campaign. if you want to give your thoughts (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. the wall street journal took a look at polling in iowa and new hampshire. voters and how they perceive the former secretary of state. rite that mrs. clinton is well-regarded. they are viewing her favorably. overall,istered voters views are less couple mentoring. only 35% -- are less consummate complementary. only 35% of voters viewed her
favorably. lost in matchups to jeb bush in florida and carly fiorina in florida. contrast, mr. sanders tied mr. bush and narrowly beat mrs. fiorina. janice from florida. you are up. janice from jacksonville, florida? one more time? i think she is gone. caller: i am here. host: go ahead. caller: when bill was running for his second term, just before he ran, hillary came after the monica lewinsky scandal. my mother and i were strongly encouraged by a democratic delegate to go to the st. paul' ame church to hear hillary speak. i knew that she was presidential than.
everybody left after it was over. i said, she is still down there. my mother encouraged me, and the secret service paves the way, and we went down there. she just reached out and embrace my mother. we had the warmest conversation. i stepped back to behold the moment. it is crazy that they say she does not connect with people. i read a brilliant article in vanity fair, when she was secretary of state. author, andmber the they said that all over the world she was greeted like a rockstar. we didn't get that kind of publicity with secretary of state. that the warmth in
many countries with which bill is greeted, her being greeted as a rockstar, we could use that goodwill in this country or at any time. cio, saidhe af of l, recently at the christian science monitor breakfast that c. has to get an a+ to get the press holds her to a different standard. that is not right. she has always been held by the trumka,nd i am quoting to a different standard. +he should not have to get an a to get c. she is still coming through. host: that is janice from
florida. linda from connecticut. caller: i am supporting hillary clinton. i have followed her since her husband's first campaign. i have never been anything but impressed with her. i deeply admire bernie sanders, and vice president biden. butis my number one choice, if for some reason she doesn't win the primary i will stand behind the democratic candidate. host: when it comes to specifics, is it about her and her policies that you support the most? one edge formber her over the other democrats is her grasp on global issues. i think that she has been involved in global issues, child health, women's rights for so long now.
no one else can compare with her track record. we need that right now. be to me her edge over other democratic opponents. georgia, --ric and in georgia, you are next. caller: good morning. last two decades been -- not has necessarily around, but in d. . -- opposition republicans they are mad -- they hate her. only because she is strong. , with her marriage,
the president did what he did. but you know something? she held her wedding vows. did what -- she and the president stood before god and said their vows and that they would be there with each other forever, only with each other. she held her vows and that shows a lot of character. when that whole thing as going on, it seems like great deal of white -- this
hert racist -- women wanted to voice for the president. she was strong and bounced back sorrow and that people still have that type of for her. i think it is just jealousy. she is a solid woman. democrats only, your view of clinton. this takes a look at the upcoming elections for the new house speaker in the light of john boehner announcing his retirement. the headline from the washington post, the gop pushes back
leadership votes. kevin mccarthy still remains the heavy favorite to get the nomination but is still facing questions whether he can keep republicans united over the four votes -- floor vote. in that vote, all house members cast ballots. when 29 of that republicans abandoned the nominee, he is unlikely to garner the most needed for the speaker share -- chair. throwing off the balance for the first time since 1923. paul singer writing that the timing of the vote may give some house republicans at chance to rewrite some of the rules when it comes to how the procedure is done. representative mark meadows saying he and others are calling for rule changes that would give the house chairman more authority. the way to house functions, the committee structure gets
superseded by a few ideas at the last minute because we are in crisis mode. conservatives have expressed frustration they are not able to get the issues. house leaders bring bills to the floor that are never voted on. they propose that if a lawmaker can get 150 signatories of the bill it should begin teed regulatory committee -- should be guaranteed a regulatory committee. from colorado, we hear from cass. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that hillary clinton has grown in the public eye over the last few years. i don't think he has given enough credit for that. i think she was in the shadow of her husband who i also voted for.
somebody like us in our jobs were ever asked to account for what he did. i saw i woman who was very loyal to her husband. she has grown into being the kind of person i would vote for as president. i am proud of her. i wish people would stand behind the president more often. like for obama. i like what he has done and i am one of his fans. sayink that people should more things about our president. once a president is elected it is a tremendous job. host: did you ever give thought
to supporting bernie sanders or joe biden? caller: i have. frankly, i like mr. biden. i would probably vote for hillary as a democratic candidate and as a woman. kind ofshe has a sensitivity that nobody else has ever had. i believe she is very confident and very capable. nobody is perfect and everything that they do. i would like to give her a chance. host: tim from virginia is up next. good morning. caller: i think it is kind of funny they are picking on hillary.
when bill clinton was president we had a little money in this country. her --bernie sanders at and her. host: what specifically stands out for hillary from the rest? host: -- caller: she seems to be for the middle class and the poor. it really bothers me when republicans talk about patriotism but they take their money and put it in the cayman islands and hide it. the country needs the tax money to build roads and infrastructure and create jobs. the pipeline, we don't need that , but we could use a couple railroad lines from east coast and west coast. it will be nice to get on a train and not drive across the country. that would create a lot of jobs. social security that is easy, start taking it out when the baby comes out of the hospital. that would fix that.
it is common sense. i wish the country would start working together. thank you for c-span and for taking my call. host: she was asked about her thoughts about appearing before the committee in light of recent isn't here is her response. [video clip] >> i have to say that now that they have admitted that it is a partisan committee for the sole purpose of going after me, not trying to make our diplomats in dangerous areas safer, that is up to congress. i am looking forward to answering questions about real things when i am there, and i am looking forward to have a chance to explain everything we have done, everything i have asked to happen. it is not appropriate what they have done. host: the numbers again are (202) 748-8000 for the eastern
and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 for the mountain and pacific time zones. democrats only, your view of hillary clinton. host: i think it was not a prize find out this was just a bashing campaign against hillary clinton. anytime hillary clinton goes to do anything, republicans get scared. hillary clinton is such a great speaker and they know that she can motivate anybody in this country to do anything. behindybody will stand hillary clinton because they know she will get it done. they have to bash her with anything. they dig to find anything about her which we found in the last residential race. they tried to dig into her bank account to make sure every dollar was accounted for in a legal way and they found nothing illegal. was accounted for in a legal way and they found nothing illegal in her books. they had to dig into clinton.
what other candidate have we seen them do that with? both of them are great speakers that can talk the nation into doing what is right, and doing the best that we can. just like the color before said, ais nation did not have deficit for a while when bill clinton was in office. i believe hillary clinton could do the same thing. even if it does mean raising taxes for a little bit, it is the same thing bill clinton did. the middle class was doing so good. i think hillary clinton could do the same thing for us again. the republican party is so scared because they know that it will mean the risk is going to -- rich is going to be taxed. host: robert from massachusetts, hello there. caller: everybody has to remember. you have to remember whitewater.
a lot of things that hillary and bill have been doing for a long time since arkansas. when you talk about hillary was a good woman that she stayed behind bill clinton, there were rumors that hillary was sleeping with greg foster. there was a rumor. they just say hillary, hillary. bernie sanders is an excellent man for african-americans. he fights for all people. not just african-americans or puerto ricans. he is an honest man at of massachusetts. go bernie sanders, i love you very much. i am african-american. african americans, let's turn to bernie sanders. host: glenn from pennsylvania, you are up. caller: yes. i'm voting for hillary. hillary is an advocate for the poor and middle class.
we love that woman. i am african-american. don't worry hillary, we got you. host: when you say she is an advocate for the poor and middle class, what about her policies reflects that for you -- he is gone. bruce from florida, your next. caller: what i would like to say is i am going to vote for hillary. my wife passed away last year and she wanted hillary so i will be voting for her. but what i would like to put out left is when george bush office they deleted all kinds of e-mails and torture videos. the republicans need to stuff it. host: before you go, why are you going to vote for her? caller: she is a good person.
men have ran this country for over 200 years, and look at the mess we are in. it is time to let a woman try it. just let her try and see what she can do. host: u.s. world in news reports were you can find a story on the senate support of hillary clinton. they write that hillary clinton has locked down the report of 33 of 46 senators to caucus with the democrats for her 2016 presidential campaign. coons asise -- chris are indicated he'll be in joe biden's corner and bernie sanders has emerged as clinton's fiercest opponent. kelly says that donnelly told him in september that he supports hillary. donnelly's office did not send
repeated requests for comments. 11 holdouts. they highlight senator sharad brown, senator maria campbell, senator angus king and others who have not formerly announced support. if you want to read that whole story you can find it at the u.s. news website. we are asking people what they think about hillary as a candidate in her campaign. what do you think. >> i think i'm tired of hillary clinton. >> she is from the old school of bill clinton. he will give her advice. we need new ideas. this country is falling down. and chicago, he cannot walk around and do anything decent. try to be nice but
they create more problems than they solve. tot they should do is try suggest things, work with people. when they do something, look at what they have done and see what the results are instead of constantly doing goodhearted things, but then they don't understand what they do sometimes creates problem for other people. what? uch as make rules and resolutions. have sanctuary cities. bring in and say were going to educate everybody but they don't think, how are we going to do this or pay for all of this. like obama. all of the kids can vote across the united states but how are they doing. who is supporting them and how are we getting money to hope -- help them. they do things but do not come up with solutions that support with they do and that is why i am voting for donald trump. carolina.y from north
i think hillary clinton as part of the 1%. bill clinton changed glass-steagall. they're not supporting the poor. host: that was jerry in north carolina. another 10 minutes or so for democrats only. new stories out today about british petroleum and what they will pay for the gulf spill that took place, the largest one in u.s. history. it will be about $20 billion. kevin johnson writes today that bp will pay at least $5.5 billion in civil and all tastes. the largest such penalty in the history of environmental law and
7.1 billion dollars in damage claims under the oil pollution act. -- bp spokesman jeff gorell morell said it represents money previously committed to the resolution according to the company. up next, from miami, florida. believe that hillary is very knowledgeable by she raised the ranks being the wife of the president. she was a senator of new york. she was in obama's cabinet. as for knowledge, i believe she qualifies the job. most people are not saying why she qualified. she is not for the poor. when you talk about hillary clinton, you talk about walmart. she is not truly for the poor
and middle class. to be for the poor and middle class you have to have empathy for the poor and middle class. you have to know how it feels to struggle. host: would you support her should she get the nomination? caller: if she is the best person for the job, at the time of running, yes. host: do you like someone more than her? caller: she is more knowledgeable, but you have biden who can continue on with what is going on with obama. not to say that obama has been doing such a great job. far believe hillary is by more knowledgeable than obama within the political game. washingtonian, that pans out to me. host: garrett in massachusetts.
caller: i have been hearing a lot of stuff on this interesting conversation. i feel that hillary has this reputation that she is all for the poor people or middle-class people, and i think people who hold that point of view have to do some due diligence. they have to look at her connections to the big wall street banks. those have been her top 10 or 20 contributed to her political campaign over the years. the big banks, including goldman sachs where as recently as a couple years ago she was giving quarter million dollar speeches to goldman sachs executives. that is payola. want people to look at who is funding her campaign now, and who is funding bernie sanders campaign. he is getting hundreds of thousands of donations of $30 or yes.
clinton is getting money from the same people, the big-money backers. if all the people who are sanders, arernie they wrong or out of touch? where is all the millionaires are also wrong and don't understand she is not on their side? people have to look at where these people come from and where the money comes to fund them. host: who do you support the most? caller: i am supporting sanders. thing thatng at the has affected this country for the past six or seven years which is economic collapse. andnows it is the banks elizabeth warren should have run for president this year. i am from massachusetts and pretty familiar and i feel like this is her year. maybe she doesn't want to be president.
candidate, he our is the guy talking about the central issues. inequalityincome that is plaguing this country and the entire world. all issues relate to it. racism relates to it, climate change relates to it it is all centered in wall street. and that is to me the issue. there is no way that clinton can solve that problem because she is their preacher. she is their puppet. sanders is nobody's up it. and: we will hear from gary kentucky. talking about hillary clinton and your view of her. caller: i don't understand why she is trying to change the constitution about gun law. second amendment rights founded when our country was founded, why does she want to change the gun law? i understand and agree that you
don't want a mental person with guns, but we are founded on that basis. judeo-christian values. one question, that awful shooting the other day, what if some of you had asked if people were muslims and shot them and hear the president politicizing that? i think that all campaign-finance should be run to the government and that would stop the lobbyists. host: brooks from north carolina. caller: i support hillary clinton. i take my hat off to her because she has a track record. the whole world knows about hillary clinton she has been everywhere. i think she is a no-nonsense individual who has the knowledge, skills and background. she has a lot of backbone, she is a strong woman and i think she would be a great candidate.
when you get in the white house there is not too much you can do without going to the house of representatives anyway. i think that she would still be a great supporter of the united states if she became president. the wall-- host: street journal has a story today saying it was the secretary of homeland security who voiced a newlyce on monday. reopened probe into the misuse of revit information about a lawmaker who criticized the agency. came hours after they announced they were reopening a pro-into house speaker personnel file of mr. chaffetz.ts -- james personal information
about him who applied to join the secret service in 2003 but was not hired. only four of those employees arguably had a legitimate information and most of the others violated the privacy act. the campaign 2016 buses going across the country talking about the campaign. it stopped at the comcast studio in chicago during its road to the white house tour. throughout the day visitors toward the bus to learn about programming and resources found at c-span.org. it will be visiting triton college in triton, illinois. we want to send a special thanks to the comcast infinity team for this effort. you can find out more information about our bus as it is on the road to the white house tour. coming on the program with a trade deal announced yesterday in the transpacific partnership, our next guest will discuss what is in the deal, what if aces as
congress considers it. daniel aiken's and of the cato institute will join us for that. and loretta sanchez on the military and training strategy against isis and other foreign affairs topics. washingtone as journal continues after this. >> studentcam is an annual documentary competition. it is an opportunity for cities to think of issues of national importance by creating a five to seven minute documentary. it is important for students to get involved because it gives them an opportunity and platform to have their voices heard on
issues important to them. so they can express those views by creating a documentary. we do get a wide range of entries. the most important aspect for every documentary that we get will be content. we have had winners in the past created just using a cell phone and others created using more high tech equipment. once again, it is really the content that matters and shines through. the response from students in the past has been great. many different issues they have created videos on that are important. we have topics ranging from education, the economy and the environment, showing a wide variety of issues important for students. positiveld have many impacts to better serve the tulsa community. >> we have definitely come to the consensus that humans cannot run without food. >> prior to the individuals with disabilities education act or
the ide a, children with disabilities were not given the opportunity of education. >> this year's theme is road to the white house. what is the most important issue you want the candidates to discuss in the 2016? residential campaign there are many different candidates discussing several issues. one of the requirements is to include some footage. this footage should complement and further their point of view and not just dominate the video. it is a great way for them to include more information on the video. the first bill that i will sign today is the water development resources and development act. >> we have heard these jokes about school going for fish sticks and mystery meat talk goes. >> there is a vital role that federal government plays. it is especially vital for students with disabilities. >> students and teachers can go
to our website. on that website they will find more information about the rules and requirements and teacher tips. rubrics to help them incorporate it into their classroom. more information about prices and how to contact us if they have further questions. >> the deadline for this year's competition is january, 2016. one year away from the next presidential inauguration. >> washington journal continues. was on monday that trade ministers in atlanta, georgia made the announcement that the trade deal known as the transpacific partnership had come to an agreement. >> after more than five years of intensive negotiations, we've have come to an agreement that will support jobs, drive sustainable growth, foster development and promote innovation across the region.
the agreemently, achieves the goal we set forth comprehensive,, high standard agreement that will benefit our nations citizens. host: joining us to talk about this announcement is daniel ikenson. from the cato institute. could you give us a bit of a roadmap of how we got to this point of approval? guest: there has been five to six years of intense negotiations between 12 countries on four confidence that account for 40% of global output. negotiations kind of void of the multilateral wto. the negotiations ongoing. tpp is a way to pick up the pieces.
for the united states to assert global leadership and for us to reduce trade barriers. that is essential for growth going forward. host: talk a little bit about -- these 10 or 11 nations why it is important to have deals with these nations. guest: the impetus was what was called the p4, which the united states expressed interest in in 2008. it was sort of an expression of exasperation and the failure of the doha round. it is getting together with countries that have a record of moving forward with liberalization and what to buy into this 21st century negotiation but also have a bit of a geopolitical component. it was really the economic centerpiece of hillary clinton's pivot to asia. that has played a role in how this has been pitched in congress and how it has been
pitched to the american people. much like, i don't so the characterization of this agreement s of the that excludes china. it will make a lot more sense if and when china joints. host: talk about them. guest: the united states had been distracted with 10 years of wasted time in the middle east and saw china emerging. cultivating trade relations with its neighbors and setting some of the rules. i think the united states wanted to say that we are back. tpp wantedies in the the united states to reassert itself. not because they want to choose, but because they want both of us there. goalately, the tpp -- the is to emerge from the free trade area of the asia-pacific which and koreaude china
and taiwan. right now a lot of these countries are engaging and reforms to prepare themselves to qualify. that is a good thing. they are engaged in unilateral reform to improve the attractiveness of their economies and to facilitate trade. >> for someone who wants to shift things overseas, what does it mean for them. one of the things if i understand it correctly, what is a tariff? what happens if they are? approved guest: a tariff is essentially taxes. the world has done a good job of reducing tariff rates but there are still significant tariffs in developing countries. the united states average tariff is about 2% but we have tariff peaks on things like clothing and footwear and food. they are regressive taxes. what is important is that
it compels the united states open up its market. we benefit tremendously from our openness. -- we needimports competition. it is the competition for these intermediate goods that tries innovation and provides variety for consumers. thehe export side, fastest-growing region in the world is the asia-pacific region. there are barriers. 95% of the population lives outside the united states. it is important to get them on a similar playing field. if the rules are the same and tariffs are reduced. if environmental and labor laws are similar, it is more cost effective for business to produce. you can produce on a continuous production line.
part of this is about harmonizing those rules to facilitate commerce. our discussion will be about the approval of these member countries of the trance partner -- transpacific partnership rule. (202) 748-8000 for republicans. (202) 748-8001 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 for independents. our guest is daniel ikenson of the cato institute. what are the next steps for the united states? guest: it is a two-headed coin. getting a deal with the trade partners which seems to have happened and selling that deal to congress. that might be more difficult than the president hoped for. i am hearing a lot of pushback from republicans in congress. the way that this works, under the constitution, congress has
the authority to regulate foreign commerce. the president has the authority to enter into treaties. congress will give you marching orders. this is the wish list. all of these boxes need to be ticked. if you do that you can bring home an agreement and we will vote up or down. some now, there are assertions that the trade promotion authority objectives have not been met. , chairman of the finance committee, is particularly concerned about the failure of the u.s. to obtain longer protections for biologics. living organisms. there is a concern about something called the tobacco carveout. tobacco has been divorced from access to something called the investor state dispute settlement. it is a form of discrimination
against tobacco. it sets a bad precedent. tobacco is considered to be a evil industry so are sugary drinks and fast food and alcohol. the problem with congress is that mitch mcconnell comes from a tobacco state. there are many members of congress who have already expressed their opposition to this particular deal because of that. give us a timeline of actual days involved. what does he have to do with this final compact and what does congress have to do as far as time? not beene tpp has signed. the president needs to make the text of the deal available for 90 days. the white house and congress need to have extensive consultation during that period. the text of the agreement will be published on the internet and after 90 days, a minimum of 90
days, the president can come back and sign the agreement. signed, the u.s. international trade commission has to do an analysis. they have 105 days to do that. 60 daysnistration has to produce a list of laws that will be affected. then there is a mock markup. congress will talk about the agreement but they cannot amend it. 90 daysy will be given to vote yay ornate and according to my estimations i don't see this coming to congress before the summer. i see some estimates of february. that will happen if everything is copacetic. this could be anywhere between july and the lame-duck which means it is front and center in the international election campaign.
it will be interesting to see how hillary clinton response to this unit she has disavowed it as a candidate. maybe if she gets the nomination she will want to come back to the center and start to support it. it will be an interesting contortion of views. host: susan, go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i had two points. tpp would that this make the member countries attracted to foreign investment and that raises a red flag as an american where i have seen decades of our industry and multinational business going overseas for the cheapest labor. secondly, i had heard within the tpp that there were provisions repeal the identity of food, particularly livestock and
vegetables and processed foods. to keep the identity of from where the food is emanating from . i think this goes against the burgeoning trend of wanting to eat local and know the source of where food comes from. as a consumer that should be our first right and i feel like if stuff starts flying in from these member nations under tpp, we are not going to know where the beef is coming from. what kind of standards it was raised or cultivated in. concerns.ear your , the deal has been reached and the public will have access to the text and will be able to see whether that rumor you have heard is true. there has been a lot of scaremongering about the tpp. lots of assertions that have not been backed up by facts.
it sounds dubious to me that that provision would be in this agreement. something that we tend to overlook is there is so much investment in the united states. the united states is the number one nation for investment around the world. it can account for about 18%. there is more direct investment in u.s. manufacturing than in other manufacturing sector in any other country. myth that there is a race to the bottom, but that is not the way it works. investment goes to places where the rule of law is abided. where the market is good. where workers have good skills. that feedthe factors into investment decisions. the evidence -- the political rhetoric likes to underscore this view that all foreign investment is outflows from the
united states and the u.s. bytory being taken down boat boat and being reassembled somewhere else. that really accounts for a tiny share of outward investment. we have a lot of companies investing in the united states. but 6 million americans work for foreign companies. on average they add more value and produce more exports and imports to they pay higher wages so we should embrace. this is good for the u.s. caller: my question is the nafta deal. nafta was signed by the clinton. deal, mye the nafta area has gone down tremendously. we lost so many factories, it is unreal. that is what keeps the middle class going. how are you going to bring these factories back into this country? tarrifs, how can
you trade with countries that , their people to dollars an hour, a dollar an hour? you can't trade with countries like that. that brings us down. that is my question. guest: a good question. let me refer to my previous answer. that two countries dollars an hour wages is the norm that the united states is competing with. we are competing with the -- the economy is this continuous value chain. we are at the top of the value chain. at entrepreneurship, innovation, and manufacturing. sometimes, that manufacturing requires inputs produced in other countries.
most of the value is produced in the united states great countries where wages are two dollars an hour, the cost of production tends to be higher because they are less efficient, less productive, there are other problems in the economy. is doing extremely well in the united states. one of the myths is the method of manufacturing decline. true, there are not as many workers employed. in 1979, 19.4 work -- 19.4 million workers, it has been on then, but in the six years following nafta, nafta was signed in 1993, in 1994 until 2000, we added manufacturing jobs europe year. i'm not saying nafta created those jobs, but those who say nafta killed u.s. jobs needs to take into consideration those facts. they never do. the story is always told without a lot of support. manufacturing is thriving. it is doing well. the u.s. economy used to be good at redeploying people who had
lost their jobs and finding other jobs for them. job ofnot done a good that and the last 10 years ago. i would attribute that to too much regulation, too much taxation, too many impediments to starting business. host: south carolina, good morning. caller: i don't understand how you can get up there and keep on saying the same old thing. where in a community factories were closed and they will never come back. they will never come back. you spin these lies over and over as you pass these trade deals. you don't do any type of research to see the destruction that it is doing out here in america. oeing.ecently, b billions of dollars from a deal that was passed, a spending bill that was passed. they plan on building the plants
. they are going to take our money , go somewhere else, and set up shop, build these things, and then send them back to the u.s.. don't you feel ashamed to be an american sitting up there today? you should be ashamed. guest: i didn't know this was going to be such a hostile crowd. [laughter] i don't feel ashamed at all. i think the fact that we have trade barriers in place is an imposition on americans. it is an imposition on consumers, taxpayers, u.s. businesses. when we remove trade barriers, lower them, and the result is that certain industries or certain companies can alert compete, it is those industries and companies that have been benefiting at the expense of everybody else. that is the way i see it. i don't like to see people displaced, economic change does
create change. it does displace some workers. it is incumbent upon policymakers to have an economic environment where those workers can find new jobs as quick as possible. go south of the border from north carolina and look at south carolina. it is the number one state in the country in terms of per capita foreign direct investment. there are lots of foreign companies that came into south carolina. they used to be heavily dependent upon textiles. they are wait -- raising manufacturing wages, increasing employment throughout the manufacturing sector. north carolina is doing the same stuff. there is a technical textile industry that has emerged in north caroline it. high-paying, high-value stuff. to unshackle the u.s. economy so that business owners can create those jobs. trade is about growing the pie.
it doesn't speak much to about how you distribute it high. the way to distribute reply -- to distribute the pie is to have as much opportunity as possible. right now, those trading opportunity are being held back by radiation. host: our workers protected not only in the u.s., but those in the countries we are going to engage with? guest: i don't know what each country is planning to do. in the united states, we have something called trade adjustment assistance which frankly does not work very well. it has in past along with trade promotion authority over the years, starting in 1962. what it does is supposes that the government understands where the market is going, what skills workers who lose their jobs will need in order to become marketable. in fact, it is the businesses that know that. i think business should be incentivized to hire people who lose their jobs, or hire people to train them to be employees.
pay them just to train them in exchange, perhaps, for a contract. to work for a year or two. i think that would be a win-win for producers and workers. of the cato ikenson institute joining us to talk about the trade deal that was agreed to earlier this week. wayne from western virginia, hi. caller: i am a former member of the armed forces. during the bill clinton presidency, sources were acquired to investigate. bill clinton was setting up a shadow government which is where hillary clinton's server comes from. they were setting up a shadow government because they anticipated 9/11. host: caller, before you go far, this is a trade discussion. what is -- questions do you have about trade policy? steve in phoenix, arizona.
caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. my question for the guess is, he was saying that people lose factories aren proved inefficient by other means. my question for the guest is, does he realize that it happens more and more frequently, people lose their jobs sooner and sooner, and when they lose their job, they lose their self-worth. it is hard for them to pick their face up. the real question is not how to get another job, it is how we keep people from thinking they are worthless because some companies have a crisis? guest: honestly, that is not an .rea that i am expert in the psychology behind it all. what i am expert in his trade. trade has aon, profound history of growing economies, growing the occult --
the global economy. if we want to demonize trade for creating job loss instead of creative destruction, we should think about technology, also. we seem not to think about technology, the efficiency gains generated through technology advancements which lead to job loss. this device, right here, with usedf the apps, these apps to be somebody's job. we don't think about that when we use those. the fact that we were able to develop those apps means we are creating more industry that will employ people down the road. in this global economy, people need to be nimble, prepared to learn new skills. change is hard, but particularly for people living in the workforce for a long time. there is a lot to look forward to. there are a lot of opportunities coming down the pike, provided we adopt the right policies.
the president heads to the agriculture department today to pitch the trade deal and make an appeal for it. specifically, why go to the aggie department -- ag department, and what will he specific talk with about two legislators to try to get support for a? there are lots of objectives he had to hit under the trade promotion authority leverage. this characterizes a 21st century trade standards agreement. to some extent, that is the case. if you look at the endgame of the negotiations where the parties were at loggerheads, it was at market activist issues. over 18, 19, 20th century issues. tariffs, automobile tariffs, dairy, sugar tariffs. agriculture is an old industry.
we are extremely efficient in agriculture, but very few americans are employed in the area. agriculture still plays a large role in trade policy formation. usually, it is not a liberalizing role. usually, they have their heels dug in. he will go and talk about the deal that was reached with the canadians and the new zealanders . area market access. the canadians have a protective quota system for milk and cheese. is that on the street there was not enough liberalization extracted from canada. maybe he wants to make the case to the ag department to enlist their support to try to convince the u.s. dairy farmers that this is a good deal. host: maria in new jersey, you're up next. high. caller: good morning, pedro. i have a couple comments and then a question. my first comment is that essentially, what we are doing here is redistribution of wealth wrote the world. the globalistts
criminal elite. we should bring back the import tariff which served our entry well. we should manufacture everything we can in this country to our standards, using our workers. bring security on all levels, including military. there are no standards abroad. we get poisonous products from china and other places. there was an insider trading bill that was passed. before he left, he put a so that his congresspeople could do insider trading on these companies. juanember one williams -- williams sing the care of on goes on about trade. he will find out that the dogs bite. you have someone from the constitution party, the american people ought to go to washington and arrest the people who are traitors. i ask you, how can you defend, just like that lady said, adding away everything from america and making us vulnerable to all of
the world -- giving away? we ought to take care of ourselves. guest: maybe the question was on your mind before i gave away my answers. i don't think i am giving away two corporations. i am pro-market, not necessarily pro-business. if the world you described of self-sufficiency, where the united states has high tariffs and produces everything here, is a much poorer world, much more united states. if you have a job, you engage in trade. at youre your skills job for close, food, your house, your haircuts, lawn service. if you want the united states to be self-sufficient, as you described, imagine yourself waking up every moment -- soil -- telling the tilling the soil, hunting your meat, making your close. you would have little at the end
of the day. trade enables us to focus on what we do best. we can make more that way, and we can exchange surplus. a model really does work. as i have been saying, we need to be better at redeploying people who lose their jobs. i do not think we should hold trade because the turn of the economic engine has slowed. we need to fix the engine. host: richard, virginia, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a two-part question. --st, the team back over looking back over half a dozen free-trade agreements in the last couple decades, why is it that our balance of payments days negative?
it is not to our advantage at all. secondly, does the imf figure into this? do you need them also, as if this whole issue was tied together in one great, globalist program. really, these issues should go to a national referendum and not rely on influenced congressional members. thank you. answer your question, no, i don't think the imf needs to be involved. governments need to be involved. the united states could engage in unilateral trade liberalization by getting rid of the barriers, granting greater access to foreign service providers. we would benefit as consumers. think of the u.s. auto industry in the late 70's. remember the hornet which would explode on rear impact. those were the big four -- that was what the big forward giving us. the quality was very poor. then we started importing from japan. honda came to marysville, ohio,
and employed u.s. workers. that competition gave rebirth to the u.s. auto industry. that is an important part of the equation. you mentioned the balance of trade. there is a misperception out there about the trade balance. people tend to like to think in sports analogy. exports are team america's points and importer the foreign teams points. balance is the scoreboard, and we're losing the trade deficit. that is the rhetoric. the flip side is the capital account. the capital account surplus. lots of investment coming into the united states trade that investment is equity investment, purchases of government debt, and foreign investment factories. andchannels create jobs economic activity in the u.s.. that is how we have run trade deficits for 40 straight years. the u.s. economy continues to
grow. one of the reasons is because we are getting a money -- money from abroad to underwrite our investment. focusing on the trade balance, i think, is the wrong place. host: you mentioned the auto industry. it is important to note that the automaker ford came out against this trade deal. part of the reason is because of the economic framework developing a long sign -- alongside the deal -- protects against currency manipulation against huge deals. guest: currency minute fusion has been front and center for the last decade. china has been the main focus of concern. japan, as well. the auto industry endorsed a plan to include in the tpp a provision to identify countries that are minute you waiting their currency by saying, if a country has a trade surplus for
six month in a row, if it has enough reserves to cover three-month of imports, and if it's foreign reserves are increasing, from that, we can foreignat the government is minute getting currency. the problem with the devastation -- definition is that the united states would never be insured -- ensnare by the. those criteria are foreign to the united states. it didn't pass muster. i think it is a red herring, the currency issue. the chinese currency has appreciated considerably, yet, the bilateral deficit of china continues to rise. china'son is that when currency appreciates, all of the imports that he uses, half of the values -- half of the value of its exports are import materials, they become cheaper. they can reduce the cost of production. globalization has mitigated the effect of currency values on trade flows. the old text books tell you if
your currency is overvalued, you're going to import more and at or less. vice versa. that has been mitigated by the fact that there is so much intermediate traits -- goods trade around the world. host: in china, helen hunt looking at this deal? -- how am i looking at this deal? guest: i think china wants to get in. china, in the back of its mine, thought this deal would not come to fruition. they are spearheading another effort, a free trade a government with a dozen other countries, fewer than a dozen, nine, considered a shower agreement in the sense that it primarily deals with border barriers. ultimately, it is a step towards the free-trade, as is tpp. i think china wants in, but they .robably don't want to exceed
they want to be founding, charter members. recognize that the die has been cast. this is the model to follow. host: louisiana, democrats line, you're next. caller: thanks. i would like to ask two or three questions. first, i would like to make a statement. ever since the first trade agreement in the late 60's, early 1970's, our standard of living has gone down for the middle class. explain -- weyou had a trade surplus up until then. ever since those trade agreements and all succeeding ve had areements, we ha trade deficit and he keeps getting larger. i agree with the lady from virginia. products,make our own sell it to ourselves.
if people from overseas wants to buy it, that is good. otherwise, we need to put our own people to work and put america first. thank you. with yourisagree worldview. anyact, we didn't have bilateral trade agreements in the 60's or 1970's. trade after the second world war under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. we had eight successful rounds of multilateral tariff reduction . the last successful round was in the -- was the uruguay round which ended in 1994. that produced the dell eto. and -- the94, they united states have entered into a free-trade agreement with israel and canada. there was nafta and the jenny three.
-- in 1993. we didn't have free-trade agreements and the 60's and 70's. my view is that we need to be engaged in the world. we represent 5% of the world's operation. -- operation. -- population. also, to work with on supply chains and to import from. if you think we can produce things in america behind a tariff wall and export them, where will foreigners get the products to purchase from the united states if they can't sell products to americans? host: what about the transparency of this deal? was a lot of it done away from the public eye as far as details and nuts and bolts? guest: not more than usual. all trade negotiations happened behind closed doors because if you air each negotiating position, the public reaction to each will handicap how you reach
that negotiation. what is important to note is that it is transparent in the sense that the deal will be available for everyone to see and evaluate. i think a lot has been made of the secrecy, lack of transparency, particularly from the anticorporate groups who, ironically, are the ones right now who are kicking themselves because there will be transparency. because of the transparency, we are going to be able to see that the lot -- a lot of the claims they have made, and they have been very effective as you can tell from the questions, will be revealed as untrue. could negotiation be more transparent? perhaps. you can't expect to arrive at a good deal if you have 320 million people weighing in on the u.s. position on each negotiating chapter. put thest because they text out there, it doesn't mean the public will understand the text, what a be the case? -- will that be the case? guest: i don't think every
ill read it, but people with a better understanding of the issue will write about it in favor or oppose to it. we, at the cato institute, will be engaging in a chapter by chapter assessment of the deal when the text is released. there are 30 chapters. we think that some of the chapters are not particularly good. it bakes in protections. i am not 100% sure that i support the deal. we want to analyze it first. i would say most chapters would be that liberalizing. some have what i consider to be detection is an baked in -- protectionism baked in that might outweigh the benefits such as intellectual property propertyns, protections, rules of origin in textiles is atrocious. duty-free we grant
access, preferable access to imports of clothing from the vietnamthe amount -- provided the anon -- thvie tnam uses u.s. textiles. it limits the options for those producers. it raises the prices. the real beneficiary of imports of clothing from vietnam are lowering from americans. this is a regressive tax. those kind of things. and the auto industry. they have a 25 year phaseout. period for a 2.5% tariff. that is not liberalization at all. they have a 30 year pay off. for a 25% tariff. host: republican, go ahead. i agree with trade.
i don't think it is necessarily bad. more people, more production. question is how long can we sustain -- sustain these trade top.ments being on how long until we are not on top? do you see us ever lacking consumption in america due to trade agreements? in some sense, we have more work, but we have less money coming into our economy as workers. the upper class. think the big picture as you are describing seems to help trade, but howal long can we sustain that with .ur epa system, our politicians
we have all of these different negatives, i guess you could say, for manufacturing, and so on, that these other countries do not. that is my -- my question is, how do we sustain the negatives against the positives of global trade? i think opening markets, reducing our barriers makes it easier for foreign companies to export to the united states. that is good for americans. for an barriers being reduced makes it easier for u.s. companies to export abroad. that is also before americans. there is this tendency to think of trade as an us versus them proposition. it is really not. if you think of it at the micro level, every transaction that is , both parties are made better off. you give away your dollars to purchase a particular product because you see value in a product. that value is worth the dollars
you are parting with. are off.walk away that otherwise, transactions would occur. that is trade. when you aggregate it at the national level, it is the same thing. think have a tendency to team usa versus the foreign team. the bottom line is trade the realization benefits -- liberalization benefits small business more than big is this. big business can endure trade barriers and stiff radiations because they are bigger. regulation.ation -- it keeps start ups from challenging them. it is good for smaller business, consumers, industries that rely on imported intermediate goods. good for taxpayers. it is good for workers because it helps channel dollars to the investments that are most appropriate.
i don't share the perspective that the united states should -- it is not win versus lose at the national level. on the factocus that the u.s. economy continues to grow. it has been slow lately, but that is not because of trade. there are other factors that need to be addressed. host: what is the potential, do you think, of congress not approving this deal? what are the options after that? guest: that is the key question right now. it is possible. at the moment, 50/50, say. too soon to a lot of grandstanding, a lot of positions being staked out. when a congressman says there is no way i'm going to support this deal, he is also saying sweden it for me, give me something. that is how things get done in washington. -- he is saying sweeten it for me. concernsd to know if
we have heard from senators is just negotiations. if it fails, i think that is a terrible sign. waiting in the wings is another negotiation across the atlantic. it's progress depends on this deal getting done. if it doesn't, i think the transatlantic deal collapses and we will struggle to look for a way forward. the global system under the wto has been successful in that the adjudicative system works well. there have not been any trade wars since 1995 when it came into being. there are no other viable channels for liberalizing global trade. we like thehat if terms of the deal, it will pass, nafta in a few years, and it will be multilateral last so that the rules can be applied
to all countries. it is better to have a single set of rules applying to everyone. it eases the cost of production, shipping is lower, and the benefits are passed on to consumers with lower prices, and to workers with the creation of new jobs. host: the president will build support for this in congress. do members of people in country supporting this deal, do they lobby their congress? .uest: may be subtly they have their own domestic audiences they need to speak to, as well. her has been opposition in some countries, particularly malaysia. we will see how that plays out. what i am concerned about is that in all likelihood there is 0/50 chance that it will pass and the president will play the china card. this is a agreement that does not include china, it reasserts u.s. leadership. that alienates china and it
masks the fact that the agreement will be better for china. including the 2005 american trade agreement, uneven of that, george bush -- on the eve of that, george bush came to the senate and said this is about hugo chavez. he made it a foreign policy thing. that has appealed to the american people. look for that kind of rhetoric to boil up. from theiel ikenson cato institute here to talk about the free trade agreement. thank you for your time. a discussion about military operations in syria, iraq, afghanistan is coming up with a democratic representative loretta sanchez. later on the program, we look at the state of the u.s. housing market with cnbc's diane aldrich. ♪
dred scott was enslaved to u.s. surgeon. emerson was assigned to duties in several free states. turning which, dred scott mother died. of scott versus new series c-span's "landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions." exploring 12 supreme court rulings by revealing the lights and times of the people who are the lawyers, plaintiffs, and justices. monday onases is next c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for back on each case while you watch, order your copy of landmark cases companion book. it is available for a dollars $.95 plus shipping at www.c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now is
representative loretta sanchez, democrat from california, a member of the armed services community -- committee. good morning. guest: good morning. host: thank you for joining us. the paper this morning all have stories about the bombing in afghanistan that happened in kunduz. can you inform those of us who are not following closely. what went on and what do you think of the role of u.s. military and that operation? guest: i think there was a u.s. gunship going into one of the main areas where the taliban has overrun. u.s. department of defense had said that it was to protect our american troops who were in the fight there. the reality, it is turning out that, or they have confirmed that the gunship was actually in there because it was called in by the afghan army forces.
consistently a hospital run by doctors without borders. deathswere several and many casualties. everyone is trying to figure out what happened. host: what do you think about the change in story from what we initially heard to what we are now hearing, what does i suggest to you? guest: not good. this is always the difficult part. especially for a policy maker like myself, someone who is trying to decide do we stay in afghanistan, do we put our military there, who do we back there, how do we do that, what types of moneys are the american taxpayer putting towards that? we don't have a good sense, sometimes, of what is going on. worse, for a policy maker, it is not like i can fly in and take a look at what happened and say
-- we are always subjected to the fact that it is a combat zone. in some ways, we are relying on the military to tell us what happened. it was, in particular, our own military that made this mistake. it is difficult. host: what is the best way forward? given what we know and what we have to find out? guest: it is preliminary. is our military making the investigation. we are trying to get the real facts on the ground. call.the president's he is the commander of those forces. to decide what to do. wants to, congress interject itself in this, but this is a very tactical mistake. prices and overall policy mistake. what it reflects to a lawmaker is what the heck is going on in afghanistan? host: do you expect hearings?
well we hear testimony from those involved? of thethe commander forces in afghanistan will be here in washington dc -- washington, d.c.. i would anticipate this would be whatr one on the list of both democrats and republicans on the armed services committee will be asking about. what specifically are you going to be asking and searching for? guest: what is going on in afghanistan? what are we really doing at this point? how could this happen? it seems, because again, i don't have all of the details, and everything is hearsay at this point. i am not on the ground eating able to ask questions, it seems that from the hospital came the call saying you are bombing a hospital, this is doctors without borders, please stop this.
in the fog of being shot at, or bombed. yet, he continued. -- it's continued. it is a major problem. host: there is a story in the a verse today about the possibility of the obama administration leading 5000 troops into afghanistan from the 1900 or so that remain. first of all, what do you think about that prospect and is it necessary? guest: i haven't spoken to either the department of defense or to our administration to see what it is they are contemplating. that the minute obama came into office, i send a message to him saying listen, afghanistan is a major problem. you either have to get out or get in. this lingering of what has been going on with respect to the corruption of those governments in their, the election that went for thethe inability , the types of moneys
we put in their, making deals with the taliban. it is a bad situation in afghanistan. host: the post story says there is no final decision. according to the story, 3000-5000 troops envisioned under general dembski's proposal certainly, we put the pressure on afghanistan. remember why we are there. the training camps, the building up. laden'sama bin financial tutelage to do the terror attacks that happened to us on 9/11. there is a direct correlation to the. to be in the country 13 years later or however long it has been, 14, i guess, that begs the question what is our role there and what is happening? host: representative loretta sanchez, our guest joining us to
talk about military operations in not only iraq and afghanistan but other areas of the world as well. you can call to ask questions, 202-748-8001 four republicans, 202-748-8000 four democrats, and for independents, 202-748-8002. if you want to tweet or ask questions for our guests, you @ wj. to c-span i want to ask what is going on not only as far as u.s. operations, but the russian involvement. how has that complicated it in your mind? guest: it has completely collocated the situation. powers inproblems -- a very limited airspace and area in a possibility of combat modes. they could run into each other at any point. it could escalate completely out
of control. it is a bad situation. remember what is happening here. russia has gone in and said listen, we are trying to get to isis. what the united states is trying to do is go after isis. the united states has said that assad has got to go. russia has propped up assad with the dynamic with him. you have syrian rebels, we don't whomany, who, how many more have been fighting for their "democracy" against a side, looking to take down a sid -- assad. you have a series of players and their in confined space were serious things could happen if they run into each other. host: richard: in the washington post says this
is that a fair characterization? guest: i would not say that at all. people think it is easy for us to go into any country any time anything is going on in that country and interject ourselves. her member, the president has to follow laws. the governing law around the world is the united nations charter which says we have to have specific reasons of why we go to war. there are four reasons. if someone attacks us, we have the possibility to go to war. if we think they are about to inack us, if we are invited by the government to help them, i.e., allied. the fourth is if we have a u.n. resolution from the security
council that says go in. we have none of those four. the present has none -- the president has none of those four in order to go to syria. that makes the question, all of these people run in and say we have to go to syria, we have to get rid of assad. you can't march into a country to get rid of somebody. that is not the international law we live under. host: the training of syrian rebels under the united states spending a lot of money to do so. figure?you do with that guest: you are looking at somebody who has always questioned that strategy. i will cut you wide. iraq, and we in are not even talking about rebels. we are talking about the government. i saw, let's go in and train and equip in iraq, a complete
failure from my standpoint. we have seen in afghanistan. we have these afghan armys calling in an airstrike on a hospital that has nothing to do with the combat going on. now we are doing it with syrians. some are very well intentioned, but it isdemocracy, difficult to figure out who these people are, how to vet then when the whole country is falling apart. whether we are vetting them to go after assad or whether we are training them to go after assad or to do what we want which is eliminate the threat of isis. i have not seen this strategy worked very well. host: our first caller from you is from new york, david. go ahead. caller: good morning, conyers moment -- congresswoman. you please share with us why it is that congress is not
decisively going after the main cause, the root and source of terrorism, saudi arabia? sponsoring isis, al qaeda, taliban, and told them point blank that they should stop once and for all their ideological and financial, military support of these groups which incidentally, our government in the 1970's, gave them the blessing to go ahead with because we were fighting russia and afghanistan. if we do that, we don't have to get involved in these countries. they can sort it out themselves. certainly, you reap what you sell. -- sow. definitely in this weather was war, the russians, the united states, and what happened in the middle east after the fall of the cold war. the continuation or uprising of iran.
i voted not to go into iraq because i believed it would destabilize the area and we didn't have a good game plan for what happened after. we got rid of saddam. the rise of iran as an inferential player sitting there. i believe there are some in the policymaking world that see saudi arabia and others in this, if you will, counterbalance to a iran and its terrorism going there. there are competitions with that. who knows? i don't know. believe me, i have asked a lot of questions about the communities -- committees i have sat on and with respect to the administration of who is what and who is it that we are working with, saudi arabia and others, that would make us not put our foot down and say, this has to stop.
you are also destabilizing what is happening there. host: here is anthony from new york for our guest, democrat line, hi. caller: thank you very much for the opportunity. representative sanchez, do you foresee any hearings in the way of accountability for the invasion of iraq, or whether be any policy changes or anything implemented to safeguard the united states military from being infiltrated by people who came to office be it george bush, rumsfeld, condoleezza rice. it seems as though there was an old terrier agenda that drag us agendaaq -- ulterior that drag us into iraq. there was no justification. it was a war crime. children not the account ability of those people who have created a disaster in the middle east? should there not be accountability? there is no end in sight and the
amount of misery we have caused these people. it makes no sense to the american seditions, iraqis, afghani's, i don't see any of them in my neighborhood. they do not drop bombs on my head. i don't understand why we have destroyed a civilization. the world is tough enough on all of us. not to mention, we can't afford what we have done. this incursion is beyond the pale of anything -- we can't even take care of detroit, our own cities in this country. host: what our guest respond. guest: first of all, thank you for asking the question. i think that question has been asked over and over. to your first point, do i see congress opening an investigation into that, etc. the way congress is working today, i don't see the ability in a by patterson -- bipartisan matter to look for a category from the previous ministrations or the consideration of some of
this. i take that to heart. i take this seriously. that in order for america to work, our system of government, you have to have a counterbalance. you have to have legislative, .dministration, judicial system it is the responsibly of the congress, the representatives of the people to take to task and investigate the administrative, the executive powers. some of which it completely, in my opinion, went the wrong way. again, i will reiterate. i voted against the iraq war. i was one of the strongest people on the committee to question rumsfeld, his actions, our strategy, what was going on, the type of money we spent. that is why we have to be careful with this syria issue. we have libyans, we don't know
where egypt is going. it seems to be stable right now, but we don't know. rock, of course, we know is falling apart. it has isis in there, etc. -- iraq is falling apart. everyone in the congress rushes to use the military as the only tool we have whenever a problem arises somewhere. fly zone, no-fly zone, bond these people, put troops on the ground, send in special forces, do the seals. that is one tool that we have to use. it has been used and overused. it is an expensive way to do business. it is not necessarily the right way to do business. i sit on the armed services committee, i am a married to a former colonel out of the u.s. army infantry. i have a son who is going into the u.s. army.
we consider ourselves a military family. i am what to tell you we cannot continue as the solution to everything to send our troops in to do business. there are other means in which we have to do that. o-matic means -- diplomatic , the, actual intelligence economics of the situation. particular the bush administration used the military far too much, and to our detriment in many cases. if the obamawonder administration doesn't understand that -- it feels compelled to continue the situation and doesn't understand that we have to extricate
ourselves out of these situations. host: you compelled to use military options. guest: exactly. they may feel compelled. i will be very honest. when he first came and i said, we can't continue this. we cannot continue this. taxpayers, financial situations for the united states. what we spend in wars and issues of this sort, it is money we are not spending here. i remember secretary gates going before my committee and saying we are not investigating in education, our economy is not going, our people are not getting an education. it does not matter what kind military we have, because we will start to fall below and not be a world leader. there has to be a balance. i don't believe there has been a balance in the last decade or so. host: representative loretta sanchez joining us for this discussion. tom from maryland, go ahead. caller: i think the model of the
republican party is that might makes right. that doesn't work so much anymore. many years ago when the united states was a clone of power along with -- a colonial power, along with britain and other countries, you could do that. we could bomb them just like we do. people were willing to die. they were willing to die for what they believe. even though we have the atomic bomb and many weapons, people will fight when they can't see us. the thing is, the republican party has destroyed the middle east with the war in iraq. now they are doubling down on it. they are angry with themselves, but they are doubling down on it with donald trump who tells them what they want to hear. they want to hear that the united states can do whatever it wants whenever it feels like it. he is not going to go anywhere.
people outside of the united states think we are so stupid that we think we can go around and tell people what to do and people will sit down and take it. people will not sit down anymore. this is a new world, and we have to adjust to it. thank you. certainly, the rise of asymmetrical warfare, the rise of terrorism, the internet agility andn, the timeframe has come down so much on people being able to communicate and move around. they can move around the world faster, communicate around the world at the touch of a push on a on your iphone. communicate with the internet channels that you and i are not even aware of where get onto. arms -- thato move ability has always been there -- it is so easy to make arms out of nothing, basically. to create this asymmetrical warfare, this terrorism going on
, certainly, it is a different type of war we are fighting. a conventional military into a situation isn't going to get us the enemy, necessarily. the enemy can lay low and choose to attack at the time and convenience that they have. we are reacting to that versus being in front of the situation. again, using our traditional military over and over to solve these problems is not necessarily the best way to do it. host: chris from newport, florida, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning, representative sanchez. refreshing to hear your viewpoint on this. i'm going to break the mold and shock you on this. i'm a republican, a republican my entire life.
i'm going to tell you right now that the george bush administration was very -- i would say -- instrumental in creating what happened on 9/11 or they knew about it and did not stop it. a huge population in this country is coming around to the idea that what we were told about these 19 hijackers was total hogwash. i don't know exactly what happened. there are many theories out there. the architects and engineers of 9/11 have their theories about bombs being planted. dr. judy woods has her theory that some type of an energy weapon system was used on the day. if you look at all of the buildings that were decimated, it was not just the two towers, it was world trade center six. take a look at it from the satellite map. it was more than those twin towers. the american people are not aware of that. , theng back to syria
project for the new american century was something put into motion before 9/11. robert kagan was one of the instrument of people involved in that. during president obama 2012 during his state of the union address devoting 10 minutes to robert kagan's philosophy of america making the world. , and it had to do with many countries in the middle east. syria is probably one of the last ones we are going after. all of the secular leaders are gone. we are going after assad because they have a plan. they want to remake the middle east. host: let our guest respond to that. are a first of all, there
lot of different viewpoints, and i appreciate your viewpoint. some things i agree with you, some things i don't. i have been asked this for 19 years in this congress, watching this, interjecting software i could. -- myself where i could. certainly, there were people who thought we should remake the middle east. i think i am one of the few members of congress who has actually spent some time living in the middle east. i will try you that it is a very, catered world -- complicated world. who are we to bring our values and ideas and forced them on people? it has to bes that organic. people have to want change. world has taken our constitution and modeled it. i that we are the best country
in the world. i think we have a great constitution, one that has the .ush and people of the people the people are directly involved in a democratic way. that type of model does not necessarily translate to be put into every single country in the world. movee have to let people in the culture, in the history that they have. -- theree issue of have been plenty of people who want to remake the middle east, there are plenty of people who want to remake the middle east. including some of my colleagues, including the administrations, and some people in the obama administration. remaking the middle east is, in my opinion, nobody's real issue, except for the people that actually live there and should define it for themselves. yeah, i think some of the things we have been done have been pushed by people who may have been -- with the goodness of
thinking we are great as america, let's put the somewhere else. the reality is america is a very unique country. , and webeen fortunate have been able to use what we have over the years, and be able to be constructive with it. it doesn't necessarily translate and other countries. they will have their own democracy, or their own government, or whatever it is. one of the things stemming from syria is the discussion of refugees, the exception of 1000 to the united states. what do you think of the number and a proposal? -- that proposal? million or 6say 4 million syrians have been displaced. either internally, with a have gone off into nearby countries, intoon, charlie -- jordan, the kurdish area at a rock into
turkey, etc. them are in refugee camps, summer out on the lam, trying to make it on whatever they cannot there. now we have an exodus going into saype, if you're smart, you where is the strong's economy, where is the place i can get a job, where is the place people can help me rebuild my life when i wait for something positive to happen in syria? that would be germany. saying a europe who is -- look, it's a humanitarian crisis. 320, 300 40 we have million people in the united states. -- 340 million people in the united states. an extra 10,000 people is nothing. 100,000, probably a good number for us to take in. i come from an area -- orange county, california, where the network of churches -- we have
such a strong network of churches. they have been some of the primary resellers of -- resellers of political asylum in war-torn areas. we actually to a large extent have been very accepting. the largest of the moneys population outside of vietnamese population outside of vietnam. they are an engine. i view that as being very positive to my area of the country. starte saw somalia, we taking in refugees from there. where we saw on the west coast of africa, we start taking in that. , wee we saw the iraqi war took on the iraqis. we have a lot of syrian families who have been for a long time in
orange county, who are helping to bring some of these refugees. it really has been my churches, my church group, in order to find sponsors, in order to help, to get people started. to help with english as a second language, etc. you are talking from someone who is very prone to get these refugees in, until we figure out what the heck is really happening. not only in syria. like i said, you have a series of countries there. the pressures that syria and libya and others are causing on those other countries around -- who tend to be our allies, like jordan. or -- or turkey, sometimes they're with us, sometimes they're not with us. host: are there security issues bringing the number of? -- number up?
guest: of course there are security issues. it is not an easy issue to get to the whole political refugee resettlement. county, have done quite a bit. it takes a long time. one of the things -- the problems in particular with this is the ability to have information on who these people are, considering the government is collapsing in syria. it's not like we can call and say can we have their birth certificate or their political party affiliation? we can't call the police and say does he have a rap sheet. very difficult. host: this is carol. caller: i'm so proud of you, and the questions you need -- you are asking need to be asked urgently. i like how you dig into get down to the details, and you pull back and look at the perspective. when you say we have to let
these people live out their cultures -- i certainly agree with you. i have to go a little farther. old, i could be a grandmother. i think you are astonishingly mature, and a great woman. discouraged, as you do this discouraging work. i will go a little farther and we cannot evolve for these people. they have to do their own evolving. they're going to be people who live on fantasies of world domination. our efforts should be to contain them.
to go and try force them to do what we want. host: let's let our guest respond. guest: certainly there has been a push and pull about what do we do about the middle east? honestly, it is mind-boggling. it can be overwhelming. it is a big machinery of different countries and different cultures of different histories. and you move one piece, and the other piece moves in a different direction. requires more than just military presence. since i have been here in the years, i have9 seen a very particular thing happen. when we have an embassy in another country, we will call it the mission. you have your ambassador, you have your embassy, and what is it therefore? -- they are -- there for?
is there to show goodwill, to help americans in that country, is there to coordinate other things. things we do in a very positive manner. the peace corps, etc. is there to coordinate economic interests. if we burn up the economy of our economy -- we bring up the economy of our country. happened in the 20 years i have been in congress, it's become a security issue. not only a security issue for people who are at the mission, thea security issue for ambassador, instead of having a military attaché and marines who guard. now they have 50 or 60 military people. 60ore, they had 50 or economic and peace corps and usaid people, and it for five me
-- military. now is equal and the military component has become larger. what does that mean? it sends a message to the countries we are in. more ofy are seeing is the united states as a military presence, rather than the united states in a friend capacity, economics, let's work together on the issues we have. the world is changed dramatically. -- again, have to it's a balance of what is happening in the world. we need to pull back and say what is our best foot forward with the limited resources we have? what is the best foot forward with the countries where working with? host: richard on the independent line in mississippi. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. , i don'tative sanchez know how old you are.
i'm 76 years old. this whole problem that we are facing now in the middle east, we started it ourselves in the 1950's, whenever we took it upon ourselves that we were going to go in and depose the ayatollah and impose iran democracy in the middle east. we cannot seem to get it in our heads that they are a different culture than us, they do not -- the people do not want to democracy. they want their religious leaders to be there leaders. and they are not going to change. we could be in there for another 100 years, and it will be just , we lose control, we pull out, and see what happens. it will be the same. anywhere we go, the only way to stop it will be for us to get out of the middle east and let those people govern themselves the way they want to be governed. there wouldn't be these terrorists in the world today,
that was the only way they knew to fight back. guest: certainly, don't we live in a great country? for all the problems that people bring up, all the screaming and yelling and nastiness i hear from some people, don't we live in a great country? first and foremost on it's about freedom. we have so much freedom in this country. i believe -- my personal philosophy is that the people want that freedom. wherever it is that they are. they want the freedom of choice. they want the freedom to decide where they are going to live, what kind of a life they are going to have, how they are going to bring up their kids, what religion they will have. i believe one of the things that has happened is -- again, i go back to -- they have a different culture. they have a pride culture. one culture is not better over another culture. it is just different. this is what i believe.
and thank god for america, we get all of those cultures. we get to see them all, we get to pick and choose. we have the freedom. one of the things that have to happen in the middle east as an advent of communication in an instantaneous way. when you have this communication , people see the lifestyle that we have. the good and the bad. they see our choices, they see our kids, they see my family. mexico,grants from coming here with nothing, no real education. being the only parents in the nation to send two daughters to the united states congress. they see the possibilities of something different. then what they have in their own country. they see that, they also see the decadence. control people doing whatever they want, snorting
--e, doing this, doing that crazy lifestyle. we see it all. you can go on the internet and see whatever you want. so people, back in these countries, are seeing this. especially young people. they are seeing freedom, they are seeing decadence. they are making their own decisions. to say these people just want to be dictated to by a government that would be religious -- i don't believe it's correct. i think that is the struggle we see. the struggle of people saying can we be more like america, can we have more freedom? there are people who say it has to be secular, there has to be a separation of church and state. there are others who say we have got to be a muslim country or we have to be a catholic country, or what have you. it's this instantaneous information, everywhere, anytime, anyplace. even the poorest of the poor have an iphone these days, that they see.
expectations of what life is change. i think this is what we are seeing, especially inflict it on the middle east. host: our guest is representative loretta sanchez of california. an international matter of the trade deal that was approved earlier this week by the tpp. your initial impressions of the approval of the approval and what that means for you is a legislature -- legislator? guest: i haven't seen the documents. it's been different pieces all over. i am for trade, if trade is fair. i don't see too many trade agreements come here that are fair. i will tell you in particular with this one, i have had a very big issue. i represent the largest the -- publishedminis outside of vietnam. they have a lack of human rights like you cannot believe. lack of freedom of religion, lack of collective bargaining, lack of freedom of the press.
lack of freedom of assembly. lack of freedom of speech. kangaroo trials going on against political dissidents, against people who are asking for democracy. i've said that countries like that -- i don't believe we keep rewarding them with respect to economic trade. host: representative loretta sanchez, thank you for your time. if you want to find out more about that hearing that feature general john campbell, that we live today at 9:30. you can watch that on c-span3. six years after the crash of the housing market, we get a status or or on income and what that says what the strength of the u.s. economy. cnbc's diana olick will join us when "washington journal," continues. ♪
>> this is c-span's annual camera competition, an opportunity for students to think critically on issues of national importance by creating a five to seven minute documentary in which they can express those views. it is important for students to get involved, gives them the opportunity and platform to have their voices heard. on issues that are important to them. they can express those views by creating a documentary. we do get a wide range of entries. the most important aspect for every documentary that we get is going to be the content. we have had winners in the past created by just using a cell phone, we have had others that are created using more high tech equipment. once again, it is really the content that matters and shines through in these documentaries.
the response from students in the past has been great. we've had many different issues that have created videos on that are important to them. we have topics ranging from education, the economy, the environments, really showing a ride -- a wide variety of issues that are important to students. >> many positive impacts to serve the tulsa community and areas inside it. >> we all come to the consensus that humans cannot run without food. >> prior to the individuals with disabilities education act, or the ide a, children with disabilities were not given the opportunity of an education. >> this year's theme is a road to the white house. what is the most important issue you want the candidates to discuss in the 2016 presidential campaign? full on into the campaign system, there are many candidates discussing several issues. one of the key requirements and creating a documentary as to include some c-span footage. this footage should complement
and further their point of view, and not just dominate the video. it is a great way for them to include more information on the video that furthers their point. president obama: the first bill i will find today is the water resources reform and develop an act. >> we've all heard the jokes about school meals, going up to bert fish sticks and mystery meat tacos. role theis a vital federal government plays, especially vital for students with disabilities. >> students and teachers can go to our website, student can.org. -- cam.org. they can also find teacher tips, resources to help them incorporate into their classrooms, more information about prices, incorporating c-span video, and ways to contact us if they have further questions. the deadline for this use competition is january 20, 2016.
its one year away from the next presidential inauguration. >> "washington journal," continues. host: our final guest in the morning is diana olick from cnbc. good morning. give us a snapshot of the housing industry. where are we? guest: i heard from a builder who said we are in the fourth inning. wall street will say walls -- housing is going to investors. they look at the comparisons and they say house prices are rising. builders are building, we're all good. i would agree we are about the fourth inning. host: who is benefiting most? the builders who build or the people who want to move into these homes? it is homet now sellers. home prices have shot up dramatically, that was in an -- a factor of investors that pushed prices up. are notme homebuyers getting into this market like we would like to see them. they have trouble getting
credit, they can get the down payments, they are lower than they should be. with higher prices than the seller, if you can get that price, great. but the problem is what you going to move up to? home prices are rising faster than demand, the blue because there is so little supply for sale out there. host: as far as policy and washington, d.c., what is it mean for those who look at these issues and what can they do? host: it's a great divide. you have tough availability. you have incredibly high rent, incredibly high occupancy. for people in large cities like washington, or even cities in ohio across the country, rent is very difficult, very high. landlord's can push the rent up. if you are richer and you want to buy, how you save for that down payment if you pay more than half your income on rent? host: people want to buy, it targets millennial's. give us an example, and what's
does it say on the larger picture of united is about younger people wanting to buy homes these days? millennial's and i want to buy, they want to be rent, they want to be mobile, they want to be social. that's not true. millennial's eventually will get married, have children, you want to be in good school districts, with a house and a backyard. but their age verizon is different. they get married later, they have children later. time for homeownership is in their late 30's. you look at the twentysomething, they want to live in the city, they can't afford it. rent is very high, you want to get them into homeownership, we talk about tiny condominiums. it was 300 square feet. it was $275,000. considered affordable for millennial. i guess you could do that with an fha loan. you can buy that, may be millennial's want to do that in
the tiny house movements. host: diana olick joining us to talk about the state of real estate. if you have questions for her, call (202) 748-8000 for the eastern time zones. western and central, call (202) 748-8001. the obama administration have programs to help people of mortgages, whether with help of loans or getting out of bed mortgages. how successful have those programs been? guest: they haven't been as successful as they were touted during the housing crisis. there was a modification program for loans, we saw a lot of readable -- agree defaults on that. it allowed people who owed more their mortgage and the home was worth to refinance your that was a very successful program. it did help out a lot of folks. we've seen the foreclosure crisis ease off dramatically. but really, it was less the government programs that it was investors stepping in, buying up distressed properties, and putting a floor on home prices.
so more people didn't fall under water. we can say comparatively the numbers are much better than they were in foreclosure, we have a long way to go. there are still millions of people who are either in the state of foreclosure or to link when on their loans, or even bigger, underwater on their mortgages. host: our new people being admitted? is there continuation? guest: they extended it several times. there are several modification -- banks have done the most in the modification arena. they modified a lot of borrowers. some of these borrowers -- a good portion of them simply could never afford those homes in the first place. we are seeing mortgage rates now at 3175%, 4%. even if you lower down to 2% -- 3.75%. even if you lower down to 2%, they could never afford to be in these homes. host: is it just the down payments? guest: the ability to pay for
the home themselves. this is going back to 2005, 2006 , when they put no money down on loans that are no longer legal. they actually get bigger, the mortgage grows. those loans no longer exist today. we are still cleaning up the mess. we are much better off than we were. it still not there yet. host: the housing market is our topic with diana olick. our first call is oscar from virginia. joining us for our guests, good morning, go ahead. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on the housing crisis. home backurchasing a in 1983, actually 1985. he was in maryland, and it was at the time, $88,000. i only have a salary of $20,000. i was able to buy a home. vienna, 25 years about 2007, for just a
mortgage here in vienna. it was over $500,000. -- even stretch your arms across and touch the fence. i just don't get it. why is it that mortgages can , when ourr time income or salaries have an increased 100%? mortgages have gone up over 400%. the median average income in my opinion -- i'm not making over $55,000. the mortgages cost 500% to 600% more. i don't have a clue. realtorsal sellers -- allow that? guest: it's a question of allowing what they can get. you are talking about the home price itself. home prices escalated dramatically in 2005, 2006 because they had easy money.
you didn't have to put any money down to my house. if you don't have to put any money down, they give you these tiny teaser rates for your monthly payments, why not buy a $1 million house? now we do have a much tighter mortgage market. the difference is it is simple supply and demand. there are not enough homes for sale. not in auilders were recession, but a depression. they were building less than half the normal supply of homes that they built in a normal time, not even a housing boom. we're still barely up to three quarters of what they should be up to. when you have so little supply, and so much pent-up demand of people who want to buy, it pushes those prices higher. how do they allow this to happen? the mortgage market is not allowing what they were allowing back in 2005. they paid billions of dollars because of what happened back then. and because of all of the people who defaulted on those mortgages. by the same token, if they have
a qualified buyer who can put 20% down on house -- e-house, payments,ke that they're going to give them that mortgage. host: we heard at one time, the term subprime mortgage. is that something? guest: we don't really use that term. there are borrowers who would have been in that category, with lower credit scores. they are going to pay a lot more for the mortgage. you can go to fha, which still has pretty inflated compared to what used to be. but you can put 3.5% down. fannie and freddie you still have some programs that haven't been widely used. you can have somewhat lower credit, but compared to the heyday, which was really a bonanza during the back housing boom, it is nothing like that today. host: annie is next for memphis, tennessee. go ahead. caller: yes. i would like to know why my mortgage -- my house was worth five years ago $120,000.
now i can only get $70,000 for it. -- these comment i had little houses she's talking about that they are building. they builto is, them, they built them cheaply, and then they move out of the suburbs into big houses and they leave that for the poor. eventually they run down, and it's recycled. you see the city, that's the way your cities do. they come in and buy up these properties and build up. methods, tennessee is good for that. -- memphis, tennessee is good for that. in a few years, they won't be worth anything, they are crowding in the city. pretty soon, they move out again. they are regenerating the poor. host: let me address -- guest: let me address your first statement. your house prices decreased by that much, welcome to the housing crisis. cities,ee in a lot of
and a lot of depressed markets we saw home prices drop anywhere from 20% to 50%. look at phoenix, arizona, las vegas. ,r where you are in memphis home prices dropped dramatically. that's what we have so many people who were still under water. we can say that home prices are rising, but they are still not back to the peak of 2006. you still have borrowers in certain areas who are just not ever going to regain that value in the time that they are in the home. that's why they are underwater. as for building -- you can talk about the quality of some of these. we are about condominiums in downtown d.c. the one vice are being built very fancy, condominiums in very nice neighborhood -- the ones i see are being built in their nice neighborhoods. these are neighborhoods that are only going to get more expensive. as for the quality, i can't speak to that. units, you'retiny going to see a lot more of them.
they do put a lot of luxury features and amenities into them, they want to drawing buyers. because they are in this neighborhood that are in such high demand, they will appreciate. host: colleen in florida, hi. caller: i wanted to make a comment that i think perhaps she doesn't have all the information on the banking industry. i have friends working in the industry, and they are telling me that the mortgages are starting to become just like they were back when they made all the bad mortgages. letting people who are quite eligible for them, getting mortgages figuring out ways to get on the mortgages, multiple people signers. you should look more carefully into what the banking industry is doing. host: i would have to -- guest: i would have to argue with that. i speak with people in the banking industry everyday of the week, and then some. there are some online lenders, you will be able to find someone out there who might be able to get you a deal on something. in general, for the vast majority of the market, you look
at every survey, talk to every -- of every major bank independent lenders we talked to, the mortgage market is still very tight. debtfications, especially to income, which is exactly how much on the mortgage you were going to be paying versus your income, his extreme district. and has been regular did by the government since then. -- regulated by the government since then. i won't go into those regulations are in the banks will be held accountable. there's nothing called the ability to repay rule, which banks and lenders are required to follow. i would argue that the free and easy mortgage times are over. host: eastern central time zones, call (202) 748-8000 mountain pacific, call (202) 748-8001. now getting a mortgage may become work obligated because of new rules. what are the rules of the effect? guest: these are rules that hold letters accountable. they are very complicated. -- lenders accountable. it's saying the letters have 2,
3 days before the closing, give the power exactly what the terms of that loan are going to be. nothing is going to change, you are not going to suddenly at the closing table and say wait a minute, there's a fee or a monthly payments, you have to know what your payments will be right up through the end of the loan, 30 years from now. if it's adjustable, if it's not adjustable, every piece of information about the loan a borrower must be shown in very clear documents. lenders have been given two years to ramp up, but there are a lot of people involved. everyone has refinanced, or bought house, there are stacks of payments. -- stacks of paperwork. the folks i talked to yesterday said if they are not there yet, it may delay the closing. is it going to scuttle a deal? it depends. there's a time horizon, realtors are very nervous about this because they have to get it sold and bought and the money transferred over. it could be delays, it could
cause some headaches. in general, do your regulations -- new regulations are designed to protect the buyer. host: before that, people didn't know the payment they were going to make up until the close? guest: there estimates, thousands of documents. i remember buying my first house in 2002, there were stacks of documents. it was unclear what are you paying, what is the rate? what happened to a lot of folks during the housing boom is there were predatory lenders, letters to say i will give you -- lenders who say i will give you a teaser rate, 2%, no money down. they didn't explain to the borrower that this rate is going to adjust much higher in two or three years, or it's tied to another rate they can adjust much higher. and by the way, you didn't put any down payment on, i rolled out into the loan. your loan is now bigger. it's going to grow over time. they didn't tell borrowers that
in clear terms, or in some cases, they didn't tell about it all. host: this came out of the consumer financial protection bureau? guest: it came out of. frank regulations, -- dodd frank regulations. host: diana olick joining us to talk about housing. michael, go ahead. caller: i came in late, i'm not 100% your positive if you commented. going back to making homes affordable modification program. it is my understanding that the goal was to assist 3 million to 4 million struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. to date, i understand that there ofe approximately just shy one million permanent modifications in effect. re-default.% are in if you look at the age of the modification, if it was done in
2009 or 2010, the rate has stepped up slightly eerie -- stepped up slightly. that re-default rate has increased. my question is -- i understand the program has been extended till december of 2016. default --of three re-default on those, the number of properties that are not come out on the market, coupled with a potential meerest rate increase makes since there's a little bit of scariness in the housing market in general. host: i'd -- guest: i don't think you are off base at all. there is maybe a lot of scariness in the housing market in general. your numbers are correct. the home affordable modification program was not nearly as successful as expected. it had a five-year term, a lot
of people didn't know that. they give you the modification of lower your industry to 2%. -- lower your interest rate to 2%. but that will increase. some of those modifications are already readjusting higher. that is getting folks into trouble. it does have higher default rates. as for shadow inventory, we talk a lot about that, claiming banks were holding properties on their books and not selling them. i don't think that's the case anymore. there are a lot of investors in single tamil -- single-family rental homes and more investors that are dying for homes that those prices. that's what pushed home prices up so much on the lower end of the market. it made it tough for first-time buyers to get in because investors are standing there waiting with cash in hand, ready to buy these homes. i don't think we are in any kind of dangers of having a glut of these excess homes on the market. there are a lot more people who will lose their homes. host: bringing of the federal reserve, if interest rates go up in december, what is the impact
on the industry? guest: a lot of folks say the fed raises rates, mortgage rates go up accordingly. not the way it works. mortgage rates loosely follow the yield on the 10 year treasury bond. i won't get into that. we don't have enough time. general, yes, the borrowing cost for banks would be higher if the fed raises rates. they contacted on the borrowers. with their looking at is that you'll on the 10 year treasury which corresponds to mortgage-backed bonds as well. --'s say the market investors are suddenly spooked by something overseas. they run into the safety of the bond market. that pushes yields lower, which would push mortgage rates lower. back in 2013, in the spring, we that the fed was going to raise rates. suddenly, mortgage rates jumped higher. that was just on the hint, we call that taper tantrum her.
we saw terrible jobs report friday, which said the fed is not going to raise rates. suddenly, bond yields were going down. mortgage rates went down on friday. guess what happened yesterday? everyone is back in the stock market, of 300 points, and rates are adjusting higher. there are so many more factors than going to mortgage rates. will the increase over the next few years? absolutely. will they jump from 4% to 8%? no. maybe 4.25, maybe 4.5%. i thought -- i bought my first house at what i thought was a great deal. host: alexandria virginia. comment asanted to one of the millennial's she was speaking about that lives in the city in a very expensive apartments. i paid $1600 in rent a month. i would love to buy a condo. i don't ever plan to move out to
the suburbs or have children. i am already married. even just some of the condos and townhouses in alexandria and around the city can be $400,000 to $600,000. it gets really expensive, just looking for first-time homebuyer. host: this -- guest: the story we keep telling, so many millennial's who are paying so see in rent, and again, we cranes all over the place building more apartments, and it far exceeds the permit construction. some people we say have a glut of construction. when you have occupancy over 95%, which we haven't seen in decades, that keeps rent so high. we need more apartments, especially if you have millennial's like you who are going to continue to rent for some years. hopefully as we get those new units onto the market for renters, rents will ease up a little bit. maybe you can save for the down payment. i always say there is fha, if you can do it and you have the credit. you can make that happen.
host: what is that $6,000 a month getting you? caller: i have a one bedroom, 650 square foot apartment in between arlington and alexandria. it includes my utilities for sticking hundred dollars. drop theu just have to square footage and get a micro unit. you don't get a bedroom. host: ben from hoffman, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to make a comment about andhousing market in 2002 2003. the lady was talking about people were buying mortgages and were unaware of what it was. the vast majority of those people were speculators that were buying houses, fixing them up as investments, keeping them for two years, and then making a small fortune off the income house that they would
make after they fix them up. these were basically investing people. they didn't consider the house a home. all you heard was my investments, my investments. house house, right at the top of the bubble. i saw what was coming. i got out, and sold my house for a huge profit. i came down to north carolina, and i was looking for a loan down here. i could not get a loan with credit score of 760, with all the cash in the bank to pay for the house, which i didn't want to use all my capital. the only place that would free approve me at that time was for 10%. so the banks have been holding money back. really big time. -- most ofue, now the problems we have had our
straight down to dodd frank and the legislation they pass through, letting people buy homes they could not afford them. and then they started bundling that up and passing it from one thing to another. i saw that level, i passed out. she can comment on that -- that bble. -- bu guest: i don't disagree at all that was what the housing boom was about. i would say the vast majority of investors -- we used to do stories on investors who would follow developers around faces lookingmi and phoenix, at housing projects and buying into these homes before they were even built and selling them sometimes before they were even built. that was the speculation, that was the easy money they were able to get and not use any of their own capital to do it. the difference in the market today as investors must use cash. they can get a certain number of loans through fannie and freddie , but in general, investors are using cash today.
the risk out there is much different than it was before. it has pushed home prices higher and made it much more difficult for that end-user, the regular homebuyer like yourself that my want to get into the market and by now just to live in the home. as for regulation, there's an argument to be made that dodd frank, there was now over religion. it tightened up the market so much -- overregulation. it tightened up the market so much that homebuyers cannot get into the market. they don't have the down payment, they don't have the credit score to be eligible for credit. we do not have private investors back into the mortgage market yet. that is something we need to loosen the grip. even doing a refinancing my home a couple of years ago, i have a good job, my husband had a good job. he owned his own business, a partner in his own business. the lender said he would be a whole lot easier for you to do this refinance if you take them off the mortgage. i said he makes more money than i do. he owns his own business, that
is a red flag in the market. that is how tight things were. they are beginning to ease up a little bit, but not enough. you can make arguments on either side, whether we are ok rate -- overregulated, what this is what we needed after this crazy heyday that brought down the housing market and the economy in the subprime mortgage crisis. host: let's hear from her be in mississippi. -- herbie in mississippi. caller: i want to talk about the real estate industry being tied in with fannie and freddie may, and section eight. they save so much money in section eight of the person they pay the money for rent could actually own a two or three houses by the time the child gets to be 18 years old. i think the whole real estate industry has been kind of robbing the federal government and taxpayers for the falsehood of giving somebody something. you are not giving anything. if you were to do that, you would own two or three houses --
[indiscernible] host: you are breaking up. i want to get in a response. guest: if we are talking about fannie and freddie, they have been trying to revamp fannie and freddie for years now, and it's not going to happen in the current administration. they are not doing any work on it that's going to happen. maybe in the next administration. mae, freddiennie mac, fha, the government is 90% is not more of the mortgage market in this country. that is what i was talking about with needing private investors to come back in. -- theu say robbing housing market is robbing the wouldment, fannie mae argue the government is robbing them because fannie mae has been paying all of its profit back to the treasury, still. enormous amounts, much more than they drew from treasury during the housing crisis. argumenta lot of surrounding fannie and freddie.
reform of the mortgage market. no question about that. we do need to get private capital back into the mortgage market to get credit flowing again, more easily. but that's not going to happen, not this year, not next year. host: a recent posting of yours said when it comes to how people look at their homes, you compare them to the atm. what's going on? during the housing crisis, that was it. during the housing boom, that was it. people looked at their houses and said prices are going up so high, i'm going to pull all of this cash out, buy a car, build a pool. that's why so many people ended up underwater. then we had the crash, and suddenly people would say it's not worth anything, they didn't want to put money into it, they were afraid of buying a house or moving up to a different house. now we're seeing home prices jump higher. significantly higher, and people are starting to see that equity again.
we saw a very big jump in cash refinances,e is -- up 60% from a year ago. that sounds like a big number, but we are still 80% below where we were during the last housing es.m in cash out refinanc some of these jobs are from such a low bottom that they look very big. it does say that people are starting to feel more confident about their homes. the end prices higher, they are seeing value. what is interesting about this number is that people are putting the money back into their homes. they are using that cash out refinance to remodel, and to improve the value of their homes. host: does that indicate they want to stay at home? guest: it made. there are so many homes -- so few homes for sale, i can't find a bigger house, i can't afford that bigger house. i do have enough equity to pull out of my current house and build a bigger kitchen. host: diana olick joining us to
talk about the real estate industry. will is up next from alabama. caller: i just wanted to ask if she thinks that maybe sometimes, in the different states, that the people in sales create some of their real estate problems. i know california is famous for referendums that create real estate problems. in alabama a few years ago, they had what they call a forever wild program where they allowed trust moneys to be used to buy a bland. -- by up land. theyieve in the future, if buy up millions of acres of land, they will drive up the price of real estate and keep businesses and people from buying property. i wondered about her opinion of that, those kind of laws. guest: i don't know specifically about the alabama law. there has been a big run on land for builders, they need land, they want that prime location.
there is a lot of regulation in california, if you look at the san francisco housing market or even close into the city -- whether it is los angeles or san diego. land is at a premium, home builders have to pass that on to buyers in the form of higher prices. the difference today is that where the land is, where it is more affordable, where they can get in, that is not where people want to live. s, should talk about the exurb big developments far from the city, they are not seeing the demands they want in those areas. that land is not going for a premium. host: florida, this is conrad. caller: i would like to ask the ,uestion -- the federal reserve you have that several parts. for my understanding, i was told the federal reserve is not really maintained by the feds. this is private industry the runs that. i wanted to see if that was told me theomeone
federal reserve is not a federal institution as far as the social security or no child left behind. the federal reserve is run by private people. that the saying federal reserve isn't really the federal reserve rat. the president of force the federal reserve guy, it's basically ran by millionaires. is that true? you certainly: have people in the banking industry that have gone into the federal reserve, but it is part of the government. am i wrong? host: it's a federal agency. guest: it's definitely not run by the private market. there is certainly influence from wall street all around the financial market, around financial institutions in washington even. we could talk forever about that kind of influence and what they have been doing. with regard to stopping some
regulation, being behind some regulation, etc. i'm not sure if i understood the question. host: when i wash tv, -- when i watch tv, i see ads for reverse mortgages. what are they and how do they work? host: baby boomers. baby boomers are aging into that higher category of retirement, and a reverse mortgage -- there are a lot of warnings. you have to be careful, there has been a lot of reform in reverse mortgage. it's taking the money out of the mortgage itself. say you have a lot of equity in your home. maybe you on your home. a lotta baby boomers on their homes outright because they paid into a 30 year mortgage or they have a lot of equity in their own -- in their home. a cash out doing refinance, they do a reverse mortgage, which allows them to take money out of the mortgage. once they decide to sell the home, then the money goes to the lender.
they can be great tools, especially for aging boomers who say i'm not going to be in this house much longer. host: can they be risky? guest: they can. there are some issues with having spouses on reverse mortgages. i did a story about a couple that had a reverse mortgage, the husband died, and the wife didn't know she wasn't on the mortgage. bythe house was taken back the lender, as per the terms of the reverse mortgage. she didn't have any claim on that. they've done a lot of changes in regular should help make sure that doesn't happen to folks. but there are some risks. you can't take out more than the home is worth, and if home prices come down -- at this point, they are not. it is a good tool. host: john from georgia, you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was watching your piece on the banks, on how tight they have gone, and i live in a college town. the recession didn't quite hit us is bad.
atlanta was one of the worst areas in the country for foreclosures. a lot of friends of mine are trying to get loans, they have excellent credit, excellent down payments, but still the banks are still really tight. in my opinion -- i want to get your opinion -- to get the housing industry back on its feet, don't you think the banks need to lighten up some? not to go far left, but to lighten up for house loans. you construction is down, the inventory is down. if they would lighten up and allow more people to purchase a house, we should think that would stimulate the housing market and help the economy? in my opinion, before this last recession, we always have the housing market to fall back on. this time, we haven't. i wanted to get your opinion on why the banks will not lighten up. guest: you are absolutely right. if we had more liquidity in the
mortgage market, we would definitely see that go back into the economy. it would help the housing market so much. the problem is that lenders really got burned. they paid billions of dollars to the federal government, to homeowners, to all sorts of litigation, settlements. billions and billions of dollars because of what happened during the loose lending times of the last housing boom. what happens? you immediately over tighten. the banks have regulations, not just their own, but from fannie mae and freddie mac. their absolute reductions on credit scores, on debt to income levels, there are credit overlays of the bank for additional cost, additional requirements for barbers -- borrowers because they are so afraid of litigation. the fha sued the major banks, the government has sued the major banks. settlements to the tune of billions of billions of dollars. banks are afraid of anyone who
is going to default on loan. they want pristine followers -- borrowers, because they want to be able say i'm not going to get sued on this loan. do we need to see them loosen up, absolutely. carlo, on with diana olick. caller: i was wondering if you could tell me -- to real estate agents have to pay dues? and if they do pay dues, do they have any say so as to where this user spent -- where those dues are spent? tost: they have to pay dues the national association of real estate agents, and their different terms. what specifically -- why the question? caller: quite often you hear duesunion people pay their and had nothing to say about where the dues are spent. guest: ok. not really housing question. i don't know exactly. i can't answer that.
host: we have been talking commercial real estate, houses standing so far? -- how is it standing so far? guest: there's a lot of different commercial real estate. the apartment sector is going very well. the industrial sector, which i call the least sexy sector, where houses are doing very well. because people aren't shopping in the malls, they shopping from amazon and online. you put in a warehouse, close to the city. offices are coming back, but it is different. we are co-working, we have all of these different arrangements in office is now that allow for the new generation, which doesn't like to have an office at a desk and be segregated. host: from john in ohio, good morning. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. people,hedge fund aren't they the ones buying in at the bottom of the barrel? guest: you have black, which has
its own single-family rental hasany -- blackstone, which turned homes in distress and turn them into lucrative rentals. you are talking about real estate investment trusts. in, are investors who came bought at the bottom of the market all of these distressed homes, and have now turned them -- they have management companies. they are getting good demand and good prices for sigel family rental homes. -- single family rental homes. they are not in the mortgage market. host: why the question? caller: any standardization in terms of the people that take the exams, in terms of mortgage middlemen? any standardization, were our 50 states going in different elections? -- directions? guest: i'm not sure what you mean, i'm talking about people buying houses. caller: i'm talking about the
signing people. guest: you are talking about banks and lenders. we're talking about the tightening mortgage regulations. we have all kinds of new regulations in the mortgage market for both banks and non-bank lenders. the biggest one being the ability to read payroll, that the federal law. host: you talk about the current conditions of renters and what's available. , starting with the obvious question -- is this an obvious housing bubble in question? guest: an interesting point. i am thinking about writing something. something someone sent to me this morning claiming we are in another housing bubble. home prices are so high, but they are not driven by the normal things we see in a housing, which is lots of construction and demand for construction, people buying and selling all that activity driving prices higher. it's being driven by tight supply, investors on the low-end with cash, and i really
historically low-interest rates. there's an argument to be made to the government is kind of fueling this jump in house prices because interest rates are so low. host: to the future, what size do you look for it to say things are improving? guest: i look for more construction, for supply and demand -- we talk about month supply. the amount of all the good cell in a certain month given the demand. we are in some markets in a one-month supply. the housing market is more like a five to six month supply. the nation is still around a four month supply, and that is too tight. we need more homes to be built, we need easier credit for those first-time buyers to get back up to the numbers were they should be. that to me with a healthier housing market and keep the prices from rising. they shouldn't be rising 7% annually. host: diana olick covers real estate for cnbc. senate you now to the labor committee, hearing today