tv Washington Journal CSPAN October 7, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
policy from the harvard kennedy school of government, he talks about his political article on the deadly hospital strike in afghanistan, and the john afghanistan operations. ♪ host: good morning to all of you on this wednesday, october 7, 2015. a group of conservative republicans met behind closed doors to hear from three candidates who want to be the next speaker of the house. the front runner is kevin mccarthy. he told his colleagues he is no john boehner. will talk about this leadership races on the program. first, we want to begin with your thoughts on afghanistan. whether or not the west should leave more troops in that country to fight a rising insurgency.
or, should the president forced ahead with his plan to remove all combat troops from afghanistan by the end of 2016? can dialans 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 you can also e-mail us. , johnitol hill yesterday campbell, who was the commander of u.s. troops not afghanistan, 1 testified before the senate armed services committee. the afghanistan timeline is unfeasible. says the u.s. must leave forces beyond 2016. [video clip] mid-2014 envisioned in
that we would transition to a normalized embassy presents by january 2017. that remains our planning assumption. since that time, much has changed. increasedise of dice, al qaeda presence in afghanistan and now, strong partners like chief executive abdullah. train, advise and assist the afghan security forces and conduct counterterrorism operations to protect the homeland. upsurge in insurgent violence shows come afghanistan is at a decisive point again. the president is well aware of the tenuous security situation. i appreciate that he has many other global issues to way as he considers my recommendations.
my role is to provide my best military advice based on my assessment of the conditions on the ground. of theainst the risks force on the mission. host: the washington times reporting this. the recommendation to scuttle mr. obama's timeline contains a number of options. we turn all of you this morning. should the u.s. keep troops in afghanistan? what do you think this administration should do? the president wants all combat
troops out by the end of 2016. his general on the ground is saying troops might need to stay beyond 2016. that is his advice to the president. jim in oregon. democrat. what do you think? caller: i think we should -- the president should stay the course. we need to get our people out of these countries. we cannot continue to police the world. there,leave troops in they will blame him for anything that happens to them. that's just what's going to happen. we need to get our people out. our boys and girls lives matter. we should not be sending them all over the world trying to police the world. of thenot policeman
world. we are the united states of thesea and we have all of issues in our country we need to be dealing with. congress is not doing its job to take care of our own people but they want to spend billions of dollars policing the world. it makes those sense. if we start taking care of our own people, then it proves we are a strong country. we don't prove we are strong country when we go out policing the world. host: what about the concern from those that serve on the armed services committee? they get intelligence briefing that if the u.s. leaves too quickly, isis, the taliban, other terror groups would take over in afghanistan. then they have a foothold in that country. caller: the reason we have isis
is because we are over there. if we had people coming from that country trying to tell us what to do in our country, we would have the same problems. we would not like that. if we stay out of these countries, we would not have isis host:. you mentioned the price tag. the u.s. has been $62 billion on equipping and training the afghanistan security forces. this does not include the yearly cost of american military operations. 14 years in that country. florida. democrat. welcome to the conversation. what do you think? caller: thank you for taking my call.
we use more weapons than diplomacy. warpeople who want to go to , let them put a backpack instead of sending someone else's children. let them put a backpack and een and go over there and fight someone. how could someone say let's go fight and they are not going. they want to send someone else's child. you agree with the president that we need to and all combat operations in afghanistan by the end of 2016? caller: absolutely. we are in someone else's country trying to -- thousands of miles away from the u.s., tried to dictate to another country how it should be run. try to steere that things in a direction that is
culpable for the united states and allies. at the same time, i am more afraid of not so much going over , it's the people that always jump and "let's go. let's send our troops." they are not sending their children. they are sending other people's children. host: take a look at a poll that was done back in may. the president's decision to withdraw from afghanistan. not approve, but 59% approve of the plan. we are talking about the testimony of general john campbell on capitol hill. telling those lawmakers that the u.s. -- that he has told the president, he has given him a number of options, including troops beyond 2016.
we are getting your thoughts on that this morning. the general telling the lawmakers yesterday it is because the political situation in afghanistan is still tenuous. the new government needs more to get things in order, to get more of a democracy in place. thee that is happening, u.s. presence needs to be there to shore up that this is trained andce equipped. arkansasom cotton from with general campbell. take a look. [video clip] >> you cited the rise of the islamic state. there is also a different presence -- in years past, our aircraft provided responsive and
decisive air support to coalition -- this is no longer the norm, but the exception. challenges and they have struggled in times to adjust. it sounds to me like our unwise -- has contributed to the difficulty is much as anything we seen from enemy activity. >> we knew we would have to continue to train, advise and assist. close air support is the one that i get asked about from the afghans every single day. it is an area that we started too late. we continue to work better in hard. that veryinue to work hard. it has been slow coming. we worked with the afghans to enable them to work through this
using their own indirect fire means. it is a balance. making sure that they can work through that. the taliban don't have or theters or humvees sophisticated technical equipment we have provided to the afghans over the years. i go back to leadership. leadership makes a difference. we have to be able to provide the afghans with the stability to provide their own close air support. it will take several more years to get there. if they had that the levels they the aresomething -- very committed to working through this. they have made many adjustments. host: the hill newspaper reporting --
this is a letter sent to the president. asking the president to keep 9000 u.s. troops in afghanistan through 2016. what do you think? should the president keep troops in afghanistan to avoid what some say is what happened in iraq? you have isis fighting that area. republicans 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002. a fourth line this morning for afghanistan war veterans. 202-748-8003. bill in sebastian, florida. independent. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. i think it's time to get out of afghanistan.
here we are bombing a hospital. our own hospital. host: the doctors without borders hospital. caller: yes. these are stressful times with these 47 senators wanting to go to war with iran. they are too hawkish. out ofe getting too hand. they are too aggressive. the salvation nation, they are calling themselves. meanwhile, we are all over the afghanistanrica, in , in iraq. we only have so many resources. have toe, you ca
paper your water in baltimore and detroit. -- pay for your water. they are not raising the minimum wage. get it together. republicans -- host: are you concerned at all about the threat to the united states from these terror groups that want to get into afghanistan? caller: no. i'm not concerned about that at all. the news coverage has been terrible. just -- it has just gotten out of hand. there seems to be no common sense left. decision and this debate over whether or not to keep troops in afghanistan is also taking place in the road to the white house campaigns. donald trump would begrudgingly
leave troops in afghanistan. he has long been opposed to continued u.s. involvement in the war's in iraq and afghanistan. the united states cannot safely withdraw its troops -- he wantsn to say that to build a military that is so fearsome, it will never have to the u.s. should become more involved in the syrian conflict. they should allow russia to take the lead to weaken the islamic state. the caller mentioned that hospital. the general on capitol hill saying it was a mistake for the united states to bomb. it was not intentional.
[video clip] forces provide training and assistance to the afghan forces. our personnel are not directly engaged in the fighting. they are providing valuable support to the afghans. remains an area of active hostilities and our personal continue to operate in harms way. self-defense. we have now learned that on advised3, afghan forces that they were taking fire from enemy positions and ask for air support from u.s. forces. an air strike was called to eliminate the taliban threat and several civilians were accidentally struck. i have ordered a thorough investigation into this tragic
incident and the investigation is ongoing. the afghans have ordered the same. his errors were committed, we will acknowledge them. we will hold those responsible accountable and take steps to make sure those mistakes are not repeated. we will await the outcome of the investigation and provide any updates. at the pentagon, he testified on capitol hill yesterday, he said it was a mistake. the new york times reporting this morning --
the strike was intentional and they believe it is a war crime. there's three investigations being done. possibly a fourth. afghanistan is looking into it. nato is doing their own investigation. the pentagon is doing an investigation. there could be more. dismissing the idea of an independent investigation by the united nations. we are getting your thoughts on whether or not troops should stay afghanistan. james and north dakota. publican. -- james in north dakota. republican. caller: i tried to get through a couple weeks ago but i got cut off. must have been a bad connection. conservative, but not a republican anymore.
intowas a mistake to go iraq. , what isto say that interesting about this, all of this going on, we still don't islamo understand that conquered north africa, spain, they crossed the pyrenees, they tried to strangle european christendom. invaded bnf --he they invaded vienna and murder by the christian nights. knights. this is the third and final invasion. we are worried about these silly
pinprick attacks when we have a demographic invasion of germany and france and holland. angela merkel claims she will ine an 850,000 -- take 850,000. there are more mosques than churches in germany. they are in a police state. we have lost our liberty, -- it isf movement amazing. is destiny. we will die in the west by demographics, not by anything by any kind of attack or bombs. it is the replacement of what people buy another. power are doing this to us. instead of manning begins, we are psychologically unmanned.
michael, what do you think? caller: good morning. we should not leave troops in afghanistan. your last caller raised an interesting question. he was talking about religion. these wars have nothing to do with religion. it is all about the materialistic base. afghanistan is one of the world's largest poppy fields. whoever controls that her when controls the drug market. herointrols that i find it interesting that these so-called collars here who have no experience on the military thatrfield don't realize politics is the main role being played. battlefield.
that's what's going on in the middle east. we need to get out of there in mind our own business. you cannot bring democracy to everybody and anybody. you are talking about terrorism. how is it you have the longest terrorist organization in the united states called the ku klux klan. host: we will be talking about this situation in afghanistan again at the end of today's program. a contributor for political magazine questioning whether or not the situation is the beginning of the end for afghanistan. contributor for politico magazine. writes that the afghanistan security forces cannot be
convinced to fight. there is no sense of duty there. you cannot buy morale. situation has to be fixed in afghanistan. there is no military solution. we will talk about that. we will keep getting your thoughts here for another 20 minutes or so. whether or not the president should agree with his general and keep troops beyond 2016. i want to show you this reuters piece this morning.
then, you have this from the front page of the wall street journal this morning. iraqi's are now lobbying russian airstrikes. russia toe urging launch airstrikes on islamic state militants in their country. an escalation that would heighten tensions with washington and create risks of a clash between two powers. you have this in the wall street journal. russia and the u.s. say they plan syria talks. they agreed to hold more talks reduce chances of confrontations between the two powers.
we are getting your thoughts this morning on whether or not u.s. troops should remain in afghanistan. many of our watchers know and saw yesterday, the top commander was talking to lawmakers on capitol hill about this. theas recommended that president let combat troops remain in that country to give the new afghan government more time to transition to a democracy. we will keep getting your thoughts. i want to share some domestic news. conservatives oppose the hurdle for mccarthy. -- conservatives pose hurdle for mccarthy.
that is what will be taking place this week. house republicans meeting behind closed doors thursday morning to select their next speaker. mr. mccarthy poised to become that in that vote. smoothly wheno so the houseboats later in october -- house votes later in october. hillary clinton putting out a new ad in response to what mr. mccarthy has said about the benghazi committee. the new york times editorial board says it's time to shut down the benghazi committee. -- say the hearing
that is what is happening behind the scenes on the whole benghazi committee. the washington times reporting on their front page that the state department told hillary gaps stillfill the left in months of e-mails. thatial watch is arguing the e-mail account and server were always government property. we will get back to your calls and what your thoughts are on whether or not combat troops should remain in afghanistan.
steve in massachusetts. publican. does republican. -- stephen massachusetts. republican. ,aller: to the afghan situation democracy insurance should be provided by the united states, canada, the eu. if you want to keep your democracy alive, you should pay for it and vote for it and we can help you. i don't think we can help these religious fights over there. ray in massachusetts. independent. morning. presidenten bush was and we went into iraq, we opened up a can of worms. alonewould have left iraq and kept everybody and check --
what he was doing was not right. the guy from iraq was not right. but he kept everybody in check. as far as these republicans go, -- stuff happens. it's republicans. i had two brothers in vietnam. one died in 1969. everything is going to hell. they are trying to cut down on the voting rights act. luke was going on in alabama. -- look what is going on in alabama. they cannot get ids to vote. they are afraid. , only 26%ext election of the people voted. they will all be looking for new -- host: who are you thinking about voting for?
caller: bernie sanders. host: what do you want to hear from him on afghanistan? caller: i think we should get out of there. our bridges and roads -- look what's going on. host: john in maryland. republican. -- tom. that -- there is that famous quote about if you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it. when you look back at history and you realize the only time that we had been overseas and been in war is the korean war. it was a big mess, just like vietnam. .e stayed in there we do not quit and run. look what we have now with the koreans. we really have a partner. it was a mess there for a long
time. afghanistan will be the same way. iraq.l go back, just like with a find ourselves with the people there, the armies they are against us. thereetter if we hang in and stick to our guns. in -- emmanuel in towson, maryland. democrat. --ler: i just wanted to say thank you for taking my call. good morning. i just have a message for tom cotton and the rest of these
politicians who are so ready to go to war with iran or anyone else. host: what is that? caller: i'm a young man. wars.t fighting your if you will want to go to war, get yourself a gun and a one-way ticket and go fight a darn more. i'm not doing your dirty work. you are talking as if it's some kind of game. this is not anything to be taken lightly. host: take a look at what lawmakers set on capitol hill -- said on capitol hill. taliban forces now in control of a major city is instability persists in afghanistan. -- as instability persists in afghanistan.
you can go to our website and watch it there. 6000 to leave prison early. the justice department announcing that. the largest one-time release of federal prisoners in an effort to reduce overcrowding and drug offendersto who received harsh sentences. this on the front page of usa today. president trump would keep his business empire. a conflict of interest rule does not apply to the president.
front page of the washington times this morning. expired.tax repeal -- repeal mired in dispute on funding fix. they cannot agree on how you fill the budget hole. the senate is pushing defense policy bill through the filibuster. senders overcame a filibuster on the annual defense bill tuesday. a significant victory for republicans. -- senators overcame a filibuster on the annual defense bill tuesday. yesterday, this tweet was sent out.
congressman is back in the hospital. this in the washington times. congress is scheduled to do away .ith the ban on export oil shouldying the backup not be an atm. saysoday editorial board 40 years after energy crisis, it is time to lift the ban on oil exports. the sierra club writes the opposing view. leave the oil export ban in place. do not double down on dirty fuels from the 19 century. on the troops in afghanistan. whether or not combat troops
should stay. david in wisconsin. caller: good morning. it would be better to leave the 4000 troops in afghanistan. just because of what happened when we left iraq. we did not leave any troops behind. pullout.hink which -- i don't think we should pull out. 4000 so theave government can get back on track and get a new constitution and get laws placed in jail cells set up. -- and jail cells set up. help defend afghanistan from its enemies trying to attack.
robert in henderson, kentucky. independent. what do you think? think we should get out of afghanistan. and dick cheney, they should be held on war crimes. they went into iraq as a false pretense and then dick cheney's company had the contract that lay the pipeline for the oil in afghanistan. a gross conflict of interest. dying.ited from people he's quick to get on television and lambaste the foreign policy of the american -- of president obama. israel dictates the foreign policy of america. we should not be in afghanistan. host: why do you believe israel
dictates the foreign policy of the unit states? is united states -- foreign policy of the united states? --ler: they have pledged they always go to the jewish lobby. when netanyahu came over here, from the senators and commitment what he wanted. host: joe in woodbridge, virginia. public. -- republican. caller: it appears to me that and americansedia are in a denial of history after what's going on in the middle east. when bush left office, the middle east was a relatively stable place. iraq was a young democracy, there were u.s. troops in iraq keeping the peace.
syria was a stable country. there was no civil war going on in syria. there was no civil war in libya. dictator, but the country was not in a civil war. in egypt, we had our friend in power. a stableictator but country. and, obama comes to power through his lack of leadership runsupport for youn people has turned the middle east into a bloodbath. -- support for the wrong people. we should leave forces in afghanistan for a long time to stabilize that country. 4000 is not enough. that is a massacre of u.s. troops waiting to happen. we would have to leave 10,000-20,000 with a good andort force of helicopters
special forces. we have to acknowledge that iraq and syria are lost. obama has lost iraq and syria. in syria, the russians gave us several years to move in and take out a sod and clear out isis and we failed to do it -- ad.e out ass it is no surprise to me that the russians are doing the two things that obama failed to do. backing his friends and kicking the crap out of isis. iraq is lost. the southern part of iraq will be dominated by iran. host: some saying the fall of is aity in afghanistan warning that the situation in
afghanistan could turn into the situation in iraq. some point to what happened to that hospital, that doctors without borders hospital -- the pentagon on monday talking about the strike in afghanistan. yesterday on capitol hill, he said it was a mistake. it was a u.s. call. [video clip] >> on saturday morning, our forces provided close air support. the decision to provide aerial fire was a u.s. decision made within the u.s. chain of command. the hospital was mistakenly struck. we would never intentionally target a protected medical facility. we must allow the investigation to take its course. i'm not at liberty to discuss further specifics at this time. the investigation will be
thorough, objective and transparent. i would also like to remind the committee and the american people that we continue to make extraordinary efforts to protect civilians. no military history has done we assume greater risks .o our own forces entire forcedthe to undergo in-depth training to review all of our operational authorities and rules of engagement. i record stands in stark contrast to the actions of the taliban. violated thetedly rules of war by targeting civilians. host: general john campbell on capitol hill yesterday calling it a mistake. it was a decision made by u.s. forces.
the deadly strike on the hospital. , in fort lauderdale, florida. republican. -- tom in fort lauderdale, florida. if we totally withdraw, everything will be wonderful, right? we do minute. -- wait a minute. how many troops did we have in afghanistan when al qaeda attacked new york? people trying to sell nuclear material to terrorist groups today. some of us want to be protected. some of us want to prevent something that from happening. -- bad from happening. was withnterviewer
saddam hussein before he was executed and saddam hussein admitted that they had weapons of mass destruction and they would have used them. guess what? there was a nuclear facility bombed by the israelis that was making nuclear weapons in syria. where did that come from? there was no nuclear culture in syria prior to this plan. saddam hussein admitted that he shipped his weapons of mass distraction to syria because he was afraid that the united when weould invade found out he had these weapons. host: we will shift gears and talk about trade with representative tim ryan.
first, today marks the 35th anniversary of the first call in program here on c-span. it was live from the national press club. as media representatives four media representatives answer calls from viewers. the first call came from south dakota. [video clip] 32651.0 -- 202-783-2651. calls as they the come in. we have a couple -- in the wrong here. ear.ong
any question about any aspect of our coverage of this campaign or what the chairman had to say today before the national press club or any facet of broadcasting or the communications industry. we have a couple of calls coming in here. tell us about your 50th anniversary issues. >> broadcasting magazine was by the present editor. .nd a colleague of his he later founded television digest. they were both washington
newspaperman who had been involved in covering the radio business for other publications. call.will take a yankton, south dakota. hello. this is bob in yankton, south dakota. should i build a dish and put it in my art to receive satellite? is that legal? would anybody harassed me for that? there are some aspects of it that are legal. .here are many hobbyists
pirates and thieves, depending on how you look at it. the programming out there on the satellites. theye feel strongly that are not justly compensated for it. it will be a problem in limiting the amount of programming available. you can make arrangements with the people who are transmitting their programs via satellite or through a third party in your who have the receiving rights to that programming and you can use it for your own -- was october 7, 1980. c-span's first call in program. you can watch it on www.c-span.org.
for the last 35 years, with continued to take hundreds and hundreds of thousands of your phone calls. we will take a short break. when we come back, we will keep taking your calls. ♪ every first lady should do something in this position to help something she cares about. >> everything in the white house should be the best. entertainment that is given here. >> children are the same the world over. there is quite enough to divide people. we should cherish the language and emotion that unites us all. >> jacqueline kennedy's 1000 days as first lady were defined -- as television came of age, it was the tragic images
of president kennedy's assassination and funeral that cemented her in the public mind. jacqueline kennedy, this sunday night at 8:00. martha washington to michelle obama. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. night on q&a, gary hart on his new book, the republican conscience. founders used the language of the ancient republic greece and rome. and warned against corruption. their definition of corruption was not bribery or money under the table.
it was putting special interests ahead of the common good. by that definition, washington today is a massively corrupt place. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> "washington journal" continues. sits congressman tim ryan on the appropriations and budget committee. here to talk about trade. a deal was hand over the weekend. what do you make of it? -- a deal was inked over the weekend. guest: i think this really is in line with nafta, the korean trade deal. if you look at northeast ohio, what has happened since then, our communities were devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs. i'm concerned about this happening even more. host: why do you think it is in
line with nafta? guest: a couple reasons. when you are having trade ,greements with these countries one of the protections you need is with the currency manipulation. a lot of countries will ,anipulate their currency making their products land on the shores of the united states. make united states products expensive to ship to their countries. that is a major concern. when you are competing with countries like vietnam where it is using cents an hour -- $.56 an hour, a worker in ohio cannot compete with that. host: we are talking about the transpacific partnership. the u.s. and 11 pacific nations. a deal made over the weekend on paper. now, this administration has 30 days to put out the actual text of this deal.
i want to show our viewers what the president is saying on this --ause he has guest: i have heard all of this before. the same things we heard with nafta and korea. it has not panned out. a lot of companies have made a lot of money off the current global trade regime. it is the worker, the local that gets stuck with the bill. we see that his investment. go to akron and cleveland and
see these cities. you cannot possibly think the current trade policies work for these communities. we have heard that before. same with korea. the korean trade deal was supposed to be a big boom for the net states. -- the united states. our trade deficit has doubled with korea and we lost 60,000 jobs. rhetorico get past the , get past the hard selling and look at the facts of what the past trade agreements have done. impact the global economy. that is the real concern. it is not just canada and mexico. this is japan and malaysia and singapore, australia, new zealand. pretty big countries. the effects will be even worse. host: let me show you what republicans are saying. john boehner sing more trade means more jobs, better pay and
more opportunity. more trade means more jobs, better pay and more opportunity. talk about the process. the majority leader in the senate and kevin mccarthy's and we will review this in congress and make sure it lives up to the standards we set out. guest: if you look at the majority of the republican caucus, they will be supportive of the trade agreement. many of them are already on record, many of them supported
fasttrack, which give the president the authority to negotiate this deal. that is another hold up for me. we cannot amend this. if we look and see the labor standards and enforcement are not there, we cannot offer an amendment to say let's fix part of it. the democrat out possibility to amend the steel. democrat's ability to amend this deal. we have 30 days to get information from the president. there is a deal in place. the will be hinged upon speakership and who the next speaker is. that is out of our hands.
i would think they would try to get it done as soon as possible. more than likely this year. host: during the fasttrack debate, nancy pelosi played a pivotal role when she said she would not support it. said she was not going to support it. whatwere home rolled -- were her role be this time around? guest: we all look to nancy pelosi on issues of this magnitude, whether it is war and peace or global trade deals. she is an intellectual therhouse, she knows process better than anyone. i think we are all looking to her for her leadership on this particular -- with regard to human rights. she has been a huge advocate on these issues. rosa delauro is another key leader on this. but all indications are this is going to be the same thing that we have seen with korea, that we have seen with mexico. host: meaning it gets the votes?
guest: probably gets the votes, but who knows. we have a really strong with p team, iith -- whi think there are really strong concerns. these are huge issues. take shrimp for example in vietnam. these shrimp farms are literally toxic and it gets sent here to and we go outtes and buy them. but if we knew or could understand the level of toxicity within the shrimp i think we would take a lot different. we have an obligation to raise that issue and try to persuade voters to put pressure on their members of congress. host: this is the debate that always gets phone calls. john in pennsylvania, a democrat. caller: hello. thank you for -- hopefully your
battle, i feel betrayed by the president. i would like you to please thisin how we can support agreement whenever it calls for tribunals to be formed. there are examples in the nafta agreement where a local county government would say, we don't want a company producing a certain amount of phosphates or certain amount of other things. then that company turns around and sues the local or state losses thator the they claim they have taken over our environmental laws or over some other type of law or regulation, health and safety of the worker. that and then they take it to a tribunal and the tribunal will rule against the state or the county and then that state or county has to either change their ways or pay a fine. no one involved in the united
states -- we are giving away our sovereign power as a state. i would really like for the democratic party to push this hard. this is not a democracy, we live in a republic. we are guaranteed rights. we are going to give away that the rights -- we are going to give away the rights that were given to us by our forefathers. guest: he gave a great point. good to have a call from breeze with. you are exactly right. this deal can strip away local control on environmental issues, on food safety issues. we have seen it with cigarette theseies for example, global laws, global agreements are preventing state and local communities from and lamenting loss on environment or health and safety. grab by thege power
globalization folks to allow these corporations to really have their way even against the local communities that want to have certain health standards or certain environmental standards. danny in silver spring maryland, a republican. caller: good morning. i was curious you said we lost 60,000 jobs from the korean deal. can you break that down for me? why did we lose the jobs and what did we gain, what kind of deal was a? well, first of all one of the issues was the auto industry. that has been affected. the manufacturing base was affected when dealing directly with korea. it gets back to kind of the same exact issue that we had with cafta,nd with cap to --
our ability for workers to compete directly with a country that has wages that are significantly lower than ours allows their product to come to our country much much cheaper and displace american workers, primarily in manufacturing. but as these agreements get broader it is going to have the same effect on white-collar jobs , on accounting, on financial services. areas of airy bank -- the economy that are also going to be affected by these trade agreements. that is lie with korea you have seen the trade deficit doubles. the products they are shipping here are more significant. if you peel the back what you would see is a lot of the suppliers, a lot of the component parts and various manufactured products, that is primarily where the job loss
was. host: charlie and hannover, maryland, a republican. charlie, you are in -- on the air. caller: i appreciate your time and efforts on this. that you canazing , yourat nafta has done andt taken on cafta everything, it just seems like the democrats and the republicans have different interests versus the popularity -- the population of their constituents. it seems like they are in the corporatists or big business. i think that bernie sanders and donald trump, i think that they are right. thank you. guest: there is no question that if you support the free trade agreements your capacity to
raise money for your reelection campaign improves dramatically. i think you can see that fundraising play out both in the senate and in the house of representatives. you can see it with a lot of house leaders, leadership races and whatnot. that is not saying that everyone who votes for this votes for a because they can raise money, but it is a significant difference between what labor unions can give, environmental groups can give, religious groups can give, groups supporting the prevention of human trafficking -- those groups don't have a lot of money. but the big corporations who will begin doing business in the context of these countries that are participating will make a lot of money. think hillary clinton has made that political calculation and that is why she is not saying that got -- that
is why she is not saying? guest: this morning she said she was looking at the deal. that to me is a thoughtful person who is going to sit and look at the deal. she was involved very early on. issue that i am glad she is going to look at. of course we are going to make teamrgument among the whip and we are going to work really hard. host: ted in oregon, a were -- an independent. i am curious to know what your confidence is about all of the side agreements that are called into this trade agreement are going to be revealed at the same time as the basic trade agreement, and whether or not congress will have the time to review all those inside agreement as well? well, i hope so. i hope we get an opportunity to look at all of the side agreements. itt of it is what is not in
and what the enforcement mechanisms are for a lot of those inside agreements. as i mentioned early on in the program, the issue of currency manipulation is a big one for me. we have seen it affect our manufacturing base in northeast ohio, and i am very concerned that it is not a major part of this agreement because to me that means we don't have the enforcement mechanism. we have companies in youngstown, ohio, western pennsylvania, that are competing with other countries who manipulate their currency from those countries. their products that land on the shores of the united states, final product, are the same costs as the raw material of the companies here in the united states. the final product is done and the american company is just at
the raw material stage and they are at the same exact price. to me that is how currency manipulation is destroying the manufacturing base here in the united states. where thatvisions can be enforced, where currency manipulation is seen as a subsidy, because it is. thehave terrorists -- president should be able to put tarrifs on those products. to me that being a side provision really is bothersome because of the end of the day it is not going to have the kind of enforcement we need. lee is next, south springfield, an independent. caller: yes. my problem with the free trade weeement is that with nafta complained that canada and mexico are the only countries that benefited from nafta.
but the problem is that our ceos of our companies shifted jobs overseas. , canadat blame canada and mexico did not have to ship their jobs off. the united states did, and the ceo of our companies that it has agreed. when you ship your job overseas you have to give the people in those countries your technology. if you try to ship it back they are going to use your technology toinst you and we are going have products that are going to be cheaper than our products and we have to compete against ourselves. the united states had an opportunity to be the leader of the global economy by creating , roads ands country bridges so that we can get more taxes into the social security system and the regular tax system. congress did not do it. unless we decide to take a stand as the country of example we are going to have this problem. that is why we are having problems.
we are blaming the wrong people. our people are shipping jobs overseas. they have to take responsibility. those big ceos in these big companies. a couplethink you make of good points. one is intellectual property. we have seen a number of companies who moved to china many times china forces the american company to partner with a chinese company. many times and company is state owned. we have seen huge violations in intellectual property, taking those patterns from the american company and years later opening up a shop right down the street doing the same thing. a hugectual property is issue. i will be looking very closely within this agreement with regard to intellectual property. you also talked about moving jobs out of the country, we saw after nafta we had a particular in war and,any
ohio. after nafta it moved a lot of its manufacturing right over the border into mexico and started to ship the products back. so now in warren, ohio you have a very difficult time with funding police, funding fire, funding development or it -- funding development. that is the end result when your factory goes from 30,000 workers down to 2, 3, 4000 workers. host: what industry are we talking about? guest: it was a supplier for the auto industry. they did all the wiring for general motors, and after nafta again, they shipped the jobs back and had very difficult financial -- would bes deal with -- with 11 countries according to the white house. it would eliminate export taxes as high as 70% on u.s.
automotive -- 17 percent on u.s. automated product. it could go even higher. guest: i think he would look at someone like ford motors to see how they feel about it, and the ford motor company has made some pretty strong statements that this deal should not go through, that because of currency manipulation this is going to be best for them. if it is bad for ford, i don't understand how it could be good for the auto industry. host: have you heard from the president, you personally? guest: i have not. i may after this interview. host: what about his trade representatives in his office? guest: no. i have not heard. i have been pretty strongly against from the very beginning, very skeptical. i think a b-day have written me off -- i think maybe they have written me off. ohio, go ahead. caller: wages are not going down
for any american at all. wages are going up everyone. have you read the context of the text? know you haven't. i haven't because it is not available for 30 more days. these things have to be negotiated in private? why? because industries like ours, like sugar and tobacco and things like that, others are benefited. like for example, california wine. five congressmen testified on this issue with ambassador from with the -- ambassador, they all said hey, this is good for us. we will make 15,000 more jobs up in washington, 15,000 more jobs in california because the tarrifs for--
example are 90%. so a nine dollar bottle of wine is sold in indonesia as $19. because indonesia said, wait a second. we have our own industry that we want to protect and these tarrif reductions adversely affects all these other countries. they are saying wait, we don't like this. we are trying to protect our own stuff. the thing is, this really regulates us in the right way. i am not saying there are not some benefits to this. my decision-making and my analysis of this agreement, based on the korean agreement and others that we have experience with, is that we are losing our manufacturing days in the united states. we can't run an economy on wine
and apples. you need to run an economy on manufacturing, where you manufacture a product and you send it up the street to get further manufactured, for another company to add value and they pass it to someone else to add value and you get to tier one, tier two, tier three suppliers that can put these component parts into a car or a windmill. if you don't have that manufacturing base, where for every dollar invested you get 56 -- five dollars, seven dollars --economic actor -- activity unlike -- in the service sector that you mentioned. when we look at these deals and we see the potential for 40% of the global economy participating in this deal, and when you look at the potential of losing more manufacturing to malaysia, to
japan, to vietnam where their workers are making $.50, $.60 an hour, it is highly unlikely that we are going to have labor or environmental provisions that are going to be strong enough to really balance and out. in many of these countries you cannot even organize a union to try to allow them to be able to lift up their wages. this is not about wine and apples. this is about you brooding the manufacturing base here in the united states, and i will tell you there are a lot more communities like cleveland and actin and youngstown, ohio, that struggle to try to make -- to business software incubators, or additive manufacturing, that is very difficult when you lose factories with thousands of people. is why we have economic anxiety in the country. this is why every election from
2000 -- 2004, 2008, have all been about economics. we have lost our manufacturing base and until we get it back we are going to continue to talk about the erosion of the middle class. we are going to continue to hear about trade deficits like what happened in korea, where our trade deficit doubled after the agreement. that is not a good way to do business. ohio we will go to akron, actually, kerry joining us. good morning. caller: good morning. i called in on these trade agreements. they should call them what they .eally are all they are doing is forcing our jobs to keep foreign labor. i worked at a large structural steel plant in accra -- acheron -- akron. we stayed employed right around 200 people. and modernizedd
like ford and gm and chrysler, and as soon as they passed those , within about six or seven months, the jobs started shutting down. there was not very much to bet to and they were gearing up shift all their production overseas. a lot of the people that were involved had probably 20, 30 years with the company. when they sat down -- shut down their operation a lot of them struggled after that. most of them were in their 50's,
mid-50's. host: congressman, is that a familiar story? guest: all too often you hear it. i have been in congress for 13 years and this is our daily life. if you talk to my district staff , this is every day. we want to make sure that at least a portion of the pension that these gentlemen and women -- that this gentleman talked about, lose because of the factory closing down, that happens all the time. that is the anxiety in america. an hour, $25g $20 an hour, you have a good income. you can go on vacation. you don't have to work so hard that you miss a baseball game, you miss a soccer match. those are the middle-class jobs. if i could just make one point that i think it's really
important, i think the president has a lot of leverage right now because there are a lot of interest in this country that want this trade deal. getre we get a trade deal, a transportation bill. for funded, robustly funded, so we can get americans back to work. so we can build the roads and bridges and ports, and by the steel and concrete. put a provision in there so american concrete and steel companies are able to benefit from this, and let's jack up our economy before we pass a trade deal. he is not going to have any more leverage, probably not the rest of his presidency. use this as an opportunity. i have going to be against this trade deal and i think a lot of people are. if you come to congress and you say ok, we know there is going to be displacement. i think the people who wrote the deal know there is going to be displacement.
they are talking about trade adjustment benefits, which means people are going to need retraining. there is an assumption in the agreement the jobs are going to be lost. that's assume that's the case. if you came to us and use of listen. we are going to have fully funded transportation. we are going to spend put billions more into research and develop it. we're going to create new industries in wind and solar. eight thousand component parts to a windmill. hundreds of tons of steel. hydraulics. gear shifts. motors. all kinds of component parts , that is fabricated manufacturing. at least come to us and say we have to do this trade deal. to invest ining transportation and infrastructure. we are going to invest in wind and solar so that we can create manufacturing jobs. we will invest in the research so we are always staying on top of the next field of the economy.
and until you do that you will continue to get calls like you just done -- did from a grant -- is aboutn that families losing their lives. it cripples the entire community. host: what about tying reauthorization of the export import bank to some kind of trade vote? goy democrats agreed to along with fast track because they were promised a vote on reauthorization? guest: you have some good ideas. it is a perfect example. host: would you still don't know? -- would you still vote no? you have a guy like me thinking about it. i'm not saying yes or no. but if you incentivize, at least show where we are going to start creating jobs -- we had general electric saying they wanted to move their corporate headquarters to cincinnati, ohio . and because of the opposition by governor kasich for the export
import bank they said we are not coming to ohio. and then they proceeded to move $500 million in investments to europe and about 500 jobs. research and development facilities that are not coming to ohio, are not coming to the midwest. they are going to europe as we have some hardheaded in the united states congress. those are the kind of things that you need to line up to say we are going to learn -- lose some, but here are the benefits. host: we go to cherokee village, greg is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: question or comment for the congressman. caller: this trade deal has to go away. i am 65, retired. the job market does not affect me. geti watched my own town absolutely slammed 20 years ago, 25 years ago by all of this.
move frompanies rockford to south carolina. now that company has moved to mexico because of the cheapness. you saw furniture injuries moved to china and malaysia because they could get things done cheaper. a bring it back and there is no protection whatsoever. we just say oh, you want to make it in china, bring it back. thenu're going to do it at them with a 300% tariff the port. make it hurt. keep the jobs in the country. guest: i think you need a strategy like that. listen, i am not naive. there will be certain manufacturing that will move offshore. there are going to be certain that we can't do, we don't want to do. it will go offshore to other
countries. that is not all bad. it would maybe help if there were labor and environmental standards that lift up those countries is eventually their wages get the point where we can really sell them the high-end manufacturing but we need -- but we need a strategy. we should have a strategy of how we become the world leader in high-end advanced manufacturing and additive manufacturing, where we do 3-d printers. , wes have a strategy to say are going to make the windmills. we are going to make the solar panels. we are going to make this component parts and we are going to export this highly processed manufacturing to others countries. the high-end technical stuff. that is what we should be doing here in the u.s., but you need a strategy. this is not being naive and just saying we are going to make little trinkets that we buy or the pens that we get, that is not the case. we need a strategy for high and manufacturing in the united
states. host: george and hudson, florida, independent. caller: good morning. i really have to agree with the one collar the just retired. seen ouryears i have economy just get tanked. i think the last good president we actually had with clinton, and i was a republican then. when george w got in, he tanked as in eight years. companiesn with the moving, i have seen a lot of small businesses go. the ripple effect is a big thing. people have no clue how many people have been destroyed. , inow once solid republicans used to tell them, you can't build houses for people who make $10 an hour. it just does not work. they don't talk jobs, they don't talk insurance. nobody seems to get it. i think this will pretty much
put the nail in the coffin. host: george, and congressmen, the new york times this morning , you have to trade deal as a check on china. it is beyond trade, it is actually about national security. do you see the benefit of that? guest: if we are not a strong , if we don't have a strong manufacturing base, that to me is the best way to try to best china. i think we're going to lose more manufacturing and that is going to further weaken us. if you add the component of the continual erosion of our industrial base, we are getting dangerously close to not being able to supply our own military. if we can't supply our own military, then we are in a very dangerous situation.
if we need to rely on other countries were key component or ouro our airplanes bombers, or whatever, that is a dangerous situation to be in. york,fred, auburn, new republican. caller: yes sir. i am very glad to hear you. you sound like a republican to me. city that has lost five or six factories, here are a few places for your kids to work. if they finish school, no matter .hat they go to school for i just don't understand how the management of this country has gone so bad. it seems like a has to be on purpose. i don't think it is going to get any better. nasa has not helped. -- nafta has not helped.
they make dodge trucks in mexico, but there are no mexicans buying gold trucks. how do they think they can keep depending uponng us buying products and we just sit here and go in debt another $1 trillion. is a huge economic issue and you see it. how many calls to me to get about this gentleman's town? five factors. , can list off in my district the factories over the last 20 or 30 years that have closed down. i recognize that globalization is here to stay, but we need a plan for what is next. that is the anxiety that the american people are feeling. they don't know what they are going to do. buy a house, have a car, send your kids to college. yes we need help grants and pellr tuition rates --
grants and lower tuition rates. of course you need all that. we need an economic plan in the united states that is going to create manufacturing jobs here so that all of his kids and grandkids can then go. my grandfather was a steel worker. he made enough money to be able to help my mom and my aunt further their education. my aunt has a phd. then their kids, one is a congressman, my brother is an attorney. their cousin is a doctor, the other one is a lawyer. that is the generational evolution of manufacturing and how you can evolve and grow your family and improve your life. host: you want to hear what is next. are you getting that vision from any of the democrats running in 2016? guest: i think hillary clinton
is talking about it. obviously you have to really listen because the national media is talking about everything else but that. you have a committee that has spent $4.5 million of public money to try to destroy her, which i think really needs to be investigated. that to me seems like a major contribution to the republican national committee. i think there really needs to be an investigation. but i think hillary is talking about wind and solar. i heard her talk in iowa, 30% of their entered the -- energy comes from an herbal sources. it is how you get manufacturing back. i am excited to think about what she could do it she gets in. host: on that i got the committee, what are democrats -- on the benghazi committee, what are democrats planning? guest: i think there should be an investigation, whether it is through ethics or the u.s. attorney.
you had a leader in the republican conference say we basically started this committee to damage hillary clinton, who is not a public official. she is out of public office. tell all ofidates these people, this is their tax dollars. this is public tax money being spent to bring down a candidate who is not in the house or the senate, not a cabinet official. pelosi has called for disbanding the committee, which i think would be appropriate, and i think you'll be hearing more people say what i just said, there needs to be an investigation. host: i also have to ask you about the deadline. it was on breitbart. congress's crunchy is to flake -- crunchy is -- cr
unchiest flake. is the act ofness being in the present moment. you really begin to train your mind to be in the present moment and still so much get drawn into the past or in the future. always worried about past or future, regretting about the past. the practice of mindfulness begins to give you the mental discipline to really be in the present moment. you see google, target, a lot of corporations are doing it now. the seattle seahawks which have had a pretty good few years have had a mindfulness-based training practice that they had implanted . they did it with the chicago bulls for years. it is something that is really growing and i think can help our students focus and concentrate. relax, reduce your stress. i think and health care it can
be used as a real antidote to the daily stressors. we know stress is a huge killer for us in the united states. to manageteach people their stress, if we can teach kids how to self regulate which is a key indicator for success, we should be teaching this to our kids. host: what is the real food revolution? we subsidize a lot of crops in the united states that lead to very highly processed food. i think we need to start growing out the fresh food, local food movement here in the united states. how do we begin to encourage be able to grow local, fresh, whole foods? we need to move away from the processed foods in the next few years. we will have half the country that will either have diabetes or prediabetes. you can be a democrat or a republican.
we will never balance the federal budget is half the country has diabetes. medicare down. medicaid will sink. no question about it. will not berers able to take the demand of the sickness that is coming in. a lot of this is coming from our highly processed food. we have to admit that. if we want to affect the cost in the long term and have money to invest in wind and solar we have got to spend the cost on health care. medicaid and medicare make up about 40% of the federal budget. that money can be saved just through some pretty civil stuff. schoolsfeed our kids in is another issue. reduce that deficit and put the money and research development. host: we could do a whole mother program on that. thank you congressman. guest: great to be with you. host: when we come back we will talk to congressman dennis ross, republican of florida.
he is running for the third spot on the republican leadership team. and then later, our spotlight with ae series continues former infantry officer in the british army who did three tours in afghanistan. he wonders if the recent taliban surge is the beginning of the end in afghanistan. we will talk about all that when we come back. newext monday on c-span's series, landmark cases, in 1830 dread scott was in slaved to a u.s. army sergeant. during his enlistment in the army he was assigned to duties in several free states.
during which he married and when the doctor died mr. scott tried to buy his family's freedom but the widow refused and he sued. follow the case of scott versus stanford in c-span's new series, "landmark cases." exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by revealing the life and times of the people who were the plaintiffs, lawyers, and justices in these cases. they come alive at night about p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. for background on each case order your copy of landmark cases path companion book. pointavailable for eight -- a dollars $.95. this sunday night onto a day, former senator and presidential candidate gary hart on his new book, "the republic of conscience." the founders of the ancient
republic, greece and rome, and warned against corruption. their definition of corruption was not bribery or quid pro quo, money under the table. it was putting special interests ahead of the common good. , washingtonnition is a massively corrupt lace. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span today. i think every first lady should do something in this position to help the things she cares about. i just think that everything in the white house should be the best, the entertainment that is given here. i think it is best in a world where there is quite enough to divide people that we should
emotion that unites us all. wasacqueline kennedy defined as a political spouse, young mother, fashion icon, and advocate for the art. it was ultimately the tragic images of president kennedy's assassination and funeral that cemented her in the public mind. this sundayennedy, night at it about eastern on c-span original series, first ladies, influence and image. examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. from martha washington to michelle obama. sunday at 8 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with congressman dennis ross, republican from florida. whip andenior deputy
you want to become the with counter -- whip counter, why? guest: when i came in 2010 there was a lot of promise. facing us in cr the first couple of months and we did something that had not been done in decades. that was to have an open role on the cr. we did over 600 and amendment. within a couple of days there was a manager's amendment that which it all out. so for 4.5 years i have been up having to explain to my constituency why we do nothing. when the speaker announced his resignation two weeks ago, i felt this was my time. i have been engaged in the process but if i'm going to make a difference and do what i think needs to be done to rebuild a strong sense of trust in congress than i need to get off the bench and become active. said, weve done is i first of all need to have a
contract of congress. we need to use regular order. regular order does what the members say they are going to do. it goes through subcommittees. if you have a bill that is supported by the majority, why isn't it being her? a bill with 200 cosponsors that never sees the light of day. why is that? we are not using the process. we are having whatever the crisis of the day is that we have to address. i want to see us engage and empower members. calendar in use the order to have members have their bill brought up. because everything is so it is every member for themselves. it has created a very divisive conference and as a result we have a very divided congress. i am hopeful that if i have the opportunity that we can empower our members to build relationships. we have to know what is important.
was theingly enough, i first one to come out with any the of program to judge leadership by, and now the other candidates are doing this too. we should be held accountable for what we say we're going to do and we need to do everything we can. host: what is the job of the whip?- of the majority how would you do differently? guest: i don't know if i would do it that much differently, the job is to count votes. i would do is build strong relationships and say look, if we are going to do this bill we know on december 30 we run out of funding. we are going to start at the end of august 20 come back with a continuing resolution and get that moving through committee. i don't think that every bill is meant to pass. but every good bill should have a day to be heard. has to be out there to
make sure the majority supports that bill. host: i want to have you respond to jason, the republican from utah who is challenging kevin mccarthy for the post of speaker. he was on fox news on sunday and here is what he had to say about everybody just moving up a slot. [video clip] >> i think the american public wants to see a change. they want a fresh start. there is a reason why we see this across the country. you don't just get an automatic promotion to the existing leadership team. i think they want a fresh face and a fresh new person who is actually there at the leadership table in the speaker's role. you have got to speak, you have to be able to articulate the republican message and take that fight to the president, but you also have to bridge internally. >> how do you explain?
you would bridge the internal conflicts better? >> he has been in leadership for years and years and the strife is getting worse, it is not getting better. what i'm trying to offer is, we need internal process reform. how we select the committee, who they are, i don't expect that every vote we bring to the floor we will win. , not less.ote more i want to the committees to be more empowered. i think that is what our broad membership wants. what: he is talking about i am talking about, and that is the process. any one of my colleagues, they are very good people. but the process is broken. the members feel that way. i have made over 240 phone calls and have talked to a lot of people. but if the process is broken then the product is broken. if the product is broken it is going to continue to perpetuate itself. this is a moment of opportunity, not only for the republican
congress before the congress itself. let's change the way we do business. i was born and raised in the 60's. we lived through the vietnam war. we were a divided nation but we still had a sense of trust in our leaders. today we may not be as divided but we are still divided and we have lost all that trust. the american people does not trust congress. congress does not trust itself. let's show the american people that we at least use the process given to us by our founding fathers to move legislative matters along. you agree with the congressman who said that those are in part -- part of existing leadership should jot -- should not just be moved up? guest: absolutely. host: kevin mccarthy should not be speaker than? guest: he has to earn it. have three good candidates running for speaker, but they need to articulate and they need to be held accountable with what their vision will produce or not produce.
whoever is the speaker is going to have a very difficult time bridging the gap. this is a very difficult time for the next leader. host: you are saying on the speakership raise that you are going to get a vote? guest: i am not sure. i have not thought it all out yet. we have in other conference today at noon. we are going to listen to the candidates. around.ing things move i want them to be held accountable. i don't think we have held our leadership accountable because we don't have anything to hold them accountable by. a bill produced by doctors who are members of the republican congress. they are supported by over 100 members of the republican congress and it has yet to come to the floor. are we afraid? are we afraid that we are we afraid that we're going to lose the majority? we are going to lose the majority. sometimes you have to put your principles at risk to move further down the road.
you have to make sure that you have the right legislative plan ahead of you, and you have to make sure that you might lose -- and you have to understand the you might lose some members. give us regular order, let us act. host: you want to be the official vote counter. how many votes you have? guest: we are still counting, we are still hoping. i did not have to jump that i have had early on. i am still a little bit of an underdog but i am working. my members are listening to and agreeing to what i am suggesting. again, we have got to have a plan in order to get to where we want to be and to hold our leaders are caught -- accountable. to some calls,et we go to mike first in monroe, georgia, a republican -- an independent. caller: hey there. that you haveing
the majority and everything, but you really don't. you have 50 members that do not want to vote would anybody. they wanted their way and that's it. you have 54 votes over there in the senate. if you think any of those senate democrats are going to vote with republicans just because the house republicans wanted done, you are not. why should you risk what you have to try to get something done? you are going at this backwards. iam a son of the south and don't claim to be a real smart person, but you are foolish. i don't disagree with how we look, but i will tell you the important thing in any relationship is to build communication. i have been married my wife for many years and we don't agree
under the hood and i can tell you it looks as bad up here as it does to you down there. but all the more reason we have to be engaged, all the more reason we have to use communication with our members and agreed a process is important. host: carl in houston, texas, a democrat. you are on the air. caller: hello. thank you for c-span. i will make my, short -- my comment short. nexte to go to work in the couple of minutes and i am asked to work hard. i think we need to replace every republican and every democrat. for some reason everybody is getting up there and not doing anything for us. they all need to be replaced. host: we will take your point. guest: thank you, carl. this is what i am talking about.
people have a total distrust for congress and that is because we have not done anything. all we have done is manage crisis to crisis. that is not how you are in a family and it is not how you should run a government. if you want trust you have to give trust. do that needs to amongst themselves first so we have an opportunity to build trust with the american people. i am hopeful that we can change that. it will take some time. host: can you get anything done by sticking solely to your principles and not compromising with democrats? are you willing, if you become majority whip, to compromise with democrats? guest: the essence of politics is compromise. you don't have to compromise your principles. we all agree that we should be doing this through regular order. we can't control what the senate does.
we send it over to the senate, the best bill we can come up with is conservative it goes over to the senate and the senate sends it back. do we try to change it back? maybe we do a conference committee, or maybe it passes by the will of majority which includes democrats. what is wrong with that? this process was not created to be one-sided. it was created to have input from everybody, including the minority. what we have to do is move this legislation. yes, sometimes we are going to whip a bill that will pass by more democrats than republicans, like we did last week. we need to avoid those opportunities that don't allow the process to work. dan: we go to dance next -- next in winter park, florida, and democrat. caller: i believe the has to -- needs to be dumped.
you need to take into account of the housevotes and not just the majority of republicans. there are a lot of bills on gun safety and different things that would pass, including things like roads and immigration, all kinds of things would pass if it would be brought up to the whole and not have this stupid rulerements, this hastert that says the only thing i can pass is that the majority of republicans agree on it. need to change that. if the majority of the minority wanted to be heard, it should be heard. but the majority of congress should be involved in the process. when we have the democrats controlling congress they used closed rules more than we did.
we still use closed rules today. but you are absolutely right. if we are going to have the process work, sometimes we have to do this. we have to allow people to participate regardless of the majority's will not to do it. nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. neither the republicans nor democrats. this process was intended to work at subcommittee level to bring it up to the committee and have the best product by the best minds that are interested in that particular bill, and then put it on the floor of the house or at the way we do it now is we take it from the top and say take it or leave it. that is not the way the process was intended to work. the republicans will be gathering behind closed doors, tomorrow, thursday, 8:00 a.m. to vote for speaker. takespeaker vote will place tomorrow, the other leadership votes will take place when? only: first of all, the
position available right now is speaker. we will actually meet at 8:00 tomorrow to have a conference. changes. be some rule there may be some changes were somewhat says if you're going to run you have to resign your committee. there may be a rule change that says if you do not support the nominee of the conference and you are going to be kept out of the conference if you do that on the floor of the house. this is going to be an exciting time, to see how rule changes take place. host: walk us through this. you meet at 8:00, what happens then? guest: today we are doing a conference at 2:00 on rules. at 8:00 we are going to listen to the candidates before the conference. at 12:30 we will meet and then we may take up emotions to suspend the rules and change the rules. then we will get into election for speaker. until such time as the speaker
is actually confirmed on the floor of the house on october 29, there are no other leadership openings. i am running for a seat that may be moved in three -- that maybe .oot in three weeks but i think it is important that i am engaged. kevin mccarthy, who is poised to become the next speaker, looks like he has enough votes. he is tweeting this out just recently, i appreciate the kind words of support from my friend, the former speaker newt gingrich. he had said in a tweet that kevin mccarthy is far and away the best person to be speaker. putting outton just an ad yesterday, using his words against him. should his comments disqualify him to be speaker for the party? guest: we all make mistakes, and i think it is how you handle those mistakes that show the essence of your true character.
apologizing, trying to make sure that this will never happen again, we will see how the membership accepts that. this is a deep cuts and there are a lot of members were saying this is as is as usual, we cannot have this. it is a challenge that he will have to overcome. we will see how that goes. but even more important, it is going to be what happens on the 29th and we have three weeks to go. we are going to go home then we have two more weeks. the people back home are going to be engaged, and they will say, don't vote for speaker mccarthy. we will get a lot of pressure from back home. what keeps 70 from losing 218 votes -- what keeps somebody from losing 208 votes? host: patrick from brooklyn, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks god for c-span.
the party that came and went president obama got that what they are going after with mrs. clinton was they told the truth. why cannot they be honest with the people let it fall were they may? themu continue to lie to and when they tell the truth they should roll that back, take it back, it is not being honest with the people. what is your opinion about telling the truth to the people that they would have an honest way of voting one way or the other? i will listen to your answer off the line. guest: honesty is by far the best policy. what a tangled web we weave. case, a dearcular friend and a lawyer by trade who
is a committees prosecutor, he did not going to this for political reasons. he told the speaker no one will use this for political reasons. this is his job. what happened last week is unfortunate. if not only the committee, the republican party, and him and a suspect light. he is my good, dear friend and a great prosecutor. this is something the american public needs to find the basis of. what happened in benghazi. somebody needs to come forward and say this is not political. we have got to convince the american public that we are here to do there will. -- their will. we have to be honest and we have a process we have to follow. when we came here forward half years ago the new majority, we also had to deal with the senate under harry reid. they kept 250 bills that we passed held up. in the last year we've able --
we have been able to do compromising work. we got that through bipartisan support. that was compromised. we have shown evidence that we can do this. we need to build a do it on a larger scale and honesty is the most important element we can have at this time in order to show the american people we are sincere and will follow through with what we say we will do. host: burtonsville, maryland. independent. caller: i want to know why we cannot cut to the chase and why the process is so dragged out and people will not tell the truth. they talk around the issues. -- confront obama and they will not do it. this is got to change. how are we going to do it? calling the congressman and writing does not do it. guest: this is the result of a field process.
let me tell you why. when i was first elected i said i wanted to do this and tax reform, nothing was ever done. i had to fend for myself back on with my constituency. i filed the tax reform bill. i filed an immigration bill. i did it on my own because then you might leadership would not do it at all. until we have the chutzpah and our leadership to hear the issues and go to process these issues, lest you border security. why have we not? a first start? a strong border security bill. why don't we have a replacement health care bill? why don't we have a tax reform bill? even the smallest value, we can do a tax reform bill. we postponed. you have every reason to have discontent. this process over 240 years has worked. we have been given some challenging speedboats right now. the process will work if we allowed to vote -- work. host: you will retain your post
in the leadership right now, the one you have. will you support the idea of compromising with democrats on tax reform by agreeing to an infrastructure package? would you agree to putting transpacific partnership on the floor and possibly given the president a victory on that? guest: i think we can give you make and people on the transfer -- transpacific partnership if we do it the right way. lot ofa partner with a countries out there. the american people are not our own customers. their customers across the world. china has more trade agreements than we do. we're doing a disservice to our own resources if we don't engage globally in the trade partnership. i would definitely have to bring that up. things talk about other the problem is we don't hear yet aside. we do it at the last minute. we do it moment of government funding will run out or we will
have a debt ceiling. this is the big package but this will take care of it. we are in a crisis situation. we need to start this stuff early. the tax plan we can do could be done with an infrastructure stimulus. look at the repatriation of profits overseas by u.s. companies. yearly $3 trillion of u.s. profits said overseas because we have such a high tax rate at 35%. let's use that money. let's lower the tax rate to bring that $3 trillion over here and will have an influx not only in u.s. treasury they can be used for stimulus of infrastructure and other essential government functions, but stimulus of the economy by bringing the remainder of money over here for reinvestment in factories, employees, fiscal plans. that's what we need to do. that can be bipartisan. andpe senator schumer representative ryan are working on such a package. host: henry from michigan? caller: good morning. voter i seeed
things in this way. know if at to republican is line, watches lips move. -- lying, watches lips move. i've witnessed over the past seven years have republicans have denigrated our president, how you shut our government down trying to get -- talk about process. what about governing? what about putting those into play that both sides can agree to and have common ground? you can't pass ideological tenets in a bill where we are trying to governing get people jobs, get people education. treason is not what this country needs and our government. host: i will have the congressman respond. guest: you are talking about process, exactly what i'm talking about.
there is no one-sided way to government. the government requires both sides being engaged in the process. there is a majority and minority. that is how the system works. processt -- had equal that access to the progress. republicans have done it their way and i was the only way, look, that may be true. but i think we need to open that up. i think all were elected to represent constituencies and have days to be heard with their issues. the only way you do that is through process. when you are green with with me is that we have not had process over the last several years, including under democrats. let's open it up to the process. that's the way we expected to happen. that's what my constituents want to see in the american public wants to see. guest: how many votes as kevin mccarthy have her speaker? guest: i don't know. i think it is dwindled since last thursday. host: have you heard that when you make your phone calls?
guest: yes i have. i don't know how it will play out. host: how good it play out? explain that to the viewers when this book takes place. what number does he need? guest: 218 on the floor the house. he only needs one of your 23 tomorrow to be nominated as the republican speaker nominee. januaryissue this last only reorganized congress is what happened on the floor. members vote publicly. they voice vote. there is a strong push from conservative groups is a this is the person you need a vote for regardless of the nominee. this will be a rather tenuous three weeks whoever the nominee is from tomorrow's conference to see if they get the votes on october 29. host: let's talk about possible rule changes. guest: the rules really do protect the income of leadership because you don't have to resign.
there will probably be a motion tomorrow but number of congress to amend the rules to say if you're going to run and you are chairman of a committee or in a leadership position, you have to resign to run. we will see how that plays out. there may also be a real change proposed this is if you don't support the nominee of the conference on the floor the house, you will be ostracized or removed from the conference and your committee assignments may be taken away. host: why would they put that on the floor given the discontent? guest: i think that is when you start having a firefight and i hope we don't get there. we have to resolve our differences. we've got to understand where the party where we are elected to do good and govern. we will not do that if we continue to have this infighting. one side will say you have me once, i will hit you back. we've got to come together. if you want trust, you have to give trust. host: good that backfire on kevin mccarthy, putting forth that will change? guest: it could backfire on whomever proposes that.
let's say you have got 30 people. 30 members emboldened and don't want to vote for ever the nominee is and they block together. what happens? the person that was nominated will not get elected unless these guys break. if he goes to a second or third ballot they will become more emboldened. then were army? i don't want to see that happen. we should not see that happen. we should resolve this amongst ourselves. we will have another election next november. both are members of congress and for leadership. what we need is the transition. we have got to show the american people -- host: and the president. guest: yes. the only way you govern is through an inclusive process and that's what i want to see happen. host: corpus christi texas? caller: good morning. i wish c-span would allow mr. roster have a dry erase at his
disposal so he could expect the majority of the majority. i'm picking up my brain off the floor. [laughter] caller: about the effect on the speaker. one of the reasons -- host: i think we just lost, a technical glitch. we lost everyone who was in line. you are welcome to call back again . apologies to them. explain the argument you been making. guest: the majority of the majority? host: when you're making these phone calls, pitching your fellow colleagues to make you the next majority whip, what are you saying? host: i introduced myself and i say if the opening presents itself, because it has not yet. i will be running for majority
whip because i believe it is time we show we're not only inclusive, but we have a process by which we get things done. that means every member has a chance to get something done. if you have a bill that is important to you because it is needed back home, it should be heard. if you have a bill for yet more the majority republican to have cosponsored it, that still need to go to committee. we have made our appropriate years so irrelevant by doing these on the this package is. we have got -- on the bus packages.- ominubus you will a contempt for colleagues in the institution as a whole. host: how can you do that without anarchy? don't you need a summative order? guest: their roles in the speaker is to recognize that. the speaker controls the process. the leader controls the agenda. if they work together well the process will be open enough so that everyone is included if the leader make sure that the agenda is not one-sided.
one good thing about ronald reagan and to o'neill -- tip o'neill. they came together because they knew each other had something they needed to take back home. the american people want to have that. i don't just represent republicans, i represent everybody and they want to see something done. my time here maybe fleeting but i will not sit on the sidelines and watch it just happen the way cap and which is why i am engaged in this process. host: elected to his third term. represents the 15th district of florida. summerfield, north carolina. mark, republican? caller: hello. i have two questions. -- who is hewho supporting for speaker? guest: because of my involvement in my campaign i will not get involved in taking a speaker at this time. i will wait until things progress of the conference and and vote tomorrow.
one thing about running for an additional leadership position is that you about to make sure you don't alienate those you will need to have on your side. the path and items out of respect for those three men that are running for speaker not to take a public position on it. host: mark, are you still there? caller: that doesn't make any sense. you have a vote in the caucus tomorrow. who are you going to support? host: i have not decided. host: when are you going to decide? guest: probably in the caucus tomorrow. host: you will here today from each of us running from the speakership? part of the republican study committee? how many members in the study committee? host: i would say probably 175. it should be a good turnout today. host: 2:00? guest: 12:30. host: jackson, tennessee? caller: how are you this morning?
i have a couple of things i want to discuss with representative ross. it is so old hearing the republicans talk about the high corporate tax rate when everybody knows that the effective tax rate for these corporations is somewhere around 18%. a lot of them don't pay any thing, especially the bigger ones. people of the american approve of raising the minimum wage. why have not republicans brought that for a houseboat? -- house vote? guest: if it were true that all we do is pay an effective rate of 18% white and we have the repatriation of foreign profits? that is a sizable number that he was to say, despite the games that are played the tax structure, a sizable number that could be used to help grow this economy and could be used to help u.s. treasury do it. i take issue with the effect of
18%. i know we have the highest tax rate of any industrialized nation out there. 73%?y, what do we do with those that are affected by the minimum wage and lose their job? a rising tide raises all boats. what we need to do is grow the economy. 2% growth is anemic. i want to see people make more than minimum wage. i went to see them grow into a job in occupation that gives them the opportunity to have a limited wage earning capacity. once the government mandates wages you will have winners and losers. if we have a growing economy, if for able have businesses start, people invest, see the gdp grew up to 4%. everybody benefits and that's what i want to see happen. that is what government needs to do. allow larger reviewers -- entre maneuvers to excel in occupations.
host: bill in washington state? caller: good morning. i have got something here. host: i apologize for that. kino? caller: good morning. praise be for c-span. host: winter comment? caller: one issue that republicans can work on next year in congress is to fix obamacare. the economist magazine a symptom or 20, 2014 has excellent suggestions about conservative principles that can fix obamacare, not get rid of it. a lot of people have benefited. let me encourage you with one issue. i expect he will become a leader in congress. let's fix obamacare. as a republican, let's narrow the field of presidential candidates down the governors who have proven experience. you support jeff and i support john kasich but all the people
that don't have experience needed he pushed aside to have people with confidence demonstrated in proven and tested. would you agree that we should narrow it down to the governors? and will you agree to fix obamacare? guest: thank you. i will make every commitment. i filed a bill to try to fix obamacare. i believe the health care initiative will never go away and try to repeal it is not the answer. we have to be the party that is for something. went to put forward an alternative to health care and make a commitment to do that. i would make a commitment to do my best to have an alternative plan in 90 days of the elected to leadership. the other issue with regard to the presidential candidates, i'm a person that believes in process. once the primaries go up and get underway at the first of the year you will see the field narrowed down. we are well over one year before the general election. the primaries start next year.
by march you will have a very narrow field. host: congressman dennis ross of florida, senior deputy majority whip, he wants to be majority whip for the republican party. we appreciate you talking to our viewers and exciting the process. host: we will take a short break. we will continue with our spotlight on the magazine series. we will be talking with a meal simpson who wrote a piece for "politico." we will talk to him about the situation there. that's right after this short break. ♪ >> i think every first lady should do something with a position to help the things she cares about. i think everything in the white house should be the best. the entertainment that is given here. the art is the same the world over and so is our feelings for
children. in the world good where it is enough to divide people that we should cherish the language of the emotion that unites us all. 1000cqueline kennedy's days as first lady where to find images has political spouse, young mother, fashion icon, and advocate for the arts. as television came of age, it was the traffic images of resident kennedy's assassination and funeral that cemented her in the public mind. jacqueline kennedy this sunday night at eight lucky in eastern on c-span original series "first lady's: influence and image." examining the public and private lives of the first ladies and their influence on the presidency. from martha washington to do michelle obama. that's on american history tv on c-span3. ♪ >> next monday on landmark
cases, in 1830 dread scott was inflamed -- enslaved to dr. john emerson. during his investment emerson was assigned to duty in several free states, during which dread scott married harriet robinson. when the doctor died he tried to buy his family's freedom on the later -- widow and she refused and he sued. follow the case of scott versus sanford in "landmark cases: historic supreme court decisions." exploring 12 historic supreme court rulings by examining the lives and times of the plaintiffs, lawyers, injustices in these cases. they, live at nine clock p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span3, and c-span radio. and for background on the cases will you watch order your copy of "lynn marquesas" campaign -- " landmark cases" companion book.
washington journal continues. host: we are continuing with the ongoing series, spotlight on magazine. a look at recent magazine articles. today, the peace and political magazine by emile simpson, is kunduz the beginning of the end for afghanistan? simpson joining this morning from cambridge and harvard where he is a history and policy fellow. do you have an answer to the question in your headline? you for having me on your show today. is question raised by kunduz whether the u.s. posture in afghanistan is enough to stop the taliban moving from a guerrilla style posture to a conventional posture. the taliban took the city. the afghan forces every taken it
but they are still reports of fighting in the city. kunduz is why taking a game changer is because it is a provincial capital. they taliban have not yet taken any provincial capitals. once they start, they can build momentum across the rest of afghanistan. and they can undermine the throughity of the u.s. air power and a small number of devices on the ground as opposed to stopping this kind of capturing a capital from happening. host: what does the fall of kunduz say about the nato and u.s. strategy in afghanistan? strategy and the u.s. strategy is to reduce the forces to u.s.-nato
around 1000 by the end of 2016. --embassy-citric force embassy-centric force. the question is if they do have a more flexible approach so that. the line which used in the -- by the commander in afghanistan at the center armed services committee yesterday was whether we should have a conditions-based approach or a timeline-based approach. the questions to him framed the debate in that way. that is the question of the heart of the issue. whether at this moment president obama needs to reconsider whether we should actually forcesn the 9800 u.s. and the total of 13,000 nato forces in the country, or greece -- at least reduce the rates at which they will pull back.
or else risk the taliban building up momentum and putting a lot of pressure on the government. host: the general telling to lawmakers he is given the president several options that wiki combat troops in the arena beyond 2016. we went to show the viewers what he had to say yesterday on capitol hill and tell us what you hear in his words. [video clip] 2014 was envisioned in may that we would transition to a normalized embassy presence by january 2017. that remains our planning assumption. since that time which is changed. we have seen the rise of is is, and increased al qaeda presence, and now we have strong partners in president gani and chief executive abdullah. i put forward recommendations to adjust this new environment while addressing our core missions giving train, advise,
assist. and conduct counterterrorism operations to protect the homeland. at the upsurge in a surgeon -- grown,rgent violence is the president is well aware of the tenuous security situation. and i also appreciate he is many other global issues to way as he -- weight as he considers my recommendations. i given my best military device based on assessment of conditions on the ground. weigh it against the risk to the force into the mission. host: your thoughts when you get a general described the situation of the ground in afghanistan? campbellthink general is under a huge a lot of pressure given the events of the multiple strike. he put it in objective, kong,
professional lang which -- language. the reality is that the situation in afghanistan right critical, not approaching it. not only did the taliban hit kunduz, they are hitting a ander of other districts capitals across north afghanistan and the southwest in the last week. they had a provincial capital in a province and another -- a number of other districts centers. what he is saying is that if the u.s. carries on on its current glide path, its current scale for withdrawing the troops by the end of 2016, he did not say exquisitely. he refused to be drawn on the point but it's implicit that much of afghanistan, certainly
in the southern provinces, and kunduz itself is a pushtun province, it would risk on to the taliban. there are certain areas where you should maintain a site the larger force than anticipated in the current plan. host: our guest is the author of this piece in "politico magazine." former integer the -- infantry officer. now a fellow in history and policy at the harvard-kennedy school of government and the international security program. this research is focused on armed conflict study and international law. here to take your questions about afghanistan. (202)icans can dial-in at 748-8001. democrats at (202) 748-8000.
independents at (202) 748-8002/ . we like to hear from afghanistan war vets and you can call at (202) 748-8003. if the president were to agree with general campbell and key combat forces on the ground -- keep combat forces on the ground, what would that do? if we maintain -- if the u.s. and nato maintain current levels and specifically allowed for air support to provide a backstop to afghan forces the risk being overrun in major urban areas, what it would do is create a stalemate whereby even if the various factions of the insurgency could hold much of the countryside in certain areas, they would not hold major
urban areas. this would lead to a basis for negotiation. at the moment there was not a stable basis for negotiation because the insurgency think they can get more than what is currently offered on the table. therefore, keeping troops on the ground would allow the afghan one, more chance to come to a fiscal agreement either with the insurgency are on the piecemeal basis in the provinces and with the tribal groups. it would give the afghan government more time to reform which it needs to do. i'm pessimistic about the current state of the afghan government. there is clearly a massive corruption going on. although the troops on the iraq, thelike in
afghan troops are fighting hard. they took 5000 casualties in the first half of this year. relative to our own casualties, it is significant. u.s. haves, including taken three and a half thousand -- 3500 from 2001 until today. that needs to be knowledge. they are fighting bravely. but that's the grunts on the ground. the higher command and the government are clearly dysfunctional. they have a new government now with president gani and abdullah. they need to move quickly to end that corruption, that dysfunction in the higher echelons of the afghan security forces. maintaining 10,000 or number near that of nato forces would hopefully allow
them to do. the other thing is if we pulled out to 1000, we risk the taliban taking over. probably not all of afghanistan but a significant chunk, especially with the element the general campbell mentioned coming in as well and offering century for terrorists. that's another reason to maintain forces there. it's a national security argument as opposed to the ability of the afghan state. host: nancy in nevada. republican. welcome to the conversation. caller:. thank you -- thank you. my question is what mccarthy said last week, was that the iuth or his opinion because saw them working hard to get to the bottom of this issue. host: you're talking about the
septemberin libya in 2012, what happened in benghazi which is at the heart of that special select committee that was set up by trey gowdy. we are talking about afghanistan. it was a topic that was debated yesterday on capitol hill before the senate armed services committee. -- hel john campbell the testified before lawmakers saying he has given more options to keep troops there. the president has to decide 86 to his plan of removing all combat troops by the end of 2016 or does he keep some sort of presence there beyond 2016. mile simpson writing recently in "politico." likeu leave afghanistan
the president has done in iraq, you'll see the rise of prices and it will be worse for the sis and ittes -- i will be worse for the president -- for the united states." guest: there is a military situation in the politics. there is a comparison to be made in the narrow military situation. if you don't have any troops on the ground, you have less leverage over the government. a kick of the problems we are seeing now. if youleverage, and two, gettingal forces overwhelmed and areas like mozul and iraq, the backstop stops happening. there is a comparison to afghanistan. it's a strictly military situation.
the broader point to do the politics is that afghanistan if this stage is fundamentally about the politics. the military situation can stop us losing, stop the taliban from taking over, but he cannot by itself win. the reason for the conflict are several things to do a tribal differences and ethnic differences. afghanistanties of are what people generally want to have/ a western nato backstop force. they are more progressive to use -- as opposed to the role as you've afghanistan where it is different picture. government needs to address all these different issues and ultimately built some
kind of political consensus. ideally that integrates some of the insurgencies. some of the insurgency concerns are outrageous, such as imposing sure a lot that sharia law. solvelitary force can't the political problems. there is no moment of political victory here. all the military the gas can do this deliver stability and hope with some leverage that the gani government can sort out its house and come to some kind of accommodation in the country. host: as lawmakers debate and urge the president to keep we turn tofghanistan
you this morning to get your comments and questions about the situation there. emile simpson is our guest. republican style and at (202) 748-8001. democrats at (202) 748-8000. independents at (202) 748-8002. everyone to hear from afghanistan war vets. (202) 748-8003. been in oakland? caller: thank you. i understand that the political situation has to be settled out. i'm wondering from your experience how the general decidingof the people between the taliban and the government? and the united states favorability? and with the general breakdown is in that way? guest: thank you. at the national level one can
obviously generalize. any generalization -- the general rule is that the urban areas across afghanistan, including any pushtun theynces like kandahar, support the government because on an ideological level they are more sympathetic to the kind of aspirations that the gani government is setting up. schools, hospitals, so one. this kind of narrative in the rural areas of southern and eastern afghanistan is substantially a different story. there is far less sympathy and support for the central government. in the north, center, and west afghanistan there is overwhelming support in the pool and urban areas for the
government. of course that is on the mind of local corrupt leaders. in kunduz you have a northern city that has an enormously high pushtun population that is experiencinging -- corruption from a local leader. that is a different set of vaccinations to the ethnic aspect. that is not to do with ideological positions. that has to do with people hating low-level corruption. is enoughle there support for the government to justify nato support to the government. it's not like were supporting the government which is built on the sand. we should be clear that in the rural areas of southern and
eastern afghanistan, that is rather has to be a political solution because there is not simply as much support for government there as in other areas of afghanistan. host: st. paul, minnesota. william? caller: good morning c-span. -- i'm going to get under case a little bit but i think we need to drop the democratic callers. i wish c-span would adopt a can of policy. -- that kind of policy. my question is on our mission going into afghanistan, i thought it was to get rid of al qaeda. we cannot go in there to get one of the taliban. we will not get rid of the taliban. the russians -- we won't get rid of the taliban. whether we have 30,000 or 2000. the afghans don't want to fight
the taliban. it's a no-win situation. let's begin with it and wrap it up and be done. host: we will take that point. guest: it's a legitimate question to ask why we are in afghanistan. the public has a right to essentially be challenging the reasons. now isition we are at not the same reasons as 2001. ended to thegely campaign. the problem now is that it is threefold. one, there is a real risk that the telegram and now this other faction of the telegram -- taliban which is basically a franchise who have merged in the
last few months are going to be able to take over quite a bit of afghanistan if we don't maintain the current levels or near enough there going beyond 2016. if we don't do that, they will provide an area for terrorists to base themselves. the actual nature has changed. yes, i do is not there any more there is a new -- al qaeda is not there anymore but there is new leadership. then there is this is threat. that national security argument for saying in afghanistan. the other argument which is to do with the stability of afghanistan itself
and commitment with me to the afghans -- commitments we have made to the afghans. they are after their own house. it will not be easy to say look, there is massive corruption. your state is dysfunctional. why are we bothering? there is a lot of legitimacy in that argument. there are a huge number of ordinary afghan people whose families will be killed if we leave. i knew guys from afghanistan. they were the interpreters we worked with. these are not high-level government guys, these are ordinary afghans we will be leaving at the mercy of these pretty ruthless islamic radical terrorists. i think that is a valid human reason for saying. host: irene, a democrat? i notice as you are
comparing afghanistan to iraq bush wanted to have the troops leave. that is why i wanted to find out if that would be a comparison because of the fact that this president has made his own agreements and i'm assuming he will listen to the commanders and the service to find out what was to go on this. host: mr. simpson? wast: yes, and iraq there the bush administration not renewing the forces agreement and the obama administration did not renegotiate the agreement. but that is what happened in iraq. it is different in afghanistan. the position here is that the government wants to stay. there is no expiration or legal
mandate for the nato-u.s. presence there. that's an area of difference to iraq. host: we are talking about the situation in afghanistan. shouldthink more troops stay or should the president stick to a timetable of the combat troops for the end of 2016? four afghanistan war veterans, (202) 748-8003. joe and ohio? caller: how are you this morning? host: good morning. i want to talk about our objectives, whether they are humanitarian or fits a disguise because they are unrealistic. prior to our involvement in the middle east there was a think tank in washington dc. project for you american century. the objectives they spelled out were true depots and replace
leaders in the mideast who do not agree with our objectives. that group was made up of dick ro, and rumsfeld, tot several others and they all ended up in the war department and we ended up in iraq and afghanistan. efforts oranitarian a militaristic effort because he wanted leadership that agrees with us in the middle east? host: with you think? -- what do you think? guest: i think at this stage of the campaign it is not a humanitarian or imperialistic. one can make an humanitarian argument. women's rights, democracy and someone. its moreioned i achievable in the cities in the rural areas. it's unlikely that the u.s.
public would support such a vast commitment for just those reasons given in blood and treasure that requires. the reason i think that it justifyof -- it does this is not a realistic vision of a free afghanistan. i don't think that will happen in the near future. the state is quite dysfunctional. the reason is very straightforward. what we can do by keeping our troops there is stop the state from falling apart and give the space for the gani government to at least reform enough to get support from the people who are currently alienated from the government through corruption and deal with the problems within the afghan security forces themselves. to allow them to take on the insurgency by themselves.
at the moment they are simply not ready for us to leave. that is clear. why do we went a stable afghan state? if they were not we would see something like northern iraq potentially where you have not just the taliban but this isis franchise which is just started in the last few months in eastern afghanistan. they would be taking over parts of the state and imposing these kind of regimes we've seen in iraq and syria. alternative of maintaining this afghan state which is not this democratic on a state is still better national security level. and for the afghan people themselves. having a kind of hard-line rule
coming in. host: when it comes to the deadly airstrike on that hospital in afghanistan. the rules of engagement are broken, what are the rules and what was broken by the united states? guest: this was an issue that came up in the council testimony yesterday. the rules of engagement were threefold. three reasons why u.s. forces to use force and pull in u.s. or nato air support. the first is to attack a high-value terrorist. the second is to support u.s. forces in self-defense. afghan port -- the third is to support afghan forces. the third one is planning the role in question because there are two issues. do you use it offense of late?
-- offensively? do you use it routinely? the idea would be it is only used exceptionally. said u.s. can disconnect from the fight gradually. applying those principles to the fighting to news -- fight in kunduz. it has not cannot in. whether the actual rules were broken, i don't know. if it was not a self-defense situation for either the u.s. or afghan forces, that straightaway removes the second rule that supporting afghan forces. you're asking if it can be used offensively? then there is simply the issue that it was a hospital. if u.s. forces knew it was a hospital, it's hard to see how they did not break the rules of
engagement. but i very much doubt that anyone would deliberately call in any kind of fire on a hospital. that would be fairly outrageous. host: doctors without borders are saying is a war crime. what would make it a war crime? again, i don't know the facts in detail. from what i have read i don't think it is a war crime. intent,rime requires subjective intent. you have to consciously want to commit the act. i find it highly unlikely in this case. there is the issue of whether given the jurisdiction for war crimes in the future on a technical level. the reality is this. there are rules of law and also
targets you cannot hit. unless there is very specific situations. the threshold for hitting a hospital is you can hardly ever had a hospital, even if it gives you a military advantage. i think that is something everyone would agree with even without the law. i think the language of war crimes is appropriate but it does not make the action any more palatable. host: patrick in north arlington, for -- new jersey. caller: mr. simpson, thank you for your service. i do have a comment in question. when i was in vietnam and i had the opportunity to speak to the indigenous people there, they do not like americans because it brought violence. before our presence they thought every thing was fine because they were able to live their
lives in a normal manner before the war occurred. that's one of the reasons we get plane for issues. the second issue is that they knew their hierarchy. i talked to one it and they said they know where the veiet kong kernel is, he walks around danang. can we apply this to afghanistan and can we take out the leaders, not the grounds of the foot soldiers? -- not the grunts with a foot soldiers -- for the foot soldiers? guest: thank you for your service. personally, i don't know for sure what exactly the intelligence the u.s. does or does not have in afghanistan right now so i can tell you any more. right think that you are to point out the fact that this kind of fight requires details,
local intelligence. not this -- not just of the military kind. it's not a simple to a fight between us and the afghanistan taliban. there are factions fighting each other internally as well. there are a lot of different elements.g and narco many of whom are not opposed to the government. they have their own reasons for fighting amongst each other. if we don't understand exactly who they are, we can rapidly inflate the scope of the insurgency. in the south lots of people called taliban are just narco factions who will not march on kabul anytime soon. they are completely different categories to the hard-core ideological taliban to do and to sharia kabul and impose
law. when you pull out through from the ground you don't have that kind of information. onlyr as your point about taking on the leadership of an insurgency, from what i understand that is the plan. the u.s. has a relatively defined mission in afghanistan is for us -- as far as training, advice, assist. it's not going out there expansively trying to disrupt the taliban. it's trying to hit the leadership. i think that is already approach. in order to have that approach you need to have the intelligence on the ground and , as wereure that we
pulling guys off the ground, that we have that ground field of what is going on. host: tony in georgia, republican? caller: good morning. how are you? guest: good, thank you. iraq in 2005 2n 2006. i think we should stay in afghanistan. every time there has been military action there. the people left and fell back into the same old hole and problem. i think if we go and engage in a country with conflict, we need to stay there. we have soldiers all over the world. the problem right now that i can see is that we don't stick to our promises. these people really need help.
the iraqis needed help. i think our commander-in-chief is just week -- weak. i wanted to ask you one thing about mr. putin. you think he will good afghanistan after they were with their in the 80's -- whipped there in the 1980's? guest: as far as the russians, when they were in afghanistan, the soviets to the specific, in force80's, their main left in 1988. to thended it over soviet version of the afghan army they train but it is a behind advisers and airpower. the were able to stop the mujahedin from taking over the most part. a big battle at jalalabad in the
tomer of 1989 and they tried -- they were broken up by soviet airpower. this allowed the government at time and makeuy various political deals and stay in power. when the funding from the soviet union collapsed in 1991 because the soviet union itself collapsed, the year later the regime itself collapsed. similarly in vietnam. there is a close correlation between the massive reduction in u.s. aid in 1974 and the fall of saigon a year later. towe don't maintain aid these governments, they will collapse. they might not collapse, in the
whole country but in large parts of it. then the question is simply why should we provide assistance to these governments are relatively dysfunctional and corrupt? the answer comes back to our own national security and the s inibility of seeing isi afghanistan. the question of putin sending his own troops afghanistan, i don't think he will. he's got a commitment in the ukraine right now and i don't see that happening in the near term. host: the house is about to gavel in any second. what you watching for the coming days? telegram has put -- taliban has put the government under pressure. they tried to -- not just in kunduz, they've been holding the
province for months now. without taking the capital itself. and they had done various plans and kandahar and then you have the isis branch during attacks in the east now. is the anniversary of the national unity government. commander, the new commander is asserting his leadership. he needs to consolidate himself all the various factions to unite under him. i don't see the taliban fading away. they will keep pressing on the afghan government and the coming weeks. host: more to watch. mr. simpson, we appreciate your time. we bring you to the house, live coverage here on c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] presentave