tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 1, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EST
the select intelligence committee, on the u.s. strategy for combating isis. 8:30, peter welch, chief deputy whip, here to talk about the house democrats' legislative agenda. ♪ usa today reports this morning that more special operations forces could head to syria. you can see that hearing on c-span3. of thell" reports that e-mails released from hillary clinton, 325 have information classified as confidential and one classified as secret. jameslahoma republican
lankford has released his report. in the first 45 minutes we will take a look at some of the findings but we also went to hear from you. if you had the ability to cut a government program, what program would you cut and why? for republicans, (202) 748-8001 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you are to share your thoughts on what government programs to cut on e-mail that is journal at c-span.org. the washington times takes a look at this report released yesterday from the oklahoma freshman republican james lankford. he writes that he replace senator tom coburn who for years was singling out 100 item spending 105 billion in spending and 800 billion and regulatory constraints on the economy that
he says the government should rethink. one of the things he found targeted the small and the big. of those programs the $5,000 national parks documentary on roger howell. social security's practice of social security benefits and unemployment benefits of the same person. there are other facts that he appeared on this program yesterday. talking about the release of that report and more about the findings. here's a bit from the interview yesterday. >> am of these are obvious -- obvious issues we face for a long time like the earned income tax credit. it is almost $18 billion in fraud for this year. year after year that is on the high list of some of something that we need to evaluate as a government. the death masterfile is another one of those. senator tom parker has laid out a bill saying why can't social
security administration share this information with other entities. we have millions hanging out there that though social security numbers are vulnerable to flaunt with individuals voting on those in getting jobs on this. and tax reports on this. that should be resolved and can be resolved. where losing billions in the process. some of my other favorites, the national park service did a study on what do doug's -- bugs do when you turn on a light in a rural place. every person in rural oklahoma can tell you what bugs to when you turn on a light in a dark place. some of these are common sense things. that was the senator yesterday. there is more in the report available from that released yesterday. if you are to make your thoughts known and your thoughts on if there were a government program you would cut and why, here is your chance to tell us.
independents 202 -- two in (202) 748-8002. we will hear first up from michael. he is a minnesota democrat line. go ahead. >> i suppose my question would be, the problem is education. one of the reasons i would say myself i am an educator and they work with young men and women in the community. and you would be astonished how many people can read, cannot write, don't know which way to turn. to see whato to me our country has evolved these young kids in.
>> why it limited the federal department and if you're going to do that what should replace that? caller: states. the states need to come in and mandate their own criteria. every but have to be on the same level to be able to function and be active citizens in this world. why don't we just take a step back at what is causing the problem by elevating all these fatcats spending all of this money. we have a referendum that has to go for a vote for a school bonding issue. six of the administrative over 40% of the school funding. it's the same thing at the top of the level.
everybody gets paid at the top notthe results are producing what the results should be. to meet we need to put the money back into the states where we can mandate our own programs. host: again, what government programs you would cut and why. meant for independents, 202 8002. bill is up next in florida, good morning bill. is, the moneyf it going to the entitlement programs go back into the economy. the have to add more, the fact that people cannot send money overseas offshore bank accounts. it's all here. hurtinghe really not
entitlements, you are helping. that's where a lot of jobs are created. could your spending money here. >> so what would you cut as far as government programs are concerned? >> i would add more programs to help people that need help. >> gary from arlington, tennessee, hello. you takingppreciate my call. i would cut the funding for the school system in chicago til these young blacks are given the get vouchers for school or whatever so they can help those kids get an education. whateverids have done and just like the poor little and toed down the alley kill that child beautiful child.
you don't see any preachers are anybody standing up for that child. and the reason they are getting killed is because they're not getting an education. until we change the democrats giving everything away, they will get free college. the free college go to the whites because the blacks cannot make the college. so let's try to help the black youth if we can. i thought -- stayed awake all night praying about that and it bothers me. cutting wasteful spending has reached a bipartisan effort. republican mark kirk and the democrat from west virginia announced the introduction of the government transformation act, a bill that would create an independent commission to target waste. it would provide actionable recommendations to enhance government effectiveness,
efficiency and credibility and government programs by eliminating outdated and underused programs like agencies that print documents found online. the bipartisan bill is a step toward reducing government waste and inefficiency. johnny from texas. independent line. programst is that the that aid for people that is the problem. you have waste in government contracts. that is one of the biggest. poor people are not the problem here. afterso you would go contracting first? caller: yeah. a lot of restructuring that needs to be done. say.is all i have to
postbank if you look at sen. lankford: report does highlight initiatives that he talked about. one is a $23 million gas nation that falls under the department of defense and a gas station in afghanistan. submitartment of dod can reports on all completed facilities. the facilities compared to the original justification and the report put out yesterday, you can find it online. not only does it deal with the department of defense issues but issues across the board. james, up next. sierra vista, arizona. >> how are you today? fine.i am go ahead. caller: in response to what i am seeing on tv, i would cut all the government agencies except the dod. epa, theo after the
irs, and the department of education. common core is not good for the nation and it needs to be turned over to the states. government agencies are too big too fastener out of control. >> specifically, why target the epa? caller: i have been reading an awful lot of things on the epa and i don't understand why they are buying military grade ammunition. i don't get that part of it. ago there wasars a bureau of land management issue. i don't know why they need to sit there and get all the things they are getting involved in, so i would start axing all of them. we to become physically responsible again and we need to quit regulating everything the way that it has been regulated. host: that is james from arizona on the republican line let's hear from jim in maryland.
cut wouldng i would be any support for the development of nuclear power. we will find out the hard way terrorists gang of open up on that plane with explosives and blasted into the containment structure of a nuclear power reactor. will kill millions of people. herbert. from ohio. democrats line. wages and cut benefits on the senators and congressmen in this country. host: what level? other: some of the manufacturers in this country.
he kept the days they will take up this year. two come in for an hour or they put it out and leave. i know that they have other things to do in their life but, they are getting paid a lot of money for the taxpayers in this country and they are not doing nothing but coming in, walking around saying i would like to open up this bill or start this bill and then they leave. that's were i would like to see it cut. is a lot of taxpayer money going up the door and they are sitting back like fatcats raking it in. you do that across the board? correct. might even take it into the states. >> if you're just joining us what government program would you cut and why. independent's (202) 748-8002 . the lead story today takes a
look at the efforts in syria on the fight against isis writing at the pentagon will continue deploying more special operations troops to fight islamic state if the pilot program in syria shows signs of progress, spending the initial force amount to break the seal on serving special operations forces in syria. they said the official was not authorized to speak publicly about planning and the pentagon will not comment on whether they have arrived in a syria. it isigger for spending the ability of more forces to take ground and isil and syria and hold it. is scheduled for 10:00 this morning which you can see on c-span3 which will be talked about policy in iraq and syria. hearing 10:00 today on c-span3 and you can find out more under website at
c-span.org. joe is an washington on the republican line. am a republican and we -- and talk about a lot that needs to be done, that it is to the point now where, we have played the role of constructionist, and the role of put this, and we have country in a dilemma of divisiveness. politicsbecause of the of the people, it's the politics of the politicians. thankuntry needs to president obama, because it took a black president to really uncover the heart. host: we're asking folks about programs they would cut. what would you cut? caller: i'm saying, to get to
that it really brings out the true feelings in our hearts and how we feel about it, no president has gone through this, not one as much as rigorously and venomous as this so i hope that whatever programs they cut it is the right cuts. host: so what would you cut? caller: i would cut nothing. i would try to minimize and renegotiate and try to get things to the point that it is doable and not wasteful. that it would be helpful as a benefit to the nation and not just special interest groups. the poor we will always have. it's part of nature and will always be there. so if you cut off the head you might as well throw the body away. host: tear from darius from new hampshire. caller: i would cut the tsa and
homeland security, two useless agencies. postbank why defund them useless? caller: the tsa? look at their record. everything gets through and homeland was supposed to be the fbi. we had all the information about and hetackers 28 times decided to ignore it for whatever reason. we don't need more security we need less security. >>'s you take the money and would not apply to national security interests? caller: what are our national security interests? i would apply to america and not the middle east. i think joe left us. we will try joe from baltimore. caller: good morning and thank
you cnn. definitelyould eliminated but control them. put some people on that her behavior. the irs, the epa and education. rules, they new have to submit them to the legislature for proper discussion and consideration. they should not be allowed to just imperial he issue regulations. be irs the taxation's should done in such that the irs reports on how much they receive so they can report to the reporters that they pay. trusteed to receive the
and the education should be to the state to locally see their needs. host: since you called right away? how did you come to target these agencies? caller: because they have a economicfect on the sustainability of the nation. host: los angeles, california. caller: irs 100%. we pay tax dollars and come up with a better system. host: ok. kevin on the line from los angeles talking about the irs. we will continue on your calls if you let us know what programs you would cut and why. for independent (202) 748-8002.
on this december 1 there are many days are not so many days before it is has to be made on transportation funding in the united states of america. here to join us to talk about is eugene bolero, transport topic from their congressional reporter, good morning. think you for having me on. talk a little bit about the timeframe that we have between now and when we have run out of funding for the federal highway projects. now,r: basically, right what we are looking at his everyone will be checking out house verification committee. they will unveil a final highway bill. we have an indication from the chairman bill shuster that the bill would come out today and that the bill would also have a five-year authorization.
congress is working on a tight deadline to get this final highway bill to the president's desk because current funding authorities expires friday, december 4. and schuster and other republican leaders and transportation policy makers are animate but they don't want to have another short of the highway fund operating under the short-term extension of that fund from 2009. host: you mentioned a five-year plan but the numbers before were six years, so why the change? caller: what i'm am hearing from several aides for the committee and grumbling on capitol hill, right now we don't have anything yet on the record from schuster and the other leaders but there have been some strong disagreements on how to take this bill so initially as he
said, the senate and the house had unveiled six-year bills ranging anywhere from 300 and 40 billion to 60 billion dollars worth of authorizations. a strong dispute on how to fund these bills because congress is not using the traditional way of how highway bills have been funded which is raising taxes so instead they have done what critics have called funding gimmicks which includes tapping into the strategic petroleum reserve and also, the latest plan which was produced by congress from texas. which would have included $3 billion of new highway programs. they will come from liquidating the federal reserve surplus. we are going to be looking to see how they will have these
programs and if they will have the petroleum reserve or using the federal reserve surplus and other funding strategies to pack this bill. the funding has been a big question. >> will any legislators put up resistance to this effect if passed by friday? caller: yes. objectedenators have to relying on the strategic petroleum reserve. and then the question of the federal reserve. we saw the congressman -- senator richard shelby of alabama defend that account. there is some pushback to be expected. not only schuster but his
counterpart in the senate, james said yesterday that they are very confident that this report will go through the house and is expected. if it comes out today the expectation is it will reach the house floor thursday and the house will send it to the senate on friday and by friday the senate will clear it for the president just in time to meet the deadline. >> that is eugene with the publication transport topic on the line to the congress and talking about highway funding. thank you for your time. in the pages of the new york times taking a look at the strategies against isis, michael board in writing at the next u.s. backed attack on isis saying in doing so the islamic state has developed a hyper style of combat the combined .urgical military tactics
bonds entrenches that would be familiar to students of world war i. those tactics are being put to the test in iraq. an estimated 400 fighters of the islamic state an additional reporters of squared off against 10,000 iraqi troops. they will build defenses and cover them with sniper and mortar fire and slow the american supported campaign. back to our calls for your calls to us on what government program you would cut and why, it's your from doc in baton rouge, louisiana. >> i agree somewhat with ted forumbout the democratic they had the other night with hillary and bernie. debate with the bolsheviks. giveaway everything.
gina these professors that work for free? host:.bank -- well if it's free college, somebody will pay for and it will be the taxpayers. as usual. the democrats will give away the store to stay in power and it is despicable, totally despicable. the very first department i would cut would probably be the irs. host: because why? -- er: host: tell us why you would cut the irs. i think he is gone. let's hear from denise.
eliminate are these subsidies. the oil subsidies as a running for at least 200 years. the highlso eliminate incomes of congress. see,ld also let's lobbyists from them getting money from telling congress what to do because congress is not doing their job. host: go back to the supreme court. why target them? caller: because they are not doing what they are supposed to do. they are political and if we , they will elect
another president as they did with president bush. it's not the poor people in the different programs, it is the programs helping the rich people stay rich. host: here is rosalynn in wilmington, delaware on the independent line. forer: i would cut funding prisons. we have too many people in prison in this country. i would cut the drug war, because pharmaceutical companies copy heroine and prescribe it as prescription drugs. i have seen people coming down from illicit drugs. i am not a druggie, and i do not associate with those people. funding forease jury trials in this country.
situation inurt the court forged an attorney's name sing a give up my right to trial by jury but luckily i caught the form and stopped it. it is horrible. i'm a social studies teacher, retired and cannot get a trial for freedom of speech. they were trying to deny me it. in the end they had to dismiss the case against him because i caught the fraud. the judicial system is broken in this country and we do need more funding for it. we need more mental health help in this country rather than more prisons. host: the color mentioned drugs and on the front page of "the wall street journal," there is a story that takes a look at u.s. truck prices comparing to those in other countries. g weiland writes that in norway and oil producer with much of
the world's richest economies is an expensive -- expensive place to live. is thing that is far cheaper prescription drugs. drug costs jug -- the system 1005 hundred $27 in the third quarter of 2015 while the u.s. program paid $3000. an injection of another drug us norway $463 which is 46% less than medicare. you can find that story this morning in the front page of the wall street journal. you can find it online as well. up next is david in essex, maryland. caller: hello there. i am on air? host: yes, go ahead. as drugi think as far
,ddiction and alcoholism goes they should not be checked in and out of hospitals for her five times. it is causing way -- costing way too much money. >> will hear from gary in sterling, virginia. >> thank you everyone. i would like to see them change the highway transportation so that they used satellite computers to design our transportation infrastructure. what we're getting now isn't working that is my comment. cut transportation funding or reduce it. >> we could cut it because i've got three interchanges between me and leesburg, 16 miles. and one of them was bid at 11.5 million and a that cussing 22
million the next one was under bid 123% and then the one it leesburg at seven and 15 you can check with the dog on these numbers i'm giving you. 165%. in otherd words it went from 25 million to 65 and three-quarter million dollars and traffic is backed up and set of a quarter-mile it is backed up a half-mile and it is also dangerous. three people have lost their lives on it in the last four years. the.he first 10 years, said it was one of the most accident prone interchanges in northern virginia. it is ridiculous. they are making mountains out of mole hills, time and again. host: the washington journal takes a look at the
president of united states and climate talks and highlights some of the side bar meetings he has had while in paris. the sideline talks including a meeting between the president and vladimir putin. of civil war and peace efforts between the ukraine in the western supported government and the moscow backed rebels he also kicked off his day in paris by meeting with the chinese president hailing their mutual work on climate change but urging greater chinese cooperation and cybercrime and airtime issues that includes china's military construction on the chinese see it also talked about a meeting with the indian prime mr. whose government has been pressing for more financing and technology transfer. u.s. officials expressed frustration that he had not play should do more to avoid sharp increases of coal-fired electricity generation and the indians who lack electricity and helps to make progress in the coming days. david is up next.
in essex maryland. callerst hear summit talking about cutting things and i wonder how many of them in their own personal finances -- somebody people complain about their status economically but have a $200 cable bill and cell phones. some of them with huge plans. some of them have cars and things. it seems like the american government is basically run just like the american consumer witches spend overspend in their personal budget, have no budget like the government does all these things. >> when it comes to programs anything that you would cut. i think you have to look entitlements. they are the largest portion of medicaid, medicare and social security. it's almost 60% of our budget.
you can argue that these programs are growing they say by 2030 those programs will be 90% of our budget. those programs and interest payments. ron, you are up next asking folks about the programs we cut and why. >> i have been listening to all the colors and i've kind of thought about it. the thing about it is there is no accountability in government. just like anyone else, if you have a job and to do not produce, you should be fired. one of the things i think we should do is those who are ahead of these agencies, if they fail to come in on a budget or overspend the should be fired and those under them should be held accountable. be held accountable then maybe we can have better checks and balances.
sometimes they need to go through budgets and pull out some of the unnecessary things. it's not about cutting it's .bout watching how you spend a lot of them are not being held accountable for overspending. if they can get fired and replaced and held accountable for their actions, even senators and congressmen, but the heads of these departments we can't do anything about. host: clayton in blacksburg, virginia. caller: i believe we ought to take out all the departments of the government. we ought to take out all the departments of the government that are not constitutional, and return all of these duties back to the states. for instance, the education, the irs. everything but the feds and the state ought to go. postbank -- host: what you think
the states can do a better job at it? caller: they are closer to the people. we do not need people on the west -- people need -- we don't need epa telling people on the west coast how to take care of their water. they know how to take care of it. host: this report talking but some of the money spent by governments across the world on this effort saying it's a figure they come up with $12 billion is the amount of money needed to research a ratification since 2000 eight has increased nearly fourfold as governments and nonprofits have united to eradicate it. since 2000, nearly 8 million age-related steps have been averted. to end the disease funding must reach $32 billion a year by 2020. without further assistance to you when program has projected that the epidemic could once again be on the rise. richard in lake placid, florida. thank you for holding on.
get ridwould definitely of the federal reserve. the federal reserve is a private banking system a global private banking system that was implemented in 1913 and is probably the first act they did was the income tax will stop income tax on salaries and incomes coming in for people who 20% tod only pays about 18% of the annual budget. so they can exit he made up with sales tax or another form of tax in fact the founding fathers talked about income tax being better off left with the people and it would help the economy better. another one would be the department of education. education should be left to the states like the previous color mentioned. the state knows and the local
people know what type of education they need where they are coming from with the bureau of agriculture, compared to maybe the industrial area of automobiles on the east coast. it depends where you are and what part of the country or what type of education would be available. should be dumped. all they are is an enforcement agency that works outside of the law and the constitution. and we can see even how president obama used the irs to enforce his health care plan. the irs needs to go. some smaller agencies like the -- nobody knows what they do, i do think the president knows what they do. we would be better off without them. host: richard in florida, thank
you for the call. hasfederal reserve rules it passed what it can do for lending money in emergency situations saying the authority to provide emergency loans to financial institutions will be following criticism from lawmakers who said the power updatede reined in. rules on emergency lending, a practice that sparked controversy during the panic of the last financial crisis used to help institutions short of liquidity introduced restrictions to prevent the bailout of struggling entities but some lawmakers said the implementation defied the law and the revised rule from yesterday saw to address some of the concerns by sating -- stating that any future crisis lending program would need to serve at least five institutions. rob in texas on the independent line. something are turning like 40% of our corn into ethanol.
it takes more corn -- more energy and carbon dioxide to produce the energy that it saves. should abolish that and worry about tens of millions of people dying now with hunger, rather than what is happening 100 years from now. , the heat to make the panels, youst solar never get that back and the aluminum frames take a lot of electricity. the chemical engineering student who called in a couple days ago was right. it is commonly known. the billionaires in silicon valley and china push their agenda to sell very expensive electricity. also have a problem that hispanics are being killed in great numbers by illegal aliens.
this is what the crime database has almost twice as many of them since 9/11 that have been killed by a legal aliens because the border is enclosed. some money should be put on that to protect them. and: he mentioned ethanol the u.s. yesterday changing some of its policies when it comes to ethanol use. chris mooney writing in the washington post says that on monday i set a goal for 18 billion gallons of renewable fuel. they suggested in june but far less than the 22.25 billion gallons anticipated for next and the agency said it formula to this policy based on six over 70,000 comments from the public. but the move appeals -- appears likely to quell disputes about the renewable fuel standard inated in 2005 and expanded 2007.
several factors have made the standard ethical to implement. it decreases demand for all fuels in which biofuel can be blended into is somewhat smaller than expected even as total amounts are supposed to grow progressively larger. the off story talks but u.s. equipment heading out to the ukraine there. thomas gibson writing that the united states and livered more the $260 million and nonlethal military equipment to help the government of ukraine to fight back against russian insurgency but to protect ukrainian forces is a little more than junk. three of them had plastic doors and windows it provided barely any action. the result of sitting in a warehouse too long in a separate infantry unit of approximately 120 members with a single bullet-proof vest u.s. troops
stopped using it in combat during the mid to thousands. we have two guests joining us this morning. we will be joined first by the utah republican, a member of the intelligence committee. he will talk about the u.s. strategy to combat isis in syria at home and later on we'll hear from peter welch from vermont. in the agenda for the rest of the year including the upcoming financial deadlines in the latest on the fight against isis. our landmark cases program which takes a look at significant cases, last night versusd the 19 621 case the state of ohio or the supreme court ruled that evidence gathered without a legal search warrant is inadmissible in a state court trial. rene hutchens telling the story of the police illegally entering the home. >> when we talked about what
happened it ended up being a little bit sterile and a little bit removed. probably what it would've been is a very scary experience for a single mother at home in a house that is being laid siege upon by police officers. when they come they do yell up very politely, we need to come in, she says why? but they don't tell her and that then they do go away. they laid around her house. she couldn't leave her exit at all. a lawyer shows up and they don't let the lawyer in the house. as she comes down the hairs the police are breaking in her back door and when you think about what kind of an experience that must've been for this woman and the bureau of the police force for policingorious very aggressively members of the
black community. they routinely go into homes without warrants and routinely engaged in behavior that violated the fourth amendment with regard to the urban population in cleveland as well as shaker heights. >> if you want more on this case as part of our landmark case series, you can go to our website. you can see this program in previous programs and find out more information about these cases at c-span.org. our first guest of the morning is represented of chris stewart republican from utah and a member of the senate utah and ae member of the senate intelligence committee. to start off with isis, do you believe it is a threat to the homeland? guest: absolutely. some people view it as much less of a threat than others, but look at what they have done and what they pledged to do and the capabilities that demonstrated how could we not say it would be a potential threat to our
country. caller: -- host: because the committee clearly learns more than we will, what information do you get on their activities and what can you share the public? fun to talkuld be about some of this stuff but it would be frightening as well. we actually see day-to-day how powerful they are and how committed they are. some of the capabilities they have in countering intelligence and our efforts to contain them. is this is ane organization that has become incredibly powerful and incredibly well-funded, in many ways to their own efforts, selling oil. they have a clearly declared goal to harm the u.s. and kill american citizens and endanger our values. everyone knows that. you don't have to sit in on the intelligence committee to understand that. the best way to
counteract, is it on the frontlines listening in? been saying for quite a while that we need to be more active and i think that is obvious. we cannot allow these individuals and groups to go on contain. it's very clear that they have intentions to harm the u.s.. it's clear that they have become very well-funded. one thing that i would advocate and have been saying for more than year is why in the world are we not attacking their oil trucks. there are thousands transporting hundreds of millions of dollars areh of oil that they allowed to use to finance their own operations but we have allowed that to go unhindered for a long time now. as just one example of the things we should be doing. even in usa today there is talk of more special operations forces going to assist those in syria. what you think of special ops
forces and the possible increase? >> it is a start but not enough. i would've loved to have been in the room when vladimir putin learned we had 50 special forces in syria. i don't think he was terrified by the plot. individuals are going into a dangerous situation and i appreciate their sacrifice but it is not enough. it is a token at best. if we're going to actually engage them we have to do more. >> is fars the authorization purposes, the current authorization have done for the use of military force, is that sufficient or is new authorization needed? >> i think it is sufficient but i wish congress would express its will through a new authorization. the american people would support doing more than we are doing. i think congress has an opportunity to coalesce that feeling and say we should engage
in ways we have not done yet and we want the president to engage in ways we have not done yet. this president has utterly failed in leading on this cause and if we were going to make a statement expressing the will of the american people. even yesterday they said the new authorization has been sitting in congress for about a year with nothing done. guest: the politics are not easy. republicans are fairly well united on this but democrats are not. some support their president and some do not as we saw last week. i think for the president it is against his dna to express that we will be more engaged in this part of the world. 2012 that he8 and will end the war in iraq and afghanistan and for he and his party to say we will engage in war in syria it's difficult for
them to come to that conclusion. host: is it democrats holding up the authorization? guest: the republicans are more united than the democrats is what i hope i said. but the politics of this are not very clear and are not as easy. host: but so you say new authorization will come from congress? post -- guest: i hope so. her guest talking about strategies by the united states against isis and others. talking to a member of the senate intelligence committee. independent, the numbers are on your screen. our first call comes from june in wisconsin. you are on with our guest. caller: good morning, representative.
i am a veteran of the vietnam thing, war is a horrible particularly across the waters. probablyand is threatened which is why we need to keep our troops right here to protect us. i absolutely believe that isis once us to send more american young folks to syria so that they can kill them and capture, behead them and burn them alive. that's what they want us to do. they know that so many of our representatives are being on we must do more over there. they are waiting for us. they're asking you and all representatives of us and the american people -- we don't want anymore bloodshed. i'm just asking you to seriously
the body parts and the disabled vets who come back horribly wounded fighting over there. guest: let me say that i appreciate your service and any american who serves i try to read with their families as well. you are worried about having bloodshed over there but these are our choices. we can engage them in syria and overseas or will eventually have to engage them here. there is no question they want to harm the united states or kill americans. there's the question they were to destroy the values that make us who we are and what we are as a country. we can't ignore the fact that we will have to decide, are we going to deal with that or are we going to ignore that. if we ignore it i think it makes the situation more dangerous as
time goes by. chris stewart. caller: thank you for taking my call. the reason i am calling is i just don't understand. right now, i got a call from london. his name is robert amsterdam. he's doing an investigation on a man who lives in pennsylvania country of turkey just put him on the number one terror list in the whole world because of the situation. white is the united states protecting a terrorist that lives in pennsylvania? my big question is, this man has charter schools throughout the united states. why is the united states protecting a terrorist that lives in sailors for pennsylvania. ? i'm not aware and it would be difficult for me to comment on that. i am not aware.
i would suggest if this is a legitimate concern that he would racist of the authorities in your area who can help you with that. host: the new york times had this in a recent story and a when he get your reaction. as of november the 19th the united states is conducting several of the strikes on the pentagon. 95% of those on the syrian territory what do those figures tell you as far as airstrikes? >> it's just a fraction of the effort we need if we are serious about engaging. to give you something to measure that by. when we're were engaged in the had tens ofiraq, we thousands. hundreds of thousands of sorties.
and many returned with a weapon still on the aircraft because under the current rules of engagement they are so restrictive. for example they were not allowed to go after these oil trucks. we have a fraction of them that we need to be serious and we need to be spread out and loosen the rules of engagement that allow them to engage these targets because there's a sortie over there to fly around for a half hour or 45 minutes and come back with your weapon still on the aircraft because the rules of engagement do not allow you to engage the enemy. pilot in the as a air force. i understand how frustrating it is for them to see a target and not be able to hit. host: where do you stand on that ? >> it something will have to do. it's much more complicated and difficult than people realize. it's not that we just can't fly into this area. it takes a concerted effort and
a large number of aircraft and personnel, by think it is something we will have to do. and i would say rather than enforcing no-fly zones, there is another option the president could consider which is destroying basher al-assad's air force. we could do that in two nights if we wanted to and that would eliminate the threat of him doing what he has done. >> would those be concentrated in cities? >> they are concentrated on military bases and there is only a few of them and it would be relatively easy to do that. host: aside from air warfare, what about ground troops? >> i am not suggesting that we send ground troops into syria. i'm suggesting that what the president has proposed isn't working and hasn't worked for seven years and it is unclear. i would challenge anyone what is the president's strategy in
regard to syria. i don't know what it is and i don't know that the administration knows what it is. at such a complicated part of the world to be engage without a strategy. we don't know if russia is on our side. they say they are there to attack i sold, but the vast majority of the targets they have gone after have nothing at all to do with isil. they have to do with the moderates attacking bosch are al-assad. many of them we have supported, funded, and trained. turkey, we think they are our ally but why have they allow this oil to be sold across the border for many years? this is a situation of like who is on first and what is on second? the administration has not been clear with the american people about what they hope to attain and how we will do that. and this idea of leading from behind? i don't know what that means. the idea that the u.s. will not
engage in a meaningful way as to the chaos and the uncertainty, and ultimately the danger that we will have to counter. host: byron from denham springs, louisiana. democrat line. caller: i would like to remind the representative why the republicans will not vote to syria.ze they don't want to. they know that if they vote to authorize the war over there they will not be in congress next year. the majority of the american people are fed up with representatives, the war in syria, and everything. has it ever occurred to the congressman that the oil companies are writing the rules of engagement? they don't what to have to fix all that stuff whenever the war is over. of exxon,all kinds
shale -- all of it is tied together. they write the rules of engagement. them and the military. the president doesn't write that. the representative was in the service, you know represent -- misrepresent things to the american people. guest: i appreciate your opinion. if i could respectfully disagree with two things he said. peopleone, the american have shifted their opinions on this over the last few years. after we have seen isis get more and more powerful, the american people have realized we cannot ignore them. at some point, we are going to have to engage them. heavens, where do we stop them? how much cost -- more powerful will they grow? most americans -- the polling on this is clear -- most americans now recognize we are going to have to do something. in regard to the caller's .omment about oil companies i have heard that before.
if you forgive me, i think it is silly to think that oil companies are the ones setting the policy. i can tell you the president doesn't believe that. the president believes he is not influenced by the oil companies. i don't think the president calls exxon and call -- and asked what you want me to do in the situation. i don't think it is credible to think that is our policy. by the way, they have nothing to gain by chaos in the middle east. nothing at all i that. host: chicago, illinois, independent line, jean is up next. caller: good morning. why are we there in the first place? .hat is not our country why are you asking the american people to continue fighting a war that you all have created? you don't know how to diplomatic we talk to other countries? why do we have to fight something that we didn't start?
why are we over there? we shouldn't have went over there in the first place. america has an investment in oil. they want oil? let them pay for it. once again, we didn't start world war ii, either. we had to choose whether we were going to engage in it. we actually were attacked, as you may recall, on 9/11. that is what started these series of events that lead us to this day. we did not ask for that. that was not something that we were looking for, provocation in which we could respond to. we had to respond to this. think, at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves, when determinationhe to say as a people, this is a dangerous situation. it is a threat that is growing. to haveventually going
to counter that. we haven't done that to this point. as a military guy, i don't want more. -- war. i understand how difficult it is. i understand how difficult it is for the families. what a sacrifice it is. these are young men and young women who volunteered to serve their country. they volunteer because they love their country, because they understand freedom and what values the american people represent, not only to each other but to the rest of the world, and at what point do we freeas a leader of the world, which we still aren't even though we may not want to be, the reality is that we are still be leader of the free world, when will we be serious and protecting those freedoms? host:'s are a way to train iraqis and syrians to make the more effective?
guest: perhaps. i don't begun training is inadequate. getink we can probably better on those things, especially as a threat emergence and changes. as we do one thing, they counter that by changing their tactics. we are always trained to react to that. the training we have given them is clearly very good. it is just something we are good at. helping others to defend themselves. it is a difficult situation, as we know. utah,republican from member of the select intelligence committee. democrats line, go ahead. caller: good morning. isisve been talking about in the news lately. what i believe is the bigger issue, terrorism threat we should be concerned about, boko haram in nigeria.
boko haram is the biggest terrorist organization by the number of people they have killed. nobody is talking about it. not even congress is doing anything about it. my question to the congressman is what is congress going to do about this problem? are they talking with the people of nigeria? ,re they providing supplies military help, intelligence help? what is congress doing about the situation? boko haram kills people every day, more than isis combined. caller rings of a good point. boko haram is incredibly dangerous, as well. inas in nigeria, involved and observing the training we were providing. fight.p against a real some of us may recall when they them.he girls, 280 of
that was something that there was a coalescing. that was part of this process and the american people, watching that, watching isis .ove through western iraq over the last 18 months or so we have realized what are we going to do about this? the caller is exactly right. some people have said more they have killed more than isis. i don't know if that is true. either way, they are a terribly evil organization. the great fear i have and others have is that they will align themselves with isis which i have clearly intended in doing, as well. if they do, that becomes more dangerous for us. any: does the u.s. have interest in fighting against boko haram i know? guest: it is not in our theater of -- we cannot openly engage
with them as clearly as we can with isis. we are here to help, train, provide funding that is hopeful for them. we recognize we need to engage them in northern africa, as well. host: oklahoma, republican line, hi. caller: thank you congressman stewart, i couldn't agree more with your comments. i was just wondering how far stretch the idea of trying a scorched earth policy in syria would be. being that we have such high observation satellites, drones, etc. given the people have a proper warning, try a few days of scorched earth and see how it was that place. comments.th your i couldn't be more behind you. thank you. guest: it is hard for me to know
what you mean by scorched earth. i suppose you mean being aggressive militarily. we want to have the minimum impact we can, especially on innocent civilians. in syria, a lot of these people are innocent civilians. people who didn't choose this work, to be caught in the middle of this. that is why we have so many refugees fleeing. we want to minimize casualties. that is one of the presidents priorities which i support. again, without knowing what the caller means by that, it is hard for me to answer that specifically. host: as far as allies in this effort, how do we approach russia? guest: that is, located. russia came in and said we will help you fight isis. what they did was start attacking the moderates, many of which were backed by the u.s. which were attacking assad. their motivation in syria has little to do with isis. it has an awful lot to do with protecting their friend and ally.
their words have said one thing but their actions have been very different and clear. are they a friend? i don't know. it depends. well they engage with us in fighting isis? are they just going to prop up their ally? we have yet to see whether they will help us in a meaningful way. once in a while, they will attack isis targets, by and large they haven't been. what their words have been in their actions have been at this point have not been consistent. host: michelle from michigan, independent line. caller: what i would like to we had to waite for the french to bomb crisiis's headquarters. they are not given authorization to bomb when they have a good target? guest: great question. i have asked the question, others have, too. we have been frustrated in the
answers we have been given. at the end of the day, it is this. the president says we will light -- lead from behind. we have the french stepping forward, russia, other coalition partners who have said in frustration if the u.s. will lead, we will. someone has got to. when i go to this part of the world and i engage in have time with the leaders -- it doesn't matter who it is. netanyahu, king mohammed, president lcc, they are speaking from the same briefing page. they all start out by asking where is the united states? we don't know if we can count on you. we don't know if you will actually -- what you say will actually result in action. it has left us with our allies wondering about us in a way that should be extremely concerning. frankly, it will take us a long time to rebuild that trust in relationships. is it forcesing them to look at other partners like russia.
if the u.s. is not going to lead, perhaps russia will. perhaps nato allies will. alliances, we want to rely on our partners at work together, but the reality is if the united states doesn't lead, we leave the world in a much more dangerous situation. host: when it comes to alliances, what to do with the assad government is complicating those alliances? guest: it clearly is. the example is russia. the president's view on this -- they say we are here to expedite the removal of a side, russia clearly does not want that to happen. -- the removal of assad. host: should he go? guest: there is no question. we could organize an orderly transition, but i don't how the u.s. can say it is ok for assad to stay there. host: michigan fellow republican line, good morning. republican, my
heart bleeds for that entire area. i think we are responsible for part of the turmoil that has been caused in the middle east. in regards to russia, i can't --erstand how on one hand crimea, which belonged to russia, no one ever talks about history. unfortunately, americans are not conversant with past history. now, with one hand we are saying to russia we are not going to let you do anything. all of the stringent things against you. on the other hand, won't you help us from isis? which has to be gotten rid of. people don't understand how vulnerable russia is in the fact that with all of those people on the border of their country, the
united states, they have come across an ocean to get to us. get theirple would heads on straight. if you want russia to be a partner, stop doing things to them. a load ofarmer had apples that he customarily sold to russia. he was stopped at the border. you can come in because -- can't come in because there are things placed against you and russia is against what nato is doing. why don't we get first things first rainout? -- straightened out? guest: i think russia needs to be held accountable for their actions. crimea, historically has been part of russia. ask the people of crimea whether they felt like russia's were justified.
i guarantee they don't. this is an internationally accepted border, but russia knowingly and aggressively violated it. i would say the same thing of ukraine. the second thing is she said russia has been walking -- acting as if they are vulnerable when they certainly haven't been acting the way. i have been acting aggressive. it is clear that vladimir putin wants to extend and accelerate russia's influence in the world. to re-create, as best he can, in my opinion, the conflicts of the cold war. we talked that we would like his alliance in syria against isis. i hope they will be willing to join us in that. ukraine in ationed story in the washington post this morning, to an $60 million of old u.s. equivalent going to help ukraine's there. your thoughts? guest: i think we should have
been more willing to help them over the last 14 or 15 months. for a long time, the only thing we gave them was mr ease, food. they were begging for equipment, military hardware that would allow them to defend themselves. we haven't been willing to do that at this point. host: from chicago, indiana, alan, democrats line. caller: thank you for accepting my call and thank you for c-span. i had a comment and a question. one comment i had -- i had to agree with past callers. why do we need to get involved? you have france and russia who are -- is there a coalition of 64 countries that have signed on? how many countries does it take to stop an army of 30,000? leading from behind, i think, is a good idea in that we can support them with intelligence,
coordinating, but we don't need to send more troops. i know republicans are gung ho for going off to war. war is an expensive undertaking. we try to cut spending. every bomb we drop, every plane, that is money thrown out the window. there are plenty of countries that are out there to stop them. we should keep our troops here in this country to protect our country, our homeland. they haven't gotten syria. -- they haven't gotten here yet. i also would like to make a comment about the funding they get. i would like to ask the question confirmedn't congress zuman?he had been working on finding funding for
terrorists and doing a good job of it. both sides agreed he did a good job. he hasn't been confirmed to take the post in the treasury to stop funding going to terrorists. a couple of are things the caller mentioned. good to hear from him. if we want to protect the homeland, we can't wait until they attack the homeland. we have to engage them before they do that, before they kill more americans. the second thing i want to ask is simply, do you think the illustrations policies -- administration policies or the united states position on this has worked? i don't know how you can say it has pretty iraq is less stable than it was three years ago. afghanistan is less stable. isis is growing and has threatened the united states. syria is worse. that has been the outcome from this administration from their strategy. leadis using the phrase from behind.
i would argue that if the united states is not willing to engage, our coalition partners will not engage, either, or they will do so feebly. they look for the u.s. to lead on this. we may not like that, we may not seek that role, but it is the reality of the world we live in. when we don't engage, things get worse, they get more dangerous and chaotic. i think the last four years have demonstrated that. if that is true, and i believe that it is demonstrably true, we have to ask ourselves, how can we make -- this matter? the u.s. is trying to help. that is the only thing we have ever tried to do. we haven't conquered land to keep it, steal oil. i think that is absurd. we haven't engaged in these wars because we are warmongering people. we are a peaceful people who want to help. we have to ask ourselves, can we help this situation? is it necessary in order to protect americans? i believe it is.
host: as far as protection for americans, where do syrian refugees coming to the united states fall under that for your? guest: we are a compassionate people. we have throughout our history. we should maintain the compassion. at the same time, we need to recognize there is no way to that these individuals -- to vet these. if anyone says we can, they are lying. we can't. we have no idea if it is real or not. they can actually buy real .dentification, real passports the syrian government will sell it to them. ,e don't know who they are we can't talk to their family, friends, their work history, their travel history. all of the common things you have to to understand who is this person? can may be a threat to america, to the west? the second thing is iso and others have said clearly -- isil
and others have said clearly we will use the refugee camp to infiltrate europe and the united states. they have done it. paris demonstrated that. at least two of those individuals came in the refugee process. monthwe hear of the 24 process of vetting. what is wrong with that process? guest: get is inadequate. 24 months isn't enough time. host: what is different? guest: what i am saying is how long it takes is in the question. we understand they are being as thorough as they can be, but they are trying to do something impossible. you can't understand and verify who these people are. whether that takes six months, 24 months, at the end of the day, you can't understand who these people are and what their intentions are. paris demonstrated that.
host: -- , tot: what i suggested is demonstrate we truly do want to help if we can, there are thousands of orphans in this area. let's bring the orphans in. let's show the world, this part of the world that we do want to help. that we are a compassionate people, as i said. at the same time, let's recognize that as long as isil is there and threatening to use refugees to enter the u.s., consider that. i would have thought that was a nice compromise, to allow these orphans, children with no family, there are thousands of them, let's help them. let's recognize primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect us. these refugee programs are not able to. host: ron from temple hills, maryland. i was going to the same
point of vetting of syrian refugees. it sounds great that the two-year plan -- like the guy says, you can't peg that. and lest you are going to give these people lie detector tests which, with the right training, you can bypass that as well, it doesn't matter. you can wait three years. if someone is really better and they really want to harm, they will wait 10 years, five. proper strategy means to wait so you are in the right position to strike. to sit and say let's lead from behind, that is great in less you are leaving behind someone who is incompetent. you can't leave things out to people who aren't going to handle the business. you can say we are going to delineate information of the strike.
well.oesn't go too you have to make sure they are going to do the right thing. we have had so many issues, the bombing of the hospital. people were getting information and is not working properly. we need to take this by the seriously take this beast down. the hard part is terrorism is hard to go after. no one is wearing a badge, a uniform when they strike. it is hard to tell. host: i would agree with you. i would agree with you. i can tell you a classified settings, senior administration officials admit they can't adequately vet these individuals. it is impossible under the chaotic circumstances to them.tely vet what they say in public is that it is difficult but we can do a sufficient job. it is not enough. the caller also brings up another important point.
these individuals we allow in have no history of being associated with terrorist organizations, one of our greatest fears is the lone wolf scenario. the person who is radicalized in the country. the person who initiates their .wn contact, their own that is a good illustration of the enormous challenge we have. host: those officials have said what is wrong with the vetting process? where the weaknesses? one, with certainty, we can't verify who they are. they can hand is a passport with a name on it. that doesn't mean that is who the individual is. the second thing is even if we can certify who they are which is impossible, we don't know their history. we don't know what they have been doing for the last four or five years. we don't really people to have been associating with. host: plano, texas, dennis, democrat line. caller: good morning,
congressman. i don't know where to start with you guys. i am listening to you. you are asking a lot of young men, working class, working poor to fight your damn worse. everyone who is listening to this, do you want the next republican -- they have their war drums beating. but at the top nine candidates. not one of them is a veteran. rubio could have gone to work, cruz could have, where are the walker boys, chump boys -- trump boys?bush boys, santorum you would have think they could've gone up to war to protect the trump towers? they are not going to die for this country. the millionaires, billionaires will not die for this country.
you are asking the working kids to fight your worse. you can't even get enough to fight. you had to pay $10,000 bonuses. that was in the rich. tens of thousands of kids when this thing started out in iraq. they couldn't pass the entrance test. ofst: there are a couple things. number one, i have never criticized president obama because he didn't serve in the military. i don't think our leaders need that background. i think it helps, but i don't think you can say you haven't set -- turned in the military therefore you can have an opinion on that. i have never said that. the caller implies that our berent leaders should disqualified because they haven't served in the military. the second thing is we are sending these kids to fight our wars. why is it our wars? why is it my war? i want to protect the american people. i want to protect american values.
i want america to be a shining city on the hill we have been for hundreds of years. we may not ask for that role. we may not want that role. america has a special role in the world. i think that has been true for generations. it is hard for us to turn our backs on that response ability we have. florida, karen, independent line. caller: i have a couple of questions. i disagree with the caller from louisiana, illinois, and the last caller. i believe that our men volunteer and protectgo freedom. that is what it is all about. our president has the nerve to say we need to get rid of assad when our own president stands up on the stage and actually puts ,s down for climate change
climate control, that is going to kill and refute the terrorists. he doesn't make any sense. not gonet congress forward to try to get rid of this president that is incompetent. he is he doesn't listen to the generals. , 10 weeks, isis is annihilated. it is simple. this thing about it is going to take forever to get rid of this problem is absolutely ridiculous. we are fighting for freedom. protection of the homeland. we are not fighting there were, we are fighting to protect them from coming here. guest: i was going to say this with the previous caller heard she brings it up a little bit. this is this idea of you sending young men to fight your work.
it is a holdover of the culture from vietnam were there was a draft. many people were going are involuntarily. it is important to remember our military is entirely staffed with people who have volunteered. they didn't do it because they couldn't get a job. they didn't do it because they weren't smart enough to do anything else. these are some of the brightest, most capable, most committed americans we have. military, in the worked with some of the brightest people i have ever worked with. some of the most capable people. people don't serve in the military because there is not an option. we are not sending young men and women overseas to fight our wars involuntarily when they are there on their own accord because they love their country. they want to serve, they love freedom, they want to protect freedom. second thing, there is a plan, various options we have that would defeat isis. it is not as if this is an
impossible task. it is not as if they are more powerful than we are. it is not as if the united states, our hands are so tied that we have to say we have to learn to live with it. we don't. there are things we could do that would defeat them. the president, at this point, has not been willing to do that. host: aside from manpower? guest: i mean both. it will take both. syria willforces in not change the equation. air attacks, 6000 when we need tens of thousands on going to change the equation. there are meaningful ways, reasonable ways that we could defeat them if the president was one too. host: there is a story this morning that there are systemic changes to be visa waiver program the united states operates. for those of you don't know what it is, what about the changes are needed? guest: they are essential. with the attacks in france, it
illustrates that. withyou get into europe those credentials, you can travel to the united states. we have visa waiver programs were certain countries, friends and allies, we don't require visas in order to travel between us. that is a good thing. it allows us to have a free exchange of ideas, people, cultures, markets. those are facilitated by that. but we need to recognize that you can come from syria, get into france, once you are in france with documentation, you can travel to the u.s.. we need to tighten some of those so that we can know who is coming here to the u.s.. host: a story the u.s. will expand figure prints and photographs to include databases of any past travel. guest: that is essential that we do that. host: michigan, randy, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. i would like to thank you and
the men and women behind the scenes that we don't see to bring us this great program. it is a great service to the nation. representative stuart, i want to thank you for your service. i would like to give you a slight background before i asked my question. my kids have lived over half their lives under republican wars. i think this fact alone means we have to do something different. the volunteer service, you are applying -- playing your games with toy soldiers, it has to quit. i would like to know when i can expect to hear legislation to reinstate the draft. i am a taxpayer that would like to see my children have a better life in this nation. have a better infrastructure. have the ability to move through this nation. i would like to see my housing,
up. i would like to see my roads improve your it my kids have spent enough of their life in wars playing these games. i think you representative for your service. i don't agree with your policy or the way you politics. we have to do something different. my kids shouldn't live that much of their life underwater. thank you very much. -- under war. guest: you call them republican wars. i don't know what that means. president bush initiated action after we were attacked. it had incredible bipartisan support from the house and senate. republicans and democrats, including hillary clinton supported that effort. it is hardly a republican war. as a former member of the military, military members don't want a draft initiated. a wants to serve with people who want to be there. serve with people
who volunteered. not with someone who was forced to be there and is acting against their will. we have sufficient numbers to do that. there are many young men and women who want to serve. it is not like we are incapable of protecting ourselves as on tears. we have clearly demonstrated we can. it is a much stronger force -- incapable of protecting ourselves as volunteers. it is a more committed force when we bought -- we fight with volunteers. god bless these men and women for being willing to sacrifice. they are some of the best men and women who have ever been produced. we are proud to serve with them. we don't need a draft. we have these other people we can rely on. host: as far as a member of the intelligence committee, how far are we as far as intelligence gathering? guest: it is hard for me to go back to 9/11 because i wasn't involved in the intelligence committee other than my time in the military. it has probably improved, probably dramatically. there has been so much more time
and effort and labor in making sure it has improved. is it perfect? no, it's not. another thing that concerns me is that in many cases, intelligence has become overly politicized. we seem to have intelligence that skews toward supporting a political view. that is extremely troubling. as you know, in so, and others, there is an active investigation. i support those. investigationan where our intelligence is being filtered through a political end. i remember walking out of a briefing earlier in the year and person we walked out with i don't think they are being honest. they are not telling us what we we need to know. it turns out they were in. it is a deep concern of mine. something we have to correct of that is taking place. host: republican of utah, and member of the house select committee. thank you for your time.
we continue with our conversation with peter welch of vermont joining us. he will talk to us about the democratic agenda and issues of isis we have been talking about. later on in the program, we have your calls, tweets, facebook program. all of that. ♪ >> abigail fillmore was the first first lady to work outside of the home. lobbiedessfully congress for funds to create the first white house library. her love of pink treated a fashion sensation. it was marketed as a color and stores sold clip on banks to women year to replicate her style. jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the creation of the white house historical association.
actress, she saw her name is taken me on the blacklist of communist supervisors. she appealed to the screen actors guild had for help. these stories and more are featured in c-span's book, first of 45 here at the lives iconic american women. the book makes a great gift for the holidays. giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first lady in american history. stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. a son original interviews from c-span's first lady series and has received numerous reviews, including this one, presidential historian and author who said "c-span is a national treasure -- coanchor and, managing editor of the pbs news hour says c-span has performed another valuable public service with its --
jane hampton cook, first lady historian and biographer noted that c-span's first ladies is an invaluable collection of her insight share the stories of america's first ladies for the holidays. c-span spoke first ladies is available in hardcover or e-book. run your favorite bookstore, or online bookseller. be sure to order your copy today. >> washington journal continues. host: our next guest is peter welch, a democrat from vermont, the chief deputy whip. ago, the president asked congress for authorization to fight isis. where are we in the process and does he needed? guest: absolute.
this is on congress. it is ours monteverdi -- our response ability to authorize our ease of force. our failure to do so strengthens the presidency and weakens congress. the founding fathers were clear about that. in the history of the world unto them, it was monarchs who made unilateral decisions to bring their countries to work. when we founded our country, it was in the constitution that the power to declare war belongs to congress. that is an unknown is the congress -- confidential power -- that is an endlessly consequential power. we should have a debate about the authorization of the use of force. on president obama. it is on congress. we have the authority to act, and we should. host: the authorization he sent to congas was that we need to authorize the use of armed forces. should i be extended with what we know about isis?
guest: history pose a would be debated. we would be the ones making the decision. -- his proposal -- supposedly, we are being authorized to act, the legal justification is what happened after 9/11 and the authorization to use force then. isis did not exist. that authorization had nothing to do with the dangerous situation we are in now. the american people deserve a congress. it is willing to take on the responsibility to debate this incredibly important question about the use of american force abroad to protect america at home. host: as chief deputy whip, where do you think democrats within the house stand on getting authorization? guest: they are divided. it is not so much an authorization. everybody knows isis is this horrible threat. the question is, on one end you
have senator mccain who would be boots on the ground almost everywhere there is a potential isis threat. others would want a more limited authorization so that it wouldn't become open-ended. getting the language right is what i think is a challenge for congress. host: i asked the previous guest for isis and if it was a threat against the homeland. guest: it clearly is. what you saw in paris is a clear indication that if isis finds a way to expert violence and terror, they will. they did it in paris. we have a train attack that was boarded by three brave americans -- that was thwarted. there is no question isis will do everything they can to so violence and kill innocent people. host: do we need to change the current strategy against isis? guest: you asked that question as though we all know what the current strategy is. i think that might be starting
to emerge. it is not just the u.s., but the european allies that are all in on trying to contain the two aspects of isis. one, try to do something about syria and iraq where they are having a lot of freedom to move. second, the security issues in the homeland where there is an apprehension, and rightly so, that they will be export and violence with either homegrown people coming from the syrian battlefields or the u.s.. those are the two elements we have to have. the other thing that is important, this is not our war. we are being threatened by it. we are engaged in it. this conflict those generations deep in syria, iraq, across the whole region with the conflict between sunni and shia. i don't believe that the united states should be considering
putting a massive ground force in syria or iraq again. we saw what happened with iraq and afghanistan. what we need are reliable partners like the kurds. they have a fighting force that is willing to fight their bottles. -- battles. should we help them? yes. the notion that we have a potential strategy, and expeditionary force in the should learn from the history of iraq and afghanistan. that doesn't work. host: usa today highlights the possibility for operations forces to come alongside what is already there, that is something you're comfortable with. that is where i pay a significant amount of attention to the military commanders. there is a difference between a broad expeditionary force that we had in iraq where you are not only taking on the burden of the entire fight on the ground when it is sunni and shia that have takinghat, you are also on the responsibly of nationbuilding. that is impossible. if people are going to help
themselves, how are we? look at iraq, look at afghanistan. how do you get that support role right? that is a fine question. i would pay a lot of attention to our military commanders. i would also be concerned about the mission creek questions. you get our questions -- soldiers in there and the next thing we know we are fighting the war. host:'s mission creep happening? guest: there is escalation, but in some part it is beyond control. when isis to this horrible thing in paris, that was an enormous, alarming situation about the domestic threats isis can post with people who have no particular respect for their own lives, let alone anyone else's. host: peter welch, our guest. about isis and other topic. 202-748-8001 four republicans, 202-748-8000 for democrats, 202-748-8002 for independents.
tommy from akron, ohio, democrats line, you are on with our guest, good morning. caller: greetings from ohio. i have a quick, two-part question. i just turned 60 on november 16. senator williams golden fleet's awards every year. that is where i first learned about the $500 tweeted for a transfer plane. what is a going to take for the democrats to bring a bill to the floor to audit the pentagon and its wasted abuse in spending? sure it will lead to billions of dollars. second of all, ever since i had a leg imputation 10 years ago, i have watched c-span religiously every day. tally against a certain topics. are you or your staff or any of the congressman, do you listen
to this program to hear the voice of the people? lately, the voice of the people on some of these issues seems like it is not being conveyed to your colleagues on some of these arts. guest: thank you. number one, i support the pentagon audit. how is it that when we spend the most money, our defense budget, we don't audit? i am all for that. the power to bring a bill up always rests in the house with the majority. give speaker ryan a call. he is off to a good start with a more open process. maybe he would be willing to do it. i do watch c-span. not as much as you, but i also talked to vermonters all the time. i do my best to listen to the voice of the people. i have worked for vermonters who elected me. i do my best to listen. i will keep at it. thank you. from cedartown, georgia, democrats line, you are next. welch, impresentative
your average democrat, but i'm a black, 55-year-old man. i voted twice for president obama. you guys are disenfranchising the african-american vote. you can't win without that though. thenve more involvement hispanics. two thirds of all of the votes, all of the hispanic vote in tuesday -- states of the united states. california and texas. texas is right. you are letting us down. liberalslled white such as criminal justice reform, the welfare reform that you did, all of these things having a lasting effect on the black community. we don't want bipartisanship. we put you guys in. , higher than whites, blacks, hispanics. they don't vote. they vote at a low rate.
we don't hear about immigration reform. i'm a progressive democrat. i helped put president obama in office. during the midterm, you people are going to lose. we don't want to hear about drones, about that type of stuff. we want to know what are you going to do for our kids, our grandkids. housing, redlining in these districts. when it going to come out and help the black community? guest: the answer is yes. a couple of things. number one, we had a majority. the democrats had a majority after president obama was elected. a couple of things, if you look back. one, we passed health care. at has held a lot of americans, black, white, hispanic. who had no access to health care. we have to work on making it better. number two, we passed a climate change bill that had in it the huge job creation potential with
the energy efficiency components . it died in the senate, but that was about not just making our planet cleaner, but creating good paying jobs in local communities. third, as you remember, we had the wall street collapse. president obama with democratic support passed the stimulus. that helped -- stabilize the economy and create jobs. it hasn't turned it around. wages are too low. i hear you on that. i get it. thatompare that commitment had my support and most of my democrat colleagues, focused on trying to make it better, better opportunities for lower income, middle income struggling americans. now, we are in the minority. we got wiped out in 2010. you are right. we don't have the votes at the moment in order to put some of those provisions that focus on economic opportunities as we see
it on the floor. we have to get the voters around the country to elect more like-minded folks who make those policies that you are concerned about come to life. host: a couple of things on that front. do you think paul ryan will see a more return to regular order? do.t: i think i he is committed to that. he is an ideas person. he respect the institution. i don't think it will be -- as much as i think a lot of us, maybe even he would like. he is definitely serious when he says he wants to have a more regular order. let me explain why that is important. regular order is just a clinical term. -- clinical term. what it means is wonder is a bill, a goes to a committee. the members of the committee start ironing out and discussing the differences that have to be resolved. for example, he just had chris stewart, conservative republican, a tremendous number
of congress. he is the kind of person where you sit down with him, you have a different point of view, he respected. have a committee situation where people can iron out the differences over time, that results in agreement. it results and principled compromise. in progress. when you have committees doing doing that work, instead of all of the decisions being made in the speaker's office, people yet -- people don't feel like they have it and honest opportunity to be held that hurt. -- to be heard. host: you will get more of a voice, do you think? guest: that is what regular order is about. keep in mind, minorities and majorities come and go. when i was in the state senate in vermont, i was the senate president. we had a democratic majority. i appointed republicans to chair major committees, like the institution committee. some people, when i tell them that down here, they think i was
smoking something. you just can't do that. or i am a nice guy. it had nothing to do with that. what i understood, and most americans understand, if you sit down and talk with people who disagree and if you like they have had an honest opportunity to be heard and have input, they will get on board even if they lose. they will try to make it work. we have to bring that here so that we can reestablish trust with the american people who are losing in congress. host: chief deputy whip of the house joining us. peter welch, democrat of vermont joining us to talk to you. take your questions, 202-748-8001 republicans, 202-748-8000 democrats, 202-748-8002 independence. michael is up next from fairfax, virginia, republican line. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i had a comment i would like to make about the issue of isis. i wanted your opinion.
with respect to turkey, it is vague. i understand the president was in turkey at the g20 summit. he never confronted the turkish president. i believe that turkey is supporting isis indirectly through the sale of illegal oil. this is probably one of the main reasons why turkey down that russian plane last week. they made it sound like their airspace was violated. i don't believe it was pretty russians deny it. they said these planes were taking pictures of a legal tanks crossing into the turkish border. why is the advanced ration not doing anything? i understand we can put troops on the ground as we are involved in other words. there seems to be a lot of things we can do. -- the oft isis illustration is not doing it. guest: first of all, -- the
administration is not doing it -- first of all, i'm sure our european allies are working hard to persuade turkey to tighten its borders. the issue in turkey is the free flow back and forth of these isis fighters. the second issue with turkey is that politically, they are more concerned with the potential of kurdish independence on their border than they are with isis. basie isis fighting the kurds. you have a point. that is an issue that we have to work out with turkey. it is not just us, the united states. france, great britain, belgium, the whole eu -- germany has a big stake in a. they are on the front lines of the refugee crisis. i don't know everything that is going on. the points that you are making are ones that are of concern to the ministration and the president. -- the administration.
this is one of the things real have a public confrontation, but you try to work beyond the scenes. host: john, democrats line, missouri, hello. caller: good morning. i tried to get in with the republican. i had a couple of questions for him. for example, off the top of my head, 45,000 people a year are murdered in the united states. 100,000 people a year go to the hospital under killed in the hospital by malpractice, administration of wrong drugs. another 30,000 people are killed on highways every year. a lot of that because of poor road conditions. that adds up over the last 14 years to about 2.5 million people. what should i be afraid of? isis? how many people have a killed in
the united states? o'er the 2.5 million people i know are going to die in the next 10 years here? one other question i have for you. , did the paris attacks they quit selling freedom fries? or they still selling freedom fries? i will hang up and take my answer off the air. guest: i think they are selling french fries. freedom fries -- we have that behind us. the first point you made is an interesting psychological point. in my view, we have to be concerned about both. you want to be concerned about cutting down on infectious diseases, drunk driving, gun violence, everything. but, when you have this violence thatass we saw in paris, that makes people scared. rightly so. overve some control
whether we are going to get in a car having drunk too much. we can control that. we don't have any control whatsoever if some suicidal people with ak-47s show up in a movie theater and in the name of their vision of islam start slaughtering innocent people. it is a legitimate expectation on the part of the american people that the government take necessary steps to protect the safety of you and our kids. ernie,oneys -- littleton, colorado, hi. caller: good morning. i have aative welch, few questions. as far as the fight against terrorism, egypt has kicked off the mother -- muslim brotherhood out of their country. i have read that the obama administration has six people in his demonstration -- his
administration that has ties with the muslim brotherhood. there are also various muslim nonprofit groups that have associations with the muslim brotherhood. thatieve i read somewhere you guys -- congress was debating on whether to label them a terrorist organization. you are getting a fight from the administration not to do that. is thend thing representative before you and yourself say we want to keep the fight across, and their country, and not in our country. and listened to intelligence saying that there are 900 or so people in united states in all 50 states that are under terrorist watch. the second question you
are talking about, i am not quite sure i understand it. there is enormous efforts on the part of our homeland security, fbi, border patrol to monitor the potential of fighters coming in to this country. you see arrests of people in the united states who went online and appeared to be trying to join the fight in syria. those folks were arrested. this is an enormous challenge for the homeland security folks. they are taking it seriously. i don't think that is a republican or democrat issue. what is out there is the that forof violence reasons none of us can understand attract people who are willing to take up that cause, even when it means killing innocent people. on the second question, the
muslim brotherhood in egypt, we have a problem over there. the region has a problem. they don't have democratic governments. the muslim brotherhood has been elected brotherhood was elected by the egyptian people. i think more site overreached. he was toppled in a coup by the currently to of egypt. know, the lack of democratic reform and access to , the lack ofx ability of people who live in that country to affect the future, that is a problem. it is one of the aspects of the situation in the region where you are seeing one more failed state after the other. that is the real threat to the ability to make stability come about in the middle east. host: here is bernie's. -- here is bernice. caller: good morning.
what is going out on -- host: i am putting you on hold. to turn down your television set so we can have a conversation. let's go to brian in massachusetts. caller: hi, thank you for having my call. i would like to ask the congressman about his political positions. you can drive through vermont and see a lot of abandoned dairy farms, i guess that industry might be on the wane that in 2007, you had a farm bill for -- family farm and i would like to hear your comments on that. also. you self identify with your religious beliefs but you decided to vote against the
amendment to the affordable care act on the abortion side. so i like to hear from either one of those topics. vermont -- dairy is thent to heart and soul of the bond. those people have been the custodians of the land and have a vermont as beautiful as it is. tremendous pressure on dairy farms. all the farmers who hang in keep that we the farm bill passed in 2007 is better than the one we passed recently but it did provide stabilization for the vermont dairy farms. it has to do with the enormous swings up and down in the price of milk. one of the things that was a real challenge was how expensive grain was. it was expensive because of a 14% premium as a result to the ethanol mandate. and i think the ethanol mandate
needs to go. the costd an impact on getting green for the dairy farmers. my view on abortion is that it is a decision between the woman , her religiousor person. it is not the business of the state to make that decision. host: you brought up ethanol. there are changes being made today. could you set this up and explain what is going on with this take on the decision? guest: i agree with the step that they have taken, they are going in the right decision of reducing the ethanol mandate. there was a theory passed under president george bush that if we use corn for gasoline, it would improve the environment. it turns out that this well intended program is a flop.
it got enormous support from the government, a trifecta of the word. , soe was a tariff barrier brazilian ethanol had to pay a tariff. there was a 54 sent her gallon tax subsidy that went to the ethanol producers. tariff barrier and a subsidy and then there was a mandate that the government 10%, we had to get hit with ethanol in it. so we were required to buy a product that we didn't decide whether we liked. we have in successful in eliminating the tariff barrier and the subsidiaries. the mandate on 10% ethanol was going to go to 15% ethanol. it is causing enormous problems. small engines are getting wrecked by ethanol. the price of grain that other livestocky for their
there were and then promises that don't exist. a 15, the of going to epa is toning it down. in the rightp direction. a lot of these people think we should eliminate the ethanol mandate. ernie's -- try bernice again. i need to ask -- caller: yes, i am sorry about that. allowing 10,000 or more -- the republicans don't want them here and you all insist on them coming over here. money are you going
to give me? king speak english. this is too much. there are people here who are , little kids don't have food to eat. i know for myself, it is hard to -- where are you going to put them at? you will give them a visa card and teach them english? what you need to do for the people who built this country. who made this country. those people over there never liked americans. they need somewhere to stay. they don't like americans. you can say what you want to say youri know for a fact that character starts at home. you need to concentrate and take care of people here.
host: thank you. about takingoint care of folks at home, that is important. we should take care of folks at home. they should come first. suddenly, we have a situation in the middle east where we are not exempt from the challenges there the two important considerations you have mentioned are ones that we agree with. we have to make sure americans are safe. chris stewart was talking about that earlier today. if you have refugees, where will they go to school, where will they live? my view is that we do have a role to play in this. americans want to be safe and they want to help. 10,000 syrian refugees is a very small amount.
vastin mind that the majority of people in syria would prefer to stay in syria, they are trying to escape from president assad, it is mainly widows and orphans. the situation that we have is so different than what we see in europe. hundreds of thousands of people are showing up on the border unannounced and you have the practical challenge of how to do what you need to do. yearsocess here takes two for someone to be approved to come in. why we've had 1800 syrian refugees in the last two years. where is the community where folks can go? where they can find housing and they have to work? they do have to work, by the way. there was a vote on
putting a pause on the syrian refugee program. what was your vote? guest: i voted no on that. the threat that we saw in paris was caused by french and belgian nationals. who could havee gotten to the united states without any vetting. the program will just make it tougher on widows and orphans. they already have a two-year vetting process. the area we need to tighten things up is on the visa waiver program. the president is taking steps on that. we have to get this right. is just a reaction and it is understandable to the horrible situation in paris. host: george from poughkeepsie, go ahead. caller: yes, i would like to apologize for the previous callers who were badmouthing the congressman.
jesus wasrefugees, arguing the same thing about us. he said, what are they doing? they know not what they do. these people are talking about how these people can't talk and they need english -- my ancestry and the slaves -- they didn't care about that. they just wanted to be free. they wanted to go somewhere where they didn't have to worry about their children being massacred or destroyed. eats every day, she can do all of those things. she can go to the store. these people can't do anything. guest: he is right. there is enormous tragedy for innocent people in syria and iraq. can you imagine living your life, trying to just be safe? and you have isis fighters show
up and take your daughter away and your son away? it is unspeakable. if we could help, we would. but in that situation, it is just tragic. rick is up next. caller: good morning. thank you for allowing me to come on. i have third-generation military and i have a suggestion and not a complaint. the deal with the refugees, it is an idea that the united , we own real estate outside territory of the united states, such as islands. -- if we compromise have to bring in refugees to the united states of america, we don't have to bring them into this country but we could set up some type of temporary residency
or housing facility on some of these islands? to provide them with living facilities and sanitation facilities and some type of education until the dilemma in the middle east is over. yes, it will cost us money and we need to have some way to deal with the other countries to reimburse america. to let the refugees know that this is not a green card to become a citizen of the united dates of america. -- united states of america. that those whoe are trying to come into the ,ountry should have privileges the refugee program is not a green card. idea,a suggestion or an
your response? to putting refugees inside a decent living facility we would build in some of the outside border islands? two things. the refugee program that we have in this country we have a long before the crisis in syria and iraq. -- it is a legal means by which people can come. there are limited numbers that are expected. it is only after careful vetting. can apply torogram other countries, not just syria. the question of putting them on islands, how that would work? i don't really know.
it is not something i would count on. up the mortgage on our ability to get repaid for that. where there are refugee camps, they are on the bordering syria and turkey. i think it is in our interest to help refugees be as close to the hopeossible with that if and when things settle down, they will be able to return to where they came from. host: this is girl from new jersey. i appreciate you taking my call. thank you. i have two questions. hearirst is, you often congress persons or political people get on television at they
start to speak. they stoke the fire for war and the need to deploy soldiers and yet, i will say this largely on the democratic side, republicans are guilty as well, but when it is time to vote for veterans initiatives, you watched c-span and you see the names rule and at they are largely on the democratic side. i am wondering what the disconnect is where you don't understand how a soldier deployed is not connected or affected by the lack of the a funding.- of va i am a lifelong democrat. happened andacks immediately, you hear concern -- you hear conservatives talk
about terrorism and isis in this country, yet the day before the talkedttacks, the media about how we attacked jihadi john. i feel to see how they say yes, this is what we are doing. guest: for veterans, i agree with you. includes paying for the cost of the warrior. i don't know where your facts are, i know we have bipartisan support for increasing the budget. bernie sanders in the senate and john mccain in the senate are older opposite but are trying to get a better funded va bill. i am seeing that we are increasing the spending in the
va. secretary mcdonald is trying to get assistance there that you are right, the cost of the war must include the cost of caring for the warrior. thank you for your service. terrorists like jihadi john, that is good news. many of us will say it, it might not get reported in the press. i think we are all in the same situation. host: the transportation bill, where will be be five friday -- a by friday? guest: i think we will approve it. we have been terrible in congress with transportation. we must build a modern infrastructure for transportation.
it creates jobs and we have low interest rates now, we can put people to work. in congress we have been going with three-month extensions, five-month extensions. budget wherean a you can build a base -- build a bridge without just three months of funding. should have much more robust funding levels. the money that we are going to money to pay for this is -- i'm not happy with the funding sources potholes don't fix themselves. better job with the long-term funding sources. but this will be better and i think we will get it passed. host: there is a story about how kevin mccarthy doesn't think that congress will shut down amid issues.
guest: i am delighted that kevin is giving us that assortments -- that assurance. both he and paul ryan agree and understand that these issues can't be the basis of shutting down the entire government. shutting down the military and shutting off social security and road and bridge projects. you can't do that. i'm delighted that we have that assurance. host: who are you endorsing for present? you, i amot to tell so proud of what bernie sanders is doing and so proud without hillary clinton's campaign is taking off. those campaigns have to work themselves out. the voters will decide. let them have the say. bernie sanders is bringing the agenda.
hillary clinton did so well in the debate and it wasn't because she was refusing bernie sanders agenda, she was in bracing it. what -- she was embracing it. we are seeing the people as opposed to just the politicians. host: will you endorse? guest: we'll see. i think the people will decide whether i endorse. host: thank you for your time this morning. in the last 40 minutes, we are going to return to the question we started with about government programs, asking you if you had to pick one to cut, which one would you do. here are the phone numbers. (202) 748-8000 is democrats, (202) 748-8001 if republicans,
(202) 748-8002 is the independent line. we'll talk more about that when with continue. >> c-span presents landmark cases. the book. a guide to our landmark cases series. it explores landmark supreme court decisions including brown versus the board of education, miranda versus arizona and row versus wade. it features introductions and highlights and the impact of each case. a supreme court journalist and published by c-span. formark cases is available $8.95 plus shipping. get your copy today.
announcer: washington journal continues. host: again, your thoughts on government programs. andh ones would you cut why? you can call in. (202) 748-8000 if you are democrat, (202) 748-8001 if you are republican, (202) 748-8002 for the independent line. about endorsements and presidential candidates receiving endorsements. the first word editor. from bloomberg. guest: good morning. who did candidates specifically look for as far as getting endorsements. how does this play out in the state of the candidacy?
chris christie just landed the endorsement in the new hampshire -- the des moines register. you are looking at people at this stage who can give you a validation. people who might be able to be assets on the campaign, either by money or because what they say carries a certain amount of weight. it is the invisible primary until people go and vote. host: who are the standout endorsements? at this point, the standout on the democratic side include almost everybody for hillary clinton. and this has been part of her game to be seen as inevitable. she had a big event yesterday and had theme endorsement of 13 women senators who stood up and said wonderful
things about her. wasdifficulty is that there one person not there and that was elizabeth warren. one who wasn't is playing much larger than the 13 who were. elizabeth warren comes into the senate with probably the biggest profile since hillary clinton herself arrived. senatora of a celebrity , someone everyone wants to talk to, elizabeth warren has an outside portfolio of someone who is involved in financial regulation at the enforcement of. frank. stocks move on her comments. she has an ability unmatched in the united states senate to say something and have the world take notice. warren last year signed onto a letter saying hillary clinton ought to run that is different than a formal
endorsement and she hasn't made that yet. there has always been a will she, won't she. some all created speculation about what is going on. let's talk about chris christie at the endorsement he received in new hampshire. on the republican side, any specific endorsements? the republican side, jeb bush is winning the endorsement battle hand over fist. but it hasn't really stopped anyone else. rubio has started to come on stronger with endorsements. support ofed up the three senators which is more than any of the other people in the senate presently running. that is pretty big for marco rubio. he is trying to show that he has momentum. enough, i have a friend who is a state senator who endorsed marco rubio early.
he said that he had a town of access to marco rubio's people and he was surprised by that. they have been making a concerted effort to try and get where people lane will be ok with marco rubio as an alternative. he has made a big play for that. this is his moment to capitalize. host: derek wall bank is joining us from bloomberg. guest: bloomberg first word is the breaking news desk following the terminal and the government. as far as campaign related things that you can find, it is on the bloomberg politics website. it follows regulations and the 2016 campaign. host: thank you for your time. again, what government program would you cut?
we want to hear from you. if you are000 democrat, (202) 748-8001 if you are republican, (202) 748-8002 if you are independent. michelle, go ahead. caller: i would like to say that , theld cut the pentagon overinflated pentagon budget because it is not needed. all of the other programs that the democrats have put forward like social security and medicare, keep those programs. the republican party are not for black people. we know that they don't care about us. election, we put out all of the bad things on him on social media and the black people are not fooled. we will be voting for hillary
clinton. vote for aer republican, i would let them die. this election will be very important. no republican will ever get my vote. don. no to what program you would cut? aller: i would cut them except for the constitution saying that we provide for the common defense. think the endyou result of cutting everything else but that would be? caller: well, you have to start somewhere. let's hear from los angeles, california. caller: good morning. how are you? yes. please don't cut me off.
the first program i would cut and thehe department of labor. they are lazy and incompetent. one of them threatened my life. the department of labor needs to be cut back or eliminated. there hasn't been a decent secretary of labor, it has become a political division. and it has been for a number of years. there are only 6% of the american workers who belong to --or unions and what is the doing about the labor force? we haven't heard from the secretary of labor.
we haven't heard anything from them for years. back in the 60's was the last decent secretary of labor. thank you. host: justin, from ohio, hello. go ahead. called, theglad i ladies who said she wants all republicans to die, that is typical of the programs i would cut. any program that makes dependent people like her should be cut, her sitting there telling people to die because we don't care about her? you have to care about yourself. just a fool and you are gullible and you are waiting for something that will never come. a democrat will take care of you and what do you have to show for it? host: that was justin. the washington post is taking a
look this morning at meeting between donald trump and the black clergy. front-runner the boats about their relationship blacks and he plan to provide proof of their support but that never happened. instead, he met privately with dozens of pastors for two hours at trump tower in manhattan answering their questions. afterward, that candidate declared the meeting a success. community, more than 100 activists posted an open letter saying they were equally confounded that their colleagues would meet with the candidate. host: that is from the
washington post this morning. from miami, florida, on the independent line, you are up next. the kerrywould cut interest role. manager can make $5 billion in one year. it deals with dividend tax rates. it was created because they had the money to get it created. these oil companies are making fantastic profits. they don't need to have an allowance that is created as a fiction. i would cut the dividend at the capital tax rates. study that said that 3% of the population has -- of the wealth. that doesn't mean the same thing if you put it in numbers.
-- 10pulation is around million people have 54% of the value and 320 million people have 46% of the wealth. and the 10 million people who have all of the wealth can't spend it. year, those people are going to have more and more and more. these are the kinds of programs that need to be addressed. they talk about entitlement programs. about --always talking they don't consider the subsidies. they are entitlement programs. host: marlon from texas, hello. hello, i have four departments i would cut. they violate the constitution. amendment, any
rights not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states and the people. energy is not mentioned in the constitution. public land should be under the energy department. the department of labor is not mentioned in the constitution and health and human services is not mentioned. all of those should be gone. if you are just joining us, we are asking what government program you would cut and why. (202) 748-8000 if you are democrat, (202) 748-8001 if you are republican, (202) 748-8002 for the independent line. allary clinton unveils infrastructure investment plan.
give $25 billion that is in the new york times this morning. john from silver spring, maryland. caller: hello. thank you for c-span at the opportunity to speak. i was going to speak on the department of education. it is important to note that i that active duty military would support getting rid of the department of homeland security. 9/11eason is because happened and it created this infinite excuse to expand security and intelligence.
we have created a monstrosity of a bureaucracy. reputablek at any agency out there doing any kind of survey, we have spiked. we have this enormous bureaucracy here. if you abolish the department, you wouldn't have homeland or energy or education and it is just not true. the state can handle it. we are supposed to be the department of defense. to havesee this reason so much funding. this is absurd. host: this is eric. hello. caller: hello. i want to say something about the government program.
that is a guy who takes advantage of -- hello? ok. the guy from ohio is a bigot. he is a guy who is taking advantage of his white privilege. i got my masters degree in economics i'm probably smarter than every guy he knows. this country has taken tens of trillions of dollars away from black people. that is why that lady will never vote for a republican. because of ignorant people like him. i am smarter than that guy and i am more educated than that guy. it may be angry when he said that. this is about ted cruz in the new york times this morning. we take a look at recent polls.
in pennsylvania. number one, i would send the immigrants back to where they come from eddie abolish the welfare department. workld replace that with a -- these people have been in the welfare department for 50 years. they should get out of it. when i was europe 9-year-old. i worked and now i am 71 years old. this is america. you know what i say to people, if you don't like this country, go back where you come from. we have politicians who are playing games. look what has happened to greece. they did nothing for 30 years and ruin the whole country. -- give me six days, 30 planes and we will stop talking about it.
you -- you can't even spin. thank you. host: from leesburg, virginia, here is jim. yourr: yes, to start with question i would cut whole departments. i would cut the irs and the department of education. if you can't educate your kids in your home with all of the computerization we have ,vailable to the common person the department of education should be gone and the irs should be done away with and as far as the guy from maryland, i don't care where you graduated from. you said you had more common sense from the guy from ohio? give me a break. you are probably smarter than me but it is the common sense that is lacking. if you think the bureaucracy is going to take care of your school lunch program, that shows your ignorance. it is not going to happen.
again, the less immigrant too cold, he is right. you get up and you go to work. you don't depend on the bureaucracy and washington. all overto my friends this country and when the unemployment rate was still i told them that we appreciate you guys sending all of your money here. you need to wise up. the washington times has a breakdown of the new release of e-mails from hillary engines time as securing a state -- as secretary of state. on0 e-mails were released monday. of the new messages, and there is a classification rate of 6.2 percent. that is the highest rate yet of
any of the six monthly batches dating back to june when just 1.1 percent of your e-mails contained information not appropriate for public use. most of these were with fellow state employees and a few were before her and tony blair. -- a controversial the clintons. host: linda from texas. caller: i would start off by stopping the automatic pay raises to congress and make it based on performance like every other job. theuld also get rid of prayer breakfasts and the department of homeland security. the faith-based
initiatives and the prayer breakfast? caller: i don't believe religion should be in government. mara from washington, d.c., you are on. caller: thank you. i agree with the woman who just got off. get the religious business out of our business. i want to speak to the new speaker of the house. bagged, after being said he would take it if he could spend time with their family, there are other people in this country who need that more than he does. and as the head of the new congress, they have just decided that in the congress they will only be here two days a week. they are not coming into session at least three days like they used to. week, that should
take away their pay and make them do business. they shouldn't just entertain the lobbyists who are ruining this country. thank you. glenn in tallahassee, good morning. caller: yes, i would like to echo the sentiments of the guy who called in from virginia. -- he said everything i want to say. people who want to do away with christianity in the country, take it away and you will have islam and that is what you will have. you will sure deserve it. posted: we will continue on with our calls on what government program you would cut and why. again, the number is (202) , (202)0 if you democrat
748-8001 for the republicans, (202) 748-8002 for the independence. host: a hearing is set today at 10:00 and you can see that on c-span3, that will feature ashton carter and others at the meeting on syria and iraq strategy. you can see that live at 10:00. go to our website for more information. line, and bill, virginia. cut theyes, i would funding for all programs across the board. and then i would make them do an
showing exactly what every single penny they spend goes to. then i would increase their funding according to that. to completely eliminate i would eliminate the relations board and the department of education at the irs. there would be a flat tax for every single person in this country to pay a percentage of their income. that includes welfare and food stamps, everything. they would pay a percentage of that. there would be no more parasites or freeloaders. i would send all of the illegals back across the border and all of the americans who don't want to do jobs, you either work or you don't collect a penny. that includes food stamps or welfare. anything. unless they are working to provide for this country. thank you. host: ken from idaho.
you are next. caller: good morning. i would like to thank you for taking my call. the first time i have gotten in. i would like to have term limits for all representatives. cut spending in the state just what a lot of people in the country believe are frivolous reasons such as and outpost in a just a wholelso lot of trivial things like in nwitzerland, i believe we had a automobile charging station for
electric cars and we paid for that. a lot of that needs to go away and term limits. and term limits for representatives and also, should go ones social security and they should see what we people are going through. host: on the wall street journal this morning, a comparative of u.s. drug prices to foreign companies. comparison but there are other countries that are examined. drug costa cancer 1500 plus dollars and the u.s. medicare paid $3600. host: there are other comparisons including charts on the wall street journal. nikki from arizona.
go ahead. caller: yes, thank you for having this show. politics are the most interesting thing in the world. i do want to talk about obamacare. -- the ladiest who wanted to cut out religion from the country -- it was based with god we trust and i think that is why we are such a powerful nation. as obamacare goes, it has hurt a lot of people. the middle class people are the ones who work all the time. try their best to do things. there has always been some kind of social program in every state to help people who just cannot get medical care. i know in arizona, there has been for a long time. , thehese in between's
young families that are doing their best to get everything going, obama care has hurt them. gosh, i can'tsay afford to not have insurance but i can't pay for insurance. with the high costs that they are going to be charged. mine has gone up twice. my medicareow for supplements then my husband and i did together before he died. so i worry about that. i think maybe national healthcare would be good but we need to research and we need to know what is in it. there are pages that aren't written yet. that means it can be changed without anyone knowing. i really think that program has to go. it should be wiped out and we should start over. carl is from missouri.
go ahead. caller: in general, i would talk andt cutting the government we need to focus on feather bedding and ridiculous programs and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. the education department has to go. there are a lot of things wrong with the government. fat pensions for bureaucrats have to be trimmed down. becauseinst term limits the people are supposed to be the term limiters. we do have good people in there. something really important is homeland with security, i don't know where it is. are bombing indiscriminately over there and if we get tied up with the russians, we are inviting terrorists to our country. be lookingosed to
into this kind of stuff and the reason we are in the middle east is because of oil. host: dave on the republican line. caller: i would cut the congressman salaries. i don't understand why they make $174,000 a year to talk when they won't raise the minimum wage. especially the republicans, they are nothing but evil. we are in wars we shouldn't have been in like when george bush went into iraq, he lied to congress and nobody did anything about it. we can only fight when we are attacked and then they let them come into the country. what level would you cut the salaries to? else iswhat everyone making. how about minimum wage? let's start there. then they would raise it.
they let people come into this thatry and then they say we have to attack it. host: anita? from missouri. caller: i want to thank c-span. the only reason i have my cable provider is because of c-span. as far as what programs i would cut, i noticed that most people are saying the thing i was going to say and that is the pensions and the benefits for our senators and representatives. so i guess i would like to refer back to a program of years that i watched when i you had a representative on and he said he gone through all of
the government programs and listed out ones that were wasteful. i would like to ask that gentleman if he has also listed all of the funding that goes to parochial schools and parochial institutions of any kind whatsoever that aren't actually churches? we already support churches taxes for ourving police or fire or government. know,t i would like to how much of their funding is going there? because i believe in planned parenthood and i know they don't fund or use any government funds for abortions but i do not believe in funding all of these parochial and religious things that i don't believe in and then we aren't supposed to have to
fund. because i believe the makers may be forgot a little word, we are not supposed to only have freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. i think c-span, you are the best news and the best organize reporters and interviewers that we have on tv. mentionedcaller representative blank for. he put out a federal bubble which you can find online. it, take a to go to look at the report and you will find that he categorizes several ways that he sees waste in the federal government. 100 ways the government dropped the ball. he categorizes it by programs. you can go to his website and find out more there. you can see what he came up with. says theyn twitter
would eliminate waste starting with private contractors. need $43 million gas stations in the desert. -- says that cuts are a good start would revenues have not kept pace. senator whiteford gave a press conference on his findings. >> some of these are obvious issues. this continues to still be the largest cause of fraud in the federal government year after year. it is almost $18 billion in fraud just this year. be able to evaluate that as a government. the death masterfile is another one of those. we have laid out a bill asking why the social security association can't share this information. we have millions of numbers hanging out there and they are a to fraud.
those individuals getting jobs or filing tax reports. that should be resolved and can be resolved. we are losing billions of dollars in the process. did ational park service study on what books do when you turn on a light in a dark, rural place. every person in a rural oklahoma can tell you what books do when you turn a light on in a dark place. some of these are common sense things. why are we doing this? will put that on c-span.org. go to his website if you want more information. any test from missouri. go ahead. anita from missouri. go ahead. caller: i wonder if those were put together -- he had to have a large staff. -- fund that, i would like to see whether he had
anything there that pertained to how much we give to religious organizations. i apologize, we already got to you. we will go to joseph from alabama. joseph? one more time for joseph? let's go to stephen? in manassas, for genia. virginia.s, caller: [indiscernible] the department of commerce and education, that is a good start. things that we don't need and we are doubling up on. i disagree about term limits. haveottom line is that we people who are uninformed voters. we need people to keep -- we need term limits to keep the
power away. a significant amount of benefits, pensions and health care and they only work 135 days a year. they spend half their time looking for money. that is stephen. the washington post takes a look at military equipment headed to ukraine to assist with fighters there. they say may have delivered more million. some of that care is meant to protect the transport ukrainian military forces. three of the humvees had plastic doors that provided hardly any protection. the tires of one of the trucks blowhard after only a couple of hundred miles. the house is about to come in for the daily activity. one of the issues this week is
the settling up of the transportation bill. it is meeting for its daily session and we go right now. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., december 1, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable trent kelly to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives . the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now reco