tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 3, 2015 7:00am-9:01am EST
and then the congressional debate over syrian refugees and the iran nuclear weapon agreement will be discussed by brad sherman. host: good morning everyone on this thursday, december 3rd. we will begin with that mas shooting in san bern dino, california yesterday. this is how it's playing out on the front pages. we will begin with the san bernardino sun paper calling it horrific then enterprise record says it shocked the city of san bernardino and then the lodi sentinel says pray for us. they say it was a husband and wife that gunned down 1 and injured 17 others and the daily
journal says the two were on a mission. we will begin with your thoughts on this. host: you can also send us a tweet or join the conversation email book, twitter or s at email@example.com. "usa today" front page story this morning, blood bath in san bernardino. 14 killed, one person detained and two suspects dead in a police shootout. one of the law enforcement official it's says the investigations are focusing on an incident, perhaps a workplace dispute in which one a on came angry and left
gathering of employees. the person returned with two others. nd a team of gunmen kills 14 and injured 17 at a holiday party. this is from the "l.a. times," he two guns recovered from the san bernardino shooting were purchased legally. they are able to trace them automatic o semi scott, democrat? caller: my first name is stan. host: apologies
caller: that's ok. america, here we are again. 14 dead in an office building. you ask why? because nobody has the ability to protect themselves. and no one was there to protect them. not only do you have people going in there shooting people but they also had remote controlled bombs and there's a lot of other information about these people that does lead us to believe this could be terrorism from another country. this guy's wife who he just went to saudi arabia and married. remember the 20 highjackers? they were from saudi arabia too. so i say this to every able-bodied man and woman out there. you need to arm yourself and learn how the protect yourself with your weapons. because as you see the police cannot do that.
they are chasing these people up and down and police are talking on their cell phones with people hiding in closets and i don't want to see people hurt that's why we have the second amendment. host: i understand. let's take a listen to nicholas' piece. on guns, we are not even trying is what he writes. what we should be focusing on to rbing access of guns people. he said 40% of guns are acquired without a background check and astonishingly it's permitted for people even on the terrorist list to purchase guns in the united states. according to the government accountability office and the watch log.
democrats have reported closing that loophole. it's still legal. while republicans and congress resist the most basic steps, the public is much more reasonable. even among gun owners, likewise an overwhelmingly large share f depun owners support who are down dealers careless or lose track of guns. and before more information was known this is what he told cbs' norah o'donnell. steps nt obama:we have we can tyke eliminate not every one of these mas shootings but
improv the odds that they don't happen as frequently. stronger background checks and for those who are concerned about terrorism, you know, some may be aware of the fact that we have a no-fly list where planes but get on those same people can go in a store and buy a gun and that's a law that needs to be changed. my hope is that we are able to contain this particular know what d we don't the motives of the shooters are but what we do know is there are steps we can tyke make america safer. nd a bipartisan baseis can
make this rare rather than normal. this is not something that happens with as great a requency in other countries. host: the washington times put this together. espite strict gun laws democrats look for more. san bernardino, california has some of the strictest gun laws n the nation and they have called for congress to pass stricter gun laws. pro democratic groups democracy for america said this. wasted no time wednesday in sending out a fundraising
appeal accusing paul ryan of aiding and abetting those terrorists by refusing to pass more laws restricting gun access. bill, what are your thoughts? caller: well, i found it very interesting that we have the call for more gun control right after this happened, and so quickly. if you want a totalitarian state, take up all the guns. i mean, it sounds as though mr. obama and everyone else who wants more depun control wants us to just stand around in some sort of corral and get shot by these people. the first caller has it right on. the more people that are armed, the less these people are going to think they can get away with it and think about it, the bigger chance these people had.
you're in a room at a party and standing there with your riends and layoff, lawful, law-abiding person and a man walks in with a semi automatic that's not an assault rifle but has a gun with less power than we had in world war ii and starts to open fire. everybody hits the floor and scatters. everybody tries to call 911 but guess what? 911 is not going to get there. fast enough, they can finish hat they are going to do and t in their car and leave but if that person has a firearm they can defend themselves and possibly save himself and others and the gunmen will
twice before doing that. host: david? caller: yes. from what i understand the guy traveled apraud, brought back a wife and was set up in an s.u.v. and everything. and i think the government employees need to be re-assessed by some kind of a citizen's group. thank you. host: ok. that was david in texas with his thoughts on this. front page of "the new york times" this morning put together this piece. how often do mas shootings occur? on average every day according to the records including the worst mas shooting this year which unfolded a total of 462 people have died and 1,314 have been wounded in such attacks this year many of which occurred on public streets
minor public settings. the data only goes back a couple years but more used by congressional data, four or more dead. but experts fiercely debate whether mass shootings calculated by a different tandard one used by congress are more deadly and depending on news accounts that are not official nonetheless they give shootings n of mas and according to shooting in ker.com 354 such cases
220 cities have taken place. it's written, this is the familiar line trotted out after republicans after every massacre as if unfettered access to high-powered weaponry is not at fault. they are betting they can brazenly go through another election cycle without enacting gun safety laws. congress has allowed domestic gun industry to use assorted loop holes to sell arsenals that are used against innocent americans who cannot hide. your thoughts on this this morning, what do you think about this mass shooting in san bernardino, california. brian, an independent from
maryland. hi brian. caller: until you come up with a detornte stop these so-called terrorists from attacking us. the only way to deter these people at this point is number one to carry a firearm with you and secondly, the main thing that needs to happen, we need to attack this guy's family where his family lives and let him and the next terrorist that wants to be a terrorist think about it. will the american people burn down my mother and father's house and shoot them dead in the middle of the streets? host: we will go to david next in missouri a republican. david, good morning. caller: good morning. listen, the same old game plan by the leftist democrat. let's use this to strip us of our second amendment rights.
they send out propaganda through the "new york times" to spread their lies and their bull. california as you mentioned earlier has some of the strictest gun laws in the state. so does new york. and so does chicago, illinois. they had 2 highest murder rates. they on't do nothing when added stop and frisk. they stopped that, because oh, that was too racist. they have black lives matter momentum to make sure police and others can't defend ourselves against criminals when today attacked and try to kill us. especially because they are back and if they try to defend themselves from them, you're a racist. you have open borders that democrats want to leave swoop they can get more people to
come in and then legally vote. they do nothing protect us. when they have these people that don't pass the criminal checks they say well we stop these people. they have never arrested anyone, you know? t's garbage, you know? paris has real strict gun laws, too, and look what happened there because they have wide-open borders like we got. they are all too afraid to offend the muslims or the illegals put we sure can offend people that fought and died for this country like my brothers and sisters in uniform and strip us of our rights to defend our families. it's all bull. host: that was david with his thoughts. the "new york times" also noted san bernardino is a city of more than 200,000 people that has struggled in recent years a city that filed bankruptcy and
suffered a high rate of home foreclosureses and a commercial downtown deteriorated. the population has swelled with immigrants from asia, latin erica and the middle east in proximity to los angeles and housing that's affordable. yesterday the shootout with police that far shooting rampage took place, we are getting your initial thoughts on what you think about what happened in southern california yesterday and as you were seeing on your screen the headline obama calls for stricter gun laws in the wake of this california shooting. so what do you think about all of this? should there be stricter gun laws?
what are your thoughts on this? and icans can call democrats and independents on heir respective lines. let me show you news as we await your phone call. here is the "usa today" headline in following up on yesterday's conversation. the air strikes against islamic state in syria. it was a vote of 397 to 223 in the house of commons yesterday. we showed you two hours of that 10-hour debate that vote taking place at about 5:30 p.m. eastern time and air strikes began shortly after british parliament agreed to strike iciss.
according to the report obtained by the "washington post." then the front page of the "wall street journal." this morning u.s. set to lift sanctions on iran. this story written this morning by lawrence norman and jay solomon. they report the obama administration says it expects to start lifting sanctions on iran as early as january and the nuclear watchdog found in credible evidence that iran has recently engaged in atomic weapons activity but the agency reported the country had pursued a program in secret longer than previously believed. the mixed findings in the report that shows iran shows limited cooperation with the u.s. and others and they believe the u.s. was too easy on teheran. then with janet yellen on
capitol hill we covered that hearing. if you're interesting go to that on c-span.org. we will go to an independent good morning. caller: i am independent now. host: ok. tell us what your thoughts are on this mas shooting in california. caller: my god. i believe it is a sign of our society, the ills and the pain and the paranoia and the fears that we are having and have to experience. my god, the last 11 years, 12 years. and trust me, i have green up around guns and with guns and i come from a proud american. hunter was an avid and we didn't hunt for sport. we hunted for the meat. however, i didn't need an
ak-14 for them to go hunting. i'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms but if i get a kick out of it or makes me feel like a grown woman or a pad woman then i'm allowed to , that d from head to toe is not what should define us. but that's what it is right now but the congress, lord have mercy, they don't have the balls to stand up to any type f lobbying so as long as our lobbiers are in the pocket of firms or organizations, all right? then that is what we are having and this is the psychological follow-up. as long as the police, my god, how can they do their jobs? they are desired death to go to work every day. they are laying down their life every day.
i'm the mother of sons and a daughter-in-law who are in the -- ce, ma'am, so i have but the pop license has more victims, they are law enforcement. let's not go crazy here. dial find a middle way to up they need to back off. if you need 100,000 weapons in your house. but that's language people like to hear. and the presidential debates and all that, that rhetoric needs to curb down. yes, it needs to curb down and ms. if i areaa, yes, she is the one who put tout baby body parts so i feel she has something to do with that shooting because as long as you have these paranoid people living off weapons from head to
ow, that's more reason to -- the holy grail. all these people need to just shut up. host: david, democrat from oklahoma. caller: i'd like to praise our first responders who in our culture these days tend to get very little credit and a lot of protest and i thought their response yesterday was, from what i could pick up was outstanding and again when everybody was running, as they should be, away from the problem, the first responders were running in the direction of the danger and who knows what would have happened if they had not done what they did and i want to praise them and keep the victims in our thoughts and prayers. host: we are getting your thoughts here this morning on the shooting in california. keep dialing in. with your thoughts.
on the phone is the congressional editor with olitico benton ives. mr. ives, the republicans and senate began debate yesterday on a proposal to repeal it. what exactly would it do to the so-called obama care? and how do they want to go bout doing this? guest: expo indicted process getting around the filibuster would effectively gut obama care. would remove key elements of it fund ender -- also de planned parenthood and not expand obama care and would
provide for a two-year transition period for states to come up with an alternative to the medicaid expansion. ost: so what are they using as the appeal? guest: it's a parliamentary procedure a political party can use to expedite something to the senate. the idea behind it is you want to move legislation that's going to help tout budget or reduce the deficit. so they have constructed their obama care repeal that will abide by these parliamentary rules but they get to move the measure with a simple majority with just 51 votes as opposed to 60 votes. host: and would all republicans be voting in favor of the repeal? guest: no. we anticipate a couple mod rats. senator kurt for example are
likely to break with the party for fear of being branded too conservative in their coming elections. they are worried about the planned parenthood provisions in particular. there's also still some lingering concerns about some of the conservatives would feel the repeal does not go far enough. it's not what you would call "a formal repeal" but their positions are still sort of up in the air right now. host: so will this be passing in the house and reach the president's desk? and if so, then what? guest: if i were a betting man that's what i would put my money on and all these point toward some getting onboard and they should get their 51 votes and this should end up on the president's desk where it will promptly be vetoed and the
republicans will not end up with enough votes to override that so it's really just for show. the parties had been wrangling with itself for years as they tried to lay out a strategy for repealing obama care after failing to do so for several years. the thought was they are excited about the idea of forcing president obama to veto it to sort of highlight their opposition to o'pama care and force the president to affirm his commitment to it and during an election year to phthalate difference between two parties of course some of the rock hard conservatives feel that's woefully short of what they really want is an actual appeal. ben bishop -- benton
ives. thank you. rick is next an independent from maryland, you're on the air. caller: thanks a lot. appreciate it, c-span. wanted to affirm the second amendment was enacted for a militia, a fledgling america. it was not enacted for just everybody to have whatever arms they want to have. it was to ensure the security of our country. now, if they want to somehow say that well, we want to form let's let ell then them 2-3-2 format a militia otherwise we should allow a 22 to have a rifle
autorifle with not ar-15's or automatic weapons. it's just ridiculous the amount of weaponry that's in america and veilible across state lines. i think it was dep omert from texas the other day talking about the demise of chicago and how they had some of the most strict gun laws on the books. well, has he taken a look at the surrounding states and surrounding areas that allow guns to be sold out of somebody's trunk or a gun show where they don't have to have any kind of a check of anything in their background? how about making somebody who wants a gun wait a year, not deny them their right but make them wait. maybe that will sway them a little bit or curb their angst to enact some revenge of something of some nature or maybe it would give somebody
some time to look into their background a little bit. there's just some common sense stuff that can be done. host: republican michael? go ahead. caller: yes, as a proponent of the second the second amendment i totally disagree with the gentleman who just spoke on the phone. i have a concealed carry permit. i went through an fbi background check. it is not law-abiding citizens who are emitting the crimes out there. law-abiding citizens, we carry firearms to protect ourselves, because with the police force being under such stress with the black lives matter movement and everyone against the police, how are we supposed to defend ourselves? what happens if you live out in a rural area? how are you supposed to defend yourself as an american citizen? we have a right under our constitution to defend our country. our president has allowed people to come into this country we
don't know where they are coming , their ideology is against our christian values. look what happened. the states that have the strictest gun laws in america are the states that have the highest murder rate. before you want to take guns citizens, how about going out there and getting the illegal guns off the street from the gang members? is frustrating. ok.: emanuel in inglewood, california, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what are your thoughts on this? caller: thank you for c-span. i think it is tragic. i live about 100 miles, about an hour, from san bernardino. i have friends that live in that. -- i have friends that live in .hat area that i called to warn
one thing i know about san bernardino is that. area -- that airy bank -- area is impoverished. a lot of crime, a lot of murders. i don't envy them. it was not that long ago if police officer was gunned down in san bernardino. you hear about this all the time , although i understand this is sort of a different situation, but it troubles me to know how readily available these weapons are, and yes california does unlessrict gun laws, but you take them all across the country it really does not make much difference how strict the gun laws are here because it is so easy to go somewhere else and get a weapon. is -- i thinkly that we have a sick society. we need a lot of help.
but guns just definitely are not the answer. we cannot have so much accessibility to these weapons, every time someone gets an folksde and gets mad at they go off and start doing mad killing. that is the difference between now and even the wild wild west. they maybe have even more murders across the country. mass murders. host: ok. douglas is an independent, scottsdale, arizona. you are next. caller: hi. greta -- host: good morning. caller: this is alan in scottsdale. your phones are a little wacky but great to see you again. person from the democratic party had one issue, and that is not to protect the american
people, not to close the borders , not to stop people and to actually investigate people that are in this country -- host: alan, are you still there? ok, we'll move on to timothy in california, a republican. caller: hello. host: good morning. caller: i just wanted to say that guns don't kill people, it is people that kill people. they are talking about gun control and all that, but the guns are going to becoming in through the borders and all that stuff no matter what, like the gang bangers that bring them in, they are going to find a way to get the guns. if you take away the guns they will bring bombs, whatever. host: so what is the answer?
ccwer: we need to have more and stuff like that and there will be less of this violence. people arming themselves and stuff like that, just like in paris. nobody had armed citizens are nothing like that to stop the people that had violent actions or anything like that. timothy is a republican in bakersfield, california. more of your calls coming up. but in 2016 presidential news, on page of open -- front page of "the washington post" this , a gop strategists private advice on a trump nomination. donald trump has become such a force in the republican party that the official overseeing next year's senate races has proposed a delicate strategy or gop candidates -- cap into trumpet them -- cap --tap into
trumpism without mimicking trump. this, gop hopefuls assemble at donor-fest here in washington. a top contributor will not be there and is still mulling his options. africa.be in south the gop candidates are looking to score donors with deep enough pockets to bankroll the outside groups that are dominating the 2016 race. he and his family cap newt gingrich afloat in the last primary. in total he and his wife have spent more than $100 million. jewishek's republican coalition forum is an opportunity for candidates to
make a splash with some of the biggest donors. the board is stocked with some of the gop's biggest rainmakers, including ambassadors and a former republican national committee chairman. you can look for coverage of this on our website, c-span.org. and then there's also this, news on capitol hill, a spending bill tangled in refugee measures. it says that effort to halt an overhaul of the refugee program is becoming one of the biggest sticking point of negotiation over a spending bill needed to rent a government shutdown by next friday. many republicans said wednesday that the refugee measure have become a top priority as lawmakers toggled over which policy provisions will be included in the measure to keep the government running efforts current funding expires december 11. the gop emphasis on national security has, for now, supplanted republican focus on stripping funding for planned parenthood, likely avoiding a standoff with democrats over the
women's health organization. this, the house approved a bill that would replace no child left behind, this is an update to no child left behind. it would move more authority to state and local school districts for accountability and testing. again, that is "the washington post" if you want to read more about that. presidential candidates, some of them weighing in on the mass shooting yesterday. donald trump, here is what he had to say. [video clip] know, as you probably heard in california they are having a commend this problem right now. two killed as of now and i guess there is one on the loose or they are having a fight. this is when we appreciate our great believe -- police and our law enforcement. [applause] >> they don't get enough credit. they should get it, and you are
always going to have the bad apples. you see it on television. the matter what business you're in, banking or anything else, that i want to tell you, they do one hell of a job. shootouts,u see the i can tell you one thing, i don't want to do it. you don't want to do it. so we want to thank the police and law enforcement. they are unbelievable people. [applause] >> and with that being said, i think that we have a moment of silence. a lot of people killed. in order of those people and the victims. the title moment of silence, please. ok. thank you. host: donald trump in manassas, virginia there with a moment of silence for what happened in san bernardino, california. addressing the
shootings that left 14 dead, 17 injured. he was in south carolina. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> look at what happened, again, another hate crime in san bernardino today. at least 14 people killed. less than a week ago we had the shooting in colorado, and then look at all the things that are going on around the world. isis and groups like this, just hatred and evil. we need to be able to combat these things, because otherwise we will melt into despair, and that is not who we are. this is america. we have to remember that. something very special about this nation, because we decided a long time ago that we would honor god, that we had faith. coin in our pockets, every bill in our wallets says, in god we trust.
and yet when someone comes out and says that they believe in god and that god created the world everybody wants to laugh at them and scoff at them. at some point we need to get over this gives a finance and we -- at some point we need to get and this schizophrenia decide who we are. we are not anybody other than what we are, and that is the most exceptional nation that has ever existed in the world. together, as the united group -- as a united group, i think there is probably no circumstance and no problem that we cannot overcome. candidate bential carson in south carolina yesterday talking about what happened in california. "the daily news" front page this morning is talking about those that invoke god, not only ben carson, but also they had the latest tweets by some other top leaders and presidential candidates. ted cruz, paul ryan, lindsey
graham, rand paul. they say "god isn't taking this." thetbart's website says daily news mocks those who oppose gun control. we are getting your thoughts on what happened in san bernardino, california. we go to randy next in riverton, wyoming, a democrat. caller: good morning. i would like to thank you for the opportunity. i am a frequent watcher. this morning i have heard references made to the wild west several times. i am in the wild west. rural wyoming, and is a democrat i am also an avid hunter as is my son and nephews. we use guns quite often here. unfortunately our small community of 10,000 also had a mass shooting the summer, when a deranged man attacked some native americans at a detox center.
even though we are in a rural area we are not untouched by this epidemic in america. the one area that i have not heard anybody mention yet is the ,bvious arrangement, insanity of may be extreme ideology of the shooters involved. that is the only commonality in all of these mass shootings. as a democrat i have some liberal ideas, but i play my own party for a lot of the movement towards extreme privacy of records, for instance. i am a retired schoolteacher, and i do know that when we had students that have obvious mental problems the records were locked and you had no access as a classroom teacher, even as an administrator, to know if the child was a danger to other students. i think that is something we do something weca --
need to look at in america, especially in the cases of extreme behavior. a lot of these folks, if you look in the past at their , indicate ats problem. a lot of them have been in counseling. i would even put the onus on clergy in some cases, because the maniacs that attacked -- the maniacs that attacked the clinic colorado springs, which we have all forgotten about because the planned parenthood clinic was attacked, he was on the right and he was listening to the extreme right republican politicians and even quoted carly fiorina as he was arrested, which i thought was rather bizarre. on the left we have -- in the words of my late father-in-law, moderation. i would put the blame on our politicians as well. we have extremists on the left, extremist on the right, and those are the ones that get the airtime, and the weak minded and
those that are slightly deranged cling to those two points. we do not cling to the middle and it manifests itself in tragedies like san bernardino and the tragedies we sat across this country. those are just my thoughts this morning from a subzero area, the wild west. you, randy, a democrat there on the mental health issue. pieceas kristof in in a for "the new york times," republicans are right that it is sometimes related to gun violence, but also budget cuts have reduced mental health services. credit, represented tim murphy, a pennsylvania republican, has introduced a bill that would improve our disastrous mental health system, past reducing the number of people who snapped and turn to violence. yet some democrats are wary of the bill because republicans like it. that's absurd. we need at her mental health services just as we need universal background checks. it is not clear what policy if any could have prevented the
killings in san bernardino. not every shooting is preventable, but we are not even trying. robert in trenton, missouri, independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: what i don't understand is, it seems to me like most people don't understand that a gun is nothing but a piece of metal shaped in a certain form. it has no brain, it has no conscience, it has no mobility, and salt -- until someone picks it up. that gun can do nothing on its own. i am tired of this gun control. why do they want to take guns from innocent people that don't want to do any harm with them? say, it nothing, like i is a hunk of metal. it has no conscience, it has no brain, it has no ability. compromising about on semiautomatic or assault weapons?
it doesn't make any difference whether it is a single shot or a fully automatic , it is still just a hunk of metal with no conscience, no brain, no mobility. it is nothing until someone picks it up. host: ok. we've got your point. i just want to add this to the conversation from "the new york times" on their story on mass shootings. said one organization found certain patterns. in only 11% of the cases did medical, school, or legal authorities know times of mental illness in the gunman before the attack. the mystic violence figured strongly in 57% of the cases. the victims included a current or former intimate partner or family member of the attacker. more than half of all victims were women. more than two thirds of the shootings took place in private residences. about 28% occurred in public places. of the attackers were
not prohibited from possessing guns because of private -- prior felonies, but the organization still found there was less likelihood of mass killings in a set require background checks for handgun sales than in states that do not, and even less chance of shootings by people who are prohibited by law from possessing firearms. jim, in michigan, a republican. go ahead. caller: good morning, how are you? host: just fine, go ahead. caller: i am a republican, and there is no quick fix to this problem with firearms. it seems to me they passed several laws for drinking and driving, and yet that does not to go out and drink and drive and kill people. what needs to happen in our is that we need to reevaluate mental health issues. 2000, or backrly in 1998 when they started
closing the psychiatric wards here in institutions michigan is when these problems really started arising. that if enough people would step back and look at the situation at hand and fully address the problem, we would not have the situation that we have right now. i don't know if the republicans are going to agree with me or not, but we really need to do that. thank you for letting me speak my mind. host: we will have to leave it there for now on this conversation. coming up next we will talk with two members of congress. we will begin with the newly elected representatives darin illinois discussing the transportation deal just reach this week in congress. then later we will speak with democratic representative brad sherman about the problem of crisis in the middle east. we will be right back.
>> booktv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors, every weekend on c-span2. saturday afternoon at 2:00 it is the 15th annual book festival in las vegas, featuring author talks on race, free speech, and the american west. >> it is tragic that this word has to be -- had to be invented but there is a word invented by an australian anthropologist. it is the uncontrollable loss of a place you know that has been pulled out from underneath your feet. so you feel nostalgia for a place you have been and you want to go back to it. you are standing still and you are watching the landscape at
the front of your windshield the way. eastern, bullets are prize-winning journalist gilbert gaul examines the business culture of college football. >> i don't think the players are going to be set aside just with a couple of thousand dollars. i think you're going to look around, some of them are quite how muchey will see money is there and what the coaches are getting paid and ask why they shouldn't be getting more. >> joining the conversation is john mcmillan, former u.s. representative from maryland and president and ceo of the athletic directors association. and sunday at noon, a live three-hour discussion with political commentator cokie roberts. she has authored several books including "ladies of liberty," and her latest, "capital gains ." games -- dames
>> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome congressman darin lahood, republican of illinois, the son of former transportation secretary ray lahood. thank you very much for being here. make of this whole process, and the deal that was reached for the highway bill? guest: thank you for having me this morning. great to be with you and your viewers. the transportation bill that thinkut of conference, i the bill is good legislation for the country. fixing america's surface transportation, that's the bill. there has been a lot of uncertainty with the piecemeal transportation bills that have been passed, i think 33 of them over the last three years. so this is a bill that is long-term.
it gives a lot of flexibility and discretion to the state. it strengthens highway infrastructure, roads, bridges, 80% of the money goes to roads and bridges. for a district like mine where transportation info sector is the background -- backbone of the district, it is good for jobs, it is good for opportunity. companies like caterpillar from my district are going to do a lot of construct -- construction. there are also provisions that help with the streamlining of environmental issues that come up and a lot of road projects. somend of decentralized as of the transportation funding, which is good. overall what it tries to do is make our transportation system more effective, efficient, and accountable, and it has very bipartisan support. i was very proud and honored to be part of the conference as the newest member of congress. speaker paul ryan put me on .heir along with my chairman
it was a great opportunity to get a glimpse of this process and support a good piece of legislation which will help the country. host: how is it paid for and how much it is going to cost? past we have had fully funded six-year bills. this one is a five euro bill. through three years. it does not raise the gas tax, which is controversial. i did not support that, there are a number of funding mechanisms in there to get us to roughly the $300 billion. when you look at those there are a lot of tax provisions in there. there is a lot of moving money around from different pots of federal agencies. the money comes together without raising taxes. there are some user fees in there which will be helpful, when we look to the future eventually we will have to look at some long-term sustainability when it comes to some type of user fee, but for now i think
this is a good first step with giving us a sustainable, long-term transportation. host: would you have supported raising the gas tax? guest: i would not have. i think our gas tax is high enough right now. the administration was not supportive of that, and so i was not supportive of that. host: what does this mean for states that have been waiting, that have been dealing with patches some short-term . what does it mean to have this five-year bill? guest: what it means is they can plan for long-term now. projects that they have been thinking about that they could need to fix, we many of these roads and bridges throughout the country. this will be money that will be block granted to the different states. so in illinois it will come to the illinois department of transportation and they can prioritize projects throughout the state, the urban and rural -- both durbin and perl.
this will be a set amount of money over the long term for they can plan that out. that is good for everybody. it is good for our locals, it is good for our workers. the certainty of that is going to be important. we are talking about transportation infrastructure issues here with the newest member of congress, darin lahood , a republican of illinois. start dialing in. the four we get to the calls i do want to get your thoughts and what happened yesterday in california, in san bernardino, that mass shooting there. what is your stance -- we have been talking with our viewers about this -- on universal background checks? is that something you would be for? what do you think needs to be done to lessen the mass shootings we are seeing in this country? guest: obviously my thoughts and prayers are with the victims. tragic situation, what happened in san bernardino yesterday. obviously an investigation is ongoing, but obviously the fbi is involved. we have top law enforcement
looking at this. we have had too many of these. and prayers answered these are with the victims, most importantly. we need to find out what occurred here. obviously we have some limited information here this morning on a couple of the shooters, husband-and-wife, you look at the nature of how this was put together. it was very planned, calculated. there were explosives. this does. seem to be some random attack. this was planned, which causes all of us concern. i was a former federal prosecutor, worked in the terrorism field, so i have some familiarity with this. we want to make sure we have a full accounting of what occurred here, particularly after what happened in paris. let's find out the facts, let's find out the conclusions of what occurred here, and then we can make decisions on how we move forward. host: when it comes to the gun debate, are there. areas wherethere
you think the republicans could compromise and there could be some common ground? iest: in the district where represent, there is a difference of opinion. i'm a strong supporter of the second amendment. i think we have lots of gun laws on the books right now. we need to enforce those more. as a former federal prosecutor i prosecuted a lot of gun cases. need morethink we resources for mental health issues. i am supportive of that. we need more resources to go after people who should not have guns, convicted felons, people convicted of mental -- people convicted of domestic violence, people with mental issues. iorion is going to put forward a bill to help address a mental issues in this country. we need to address how we spend money to address that issue. let's get the calls, carol is up next in boca raton, florida, and independent.
caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. it is approximately $3.5 billion in the transportation bill. is that what you said, is going to highways roads and bridges? i want to know what the other 20% is and is there anything that can be cut since republicans are normally for cutting and trimming budgets? are the lobbyists getting their votes? i know those are tough questions but i am hoping you will answer them. host: thank you, carol. guest: the funding is $300 billion, it is a lot of money. 80% of that money will go to roads and ridges throughout the country. the other 20% will go to transit programs in many of our urban areas, whether that is in , but lots oftown other urban project. that is generally the split, 80%
20% split between roads and bridges transit. in terms of how we get that funding, we did not raise the gas tax. there was a big push to do that. that did not happen. we found the resources within the federal budget, moving some and having some user fees. i think it is a win-win for the american public, and safety and how we make america safer. our rail system, there are significant resources there to help our rail system. don, yellow springs, ohio, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i love you greta, thank you for everything you do. this moving federal money around , what you are actually doing is robbing the u.s. federal
reserve, which is supposed to secure the banking system to pay for infrastructure and things that should be paid for either through taxes or a user system. i think that that is totally wrong. you are endangering the banking system and you need to knock it off. guest: well, obviously there is controversy with how do you find things. people clearly did not want the gas tax rates. people what we saw -- clearly did not want the gas tax raised. there have been a lot of proposals put on the table. you do polling, you have public-private partnerships. where do you find the money? that is the big issue, especially when you have an $18 trillion debt. i think this was a good compromise on how we reach this. raid thet raise the -- federal treasury. his is money that is out there that we found. host: what does it mean know,
for the federal reserve? guest: i'm not sure exactly what he was referring to their in his comments. the money that is being used here is money that is currently in the system and is money that has been set aside for transportation and other programs. host: this is bloomberg businessweek, they say that the is a loss.nal lean well the financial industries wouldst -- would still have to share a portion of it it would be a floating pam -- payout. this gets pretty complicated, but again, we're looking at how you find things. you don't want to raise the gas tax so how do you find that? i think this is a good compromise in working with the
reserve and also with financial institutions to find the necessary resources. there was a lot of talk about using offshore tax money and the repatriation of that. that has been on the table. that was taken off in the end. again, in some respects this could have been double the size, not $300 billion but close to $600 billion. in the end i think it was a good compromise. host: have you heard, is the administration on board? will they sign this? guest: i think they will. obviously it comes back to the house tonight. he will have a vote, i anticipate it will pass. it will go to the senate for final passage over there and will go to the present desk -- president's desk, we hope you will sign it. host: we go to richard in kentucky, a democrat. caller: good morning, yes. i called about the incident in san bernardino, but since you brought that up about the bill i
will just ask a quick question to the representative. ?id you read the whole bill did you have time to sit down and read, was it 200 pages, 2000 pages? guest: the answer is yes. so as part of the conference committee on this bill i had an opportunity to be in for the negotiation on this, and i did read it. caller: well, good. was everyone in congress able to read all the words, or were you just a privilege one -- privileged one? guest: the bill was put forth last week so any member of congress had an opportunity to review it. they could've done it online. all of the house members had an opportunity to view this. whether they all did, i can't answer that. quick, i seeeally that the liberals in all the
newspapers are talking about gun laws and how they need to stop what is going on. i just for the life of me don't understand why the liberals want to penalize me for what these crazies do, these islamic and i am not afraid to say that, just like there are some goofballs that are right wing. i should have a right to protect my family, and not be penalized because of criminals. richards point, law enforcement has not ruled out terrorism in the shooting in san bernardino, but they have not said it was terrorism either. guest: we need to find out what the conclusion of law-enforcement enforcement is, but on the issue of gun control, i think we have plenty of laws on the books right now. in my district, where i
represent in illinois, beginners there are law abiding citizens. it is the criminals, it is the other folks. we need to focus on them and put our resources towards prosecuting those people to enforce our laws that are currently on the books. host: we will go to pennsylvania, will is watching there, a republican. caller: how are you doing? host: good morning. caller: congressman, listen, god bless you. i hang around with a lot of lawyers and district attorneys here. i don't go around killing people. these people are not. -- these people are nuts. wantemocrats, they don't to talk about how bad this is.
in california, i want to tell you and i hope you tell the , do you know what the problem is? now becauseright they are coming after us. congressman, i love you, i am a greek-american, i have been here 55 years. i will tell you something. i don't care what they do in europe. i want to save my country. host: ok. let's talk about tightening up the visa approval process, also there is legislation, the funding bill possibly will have a proposal to pause the syrian refugee program. how do you feel about those two issues? i was proud to support the bill in the house two weeks ago to put a positive on our current immigration and refugee policy. i think it is the right thing to do. if you listen to fbi director
comey,- fbi director they can't assure us that we are going to be safe. so what we basically did is we put something in there that said we want some assurance that the background checks have been done properly, that they are not part of isis or a terrorist group. we have to protect the homeland. when you look at what happened in paris, you look at the soft targets they were hitting, it appears that the perpetrators of that had embedded into the community there. at least one or two of them had immigrated there. so you look at those soft targets, sporting events, a restaurant, going to a concert. these are all things that we do regularly here in america so i think the legislation that passed the house is the right approach. we had very bipartisan support, 60 democrats supported that. we have to support the homeland -- we have to protect the homeland and there is no negotiating with them. it is either they win or we went
, so i think this is a good west step to make sure that are not letting and anybody that wants to harm america. this goes to the senate, i hope it passes there, and i hope the president signs it. host: our guest this morning, republican darin lahood, won a for the 18thion district of illinois. he is also the son of former transportation secretary ray lahood. new to congress, here about nine weeks. which lawmakers -- he works on the transportation bill. we will hear from rick, an independent in florida. caller: good morning greta, nice to see you, and congressman, nice to see you also. i have some comets and that i will get off the air and listen to your response. transportation, i did some research and it looks a lot
of the money that was used the ast time we had transportation bill was used for things like a transportation museum in kentucky. that is what you all need to stop. if the money is for bridges and roads, use the money for that. regarding the immigration and the problem we have with isis and terrorism, i don't understand why congress does not pass a law that simply revokes passports. if you want to be a tourist and go to syria right now, issue just a no go, tourism will have to suffer for a wild. yourdy going over there, passport is revoked. your citizenship is revoked. don't let them back in the country. that also would stop people in those countries that can come over here without a visa. this influxto stop because we will get thousands
more killed, it think he realized that. thank you very much and i will hang up and listen to your response. guest: thank you. on the first point, when you talk to the transportation bill, i think you might have been referring to the stimulus bill that was passed. obviously there was a lot of money in there for transportation. frankly, i was not here and congress was not supportive of the stimulus bill because i do think some of the money was wasted. i think what we did in this bill is we put in some provisions that make sure -- make sure the money goes to the state so it is .pent wisely by the state transportation department in the states are really the experts, they know what the money needs is lessent on, so it federal control and more control by the states. i think that is good. and the streamlining that we put in there are much different than the stimulus. this is again, a product of a republican congress, but also a broader coalition of transportation folks. i think it bodes well for money accountablen an
way, and that is really with the goal is here. and his last point about immigration, i agree with him. i think what we need to do is put a stop to letting anybody that comes into this country, from any of those countries, whether it is syria or others, until we sufficiently know that they pass a background check. they're made be exceptions for children and elderly people, but first we have to make sure they go to the background check. that is what the american people want and i think they deserve that. host: back to the highway bill. "usa today" editorial board weighing in, saying lost opportunity to improve highway safety. forhere were academy awards members of congress there would surely be contenders for the hearing talking about auto defects. they said the collective outrage seemed genuine until it came time to do something. the massive highway measure, to be voted on this week, do little to stop car manufacturers from
doing the same thing again. this marks the laws opportunity to make americans safer at a time when crash fatalities appear on the rise again at a record 62 million cars were be called last year. the recalls followed revelations that some carmakers and suppliers have for years secretly flouted laws and regulations and failed to get defective cars off the road. guest: my issue is that is a separate issue. some of the issues of dealing with the car company should be addressed differently and i think they will be. about infrastructure. this is about funding for roads and bridges and repairing our infrastructure system across the country. that is that this is about. the issues brought up there, dealing with the cars and some of the recalls and allegations against the car companies, that can be addressed in a separate bill. i really look at these as two different issues. host: we will move on to rick and florida, a democrat. are you with a stack of caller: -- are you with us?
caller: yes ma'am. as far as the highway bill is concerned i think the biggest isblem we have in that area fraud, waste, and abuse. first off, is the money is earmarked towards bridges and roads it should go towards ridges and roads and not everybody's little pet project. and as far as the gun control issue goes, i would just like to know -- and i would like the representative to answer me honestly -- how much did the nra contribute to your reelection? what is your nra rating? and justified to me why you will not close fleamarket and gun show loophole's, and wide you think that it's ok for people on the no-fly list to be able to buy guns? i will take my answer off the air. thank you. guest: i would first say, on the question related to transportation, first of all
there is -- there are no earmarks left. there is no earmarking for specific pet projects anywhere in this bill. this gets blocked granted to the states and lets the experts decide where the money should be spent. it takes the authority out of washington dc and give the to local transportation authorities for the money to be spent on their priorities. they prioritize within the state are within your locality on what needs to be prioritized there. i think that is much different than what we have seen in the past with highway transportation bill, and i think that that will bode well for the country. that is the reality of what the bill is. , i wouldcond point just emphasize that i have been a state and federal prosecutor. i prosecuted a lot of gun cases. we have law after law after law on the books. i am supportive of more resources, hiring more prosecutors to go after people
who should not possess weapons, people with mental illness, convicted felons. rightly we do not have enough resources to go after those folks. and on the issue of the markets and those other issues, i am a believer in the 10th amendment. let each individual decide what they want to do. if the state of florida, the state of georgia wants to do that, let them do that within their state, but having the federal government involved in telling individual states of -- individual states what to do, i am not supportive of that. i think they can do that in their own individual states so i would tell the caller to lobby their state legislator -- their state legislature. host: jonesboro, arkansas, republican, carol. morning.ood i would like to know in regards to transportation bill, i know in our area we have trains that just go through our town. in regards to that, how is the
transportation bill to beat up? our town, i know sometimes our mayor comes to ask and ask of comes to us and asks us would we pay a 1% tax if he is wanting things done. he asks us for money, from the citizens. host: so you are wondering how it breaks down. guest: i think it is a good question. what you are referring to -- obviously there are different levels of government that have their own transportation projects. that could be a city, a county, your state. the federal government plays a role in that. when you have a transportation project in your hometown, a lot of times that is funded by a lot of different sources. it may be 60%ts funded by the fed and maybe 30% by the state and 10% locally. project,epends on the
but obviously there is money collected locally in your town or your community that can be spent there, depending on what the project is. much of this money that comes on the federal side is for long-term, bigger project like repairing a bridge or a building a new bridge, or major highway or interceptor projects. won't bethis money spent 100% on a specific project but will be part of a project, sometimes that will be anywhere from 50% up to 80%, but it will be in partnership with local and state authorities and the money that they have put forth. again, it is a combination and a collaboration between local, state, and federal, and frankly that is the way it should be, not washington dc spending all the money. host: one last phone call here for you, lonnie in jacksonville, illinois, independent. hello congressman. i am a constituent of yours. guest: good morning. caller: i was wondering how you
balance various issues. for example, yesterday there was a part of the education bill that could dramatically hurt special education and i was unable to contact you to have you say a word about it. how do you balance issues that you deal with everyday? guest: thank you for the question. i was in the state legislature, so i had some experience there. it is tough. you have to balance your district and listening to your , and you also have to figure out what is in the best interests of the country. on the particular education bill that i supported, it is not a perfect bill, but there are many provisions in their but i think are good. it basically takes away a lot of the authority from the department of education in washington dc. a decentralized as federal government when it comes to education policy. it frankly gets a lot more authority to local school boards and tuesday education associations, and i think the more we can do that the better.
core,o addresses common which i am not supportive of. it takes away some of the standardized testing and federal standardized requirements that are in there. i think that is a good thing. i look at when balancing, on that one i think there are many provisions in there that will help my constituents and help kids to be better educated and help our teachers that are inundated by mandates. this bill helps with that. in every way you have to look at the pros and cons. this one overall i think would be very beneficial to our schoolkids in our teachers. host: you have been here for all nine weeks -- your impressions so far of congress, and also your priorities? guest: i am honored to be here. my predecessor had resigned and i jumped in and ran, it is a wonderful opportunity.
it is a good district represent, central and west central illinois. i am proud to be here. is a world district. agriculture is the number one industry in my district. i think my district is the ninth largest producer of quite -- of corn and soy going -- soybeans. we creates, how do more jobs in private sector? caterpillar is based in my district. john deere is very close. edm. in my district it is really people who play hard, -- work hard, play by the rules, strong faith in god, but they are not really happy with their government. how do we get the economy moving again? i am a big believer that the government should not be in the business of creating jobs, but we should create an atmosphere for the private sector to flourish. lower taxes, less regulation. how to make government more effective, efficient, and accountable? that is really my goal. and: you have an up --
upcoming vote on the transpacific partnership. how do you feel about that? guest: i have to read it first of all. it is a huge bill. i want to make sure i read every page of it. overall i think trade is definitely good for farmers in my district. it creates jobs and opportunities. generally i am supportive of trade, but i want to read it. host: congressman, i hope you come back and talk to our viewers again. guest: i appreciate it. host: we're going to take a short break. when we come back we will pick up where we left off yesterday on the program about the fight against isis. ,e will talk with brad sherman democrats in california who sits on the foreign affairs committee. we will be right back.
>> i am here to voice my strong support for the courageous people of afghanistan, women and men who have suffered for years under the taliban regime. each and every one of us has the responsibility to stop the suffering caused by malaria, because every life in every land matters, and all of us can do something to help. >> after studying first ladies and knowing some of them very well, like my own mother-in-law, or fellow texan lady -- or fellow texan, lady bird johnson, we define our work by whatever our interests are. >> laura bush is the second woman in american history to be
thewife of one president in daughter-in-law of another. she became first lady after a controversial election brought her husband, george w. bush, to the office. with less than nine months in office did 9/11 terror attacks occurred. first lady laura bush comforted the nation will consider -- continuing to pursue interests important to her such as literacy and women's health. laura bush, this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series, "first ladies, influence and image." examining the public and private lives of the women who held the position of first lady. for martha washington to michelle obama. eastern on:00 p.m. c-span3. >> she was such an authentic person. >> i always thought there was more to the story of lady bird than anyone had covered. she became, i think, the first modern first lady.
in other words she had a big staff, she had a very important project, she wrote a book as soon as she left the white house. modernlly invented the first lady. >> sunday night on "human day -- "q&a," an inside look at the marriage and political partnership of lady bird and lyndon johnson. >> she is the perfect example of the conclusion i came to, which was those women saw something in those men, the ambition, the opportunity to really climb and make a mark in the world, and they married them in spite of parental objection. she is a good example of that. that is why i decided i had to find out more about her. >> sunday night at it got eastern and pacific on c-span's -- at 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> "washington journal"
continues. host: were presented -- representative brad sherman of california's is on the foreign affairs committee. the administration announced that they are going to be sending more special forces into iraq and syria to fight isis. your reaction? guest: it is one additional step. it is really an intensification of the same policy. what is important to realize is that the shia alliance headed by iran is every bit as evil and every bit as dangerous as is isis. assad, who iss, supported by iran, when he kills 1000 people with barrel bombs, he has the good taste to deny it . whereas advices killed 10 people, they put it up on youtube. -- whereas if isis killed 10 people, they put it on youtube.
the other thing is if you go after isis and you leave assad in power, you will get into his .olity -- policies host: a lot more to dig in with that. but i want to first talk about stuff going forward. given what you just said about bashar al-assad, should the united states form a coalition with russia, like france would like us to do, to fight against isis in syria? guest: we should coordinate with the russians, try to avoid going crossways with them. incident over -- turkey certainly did the world no good. but we can't form a coalition of must we have shared objectives, and russia's objectives is to protect assad. they have thrown himself and
with this iran-based coalition that is killing people in yemen and in iraq, and of course in syria. host: have you listened to what the president said tuesday in paris, and he talked about the future of paris? [video clip] president obama: not just the cohesion of the coalition but the united states put together, but also the increasing intensity of our actions in the air and progressively on the ground. i think it is possible over the next several months that we will see a shift in calculations in the russians, and a recognition that it is time to bring the civil war in syria to a close. it is not going to be easy. ,oo much blood has been shed too much infrastructure has been destroyed, too many people have been displaced for us to anticipate that it will be a
smooth transition. isil is going to continue to be a deadly organization, has of its social media, the resources ofhas, and the networks experienced fighters that it possesses. it is going to continue to be a serious threat for some time to come, but i'm confident that we are on the winning side of this, and that ultimately russia is going to recognize the threat that isil poses to his country, , is the most significant, and that they need to align themselves with those of us who are fighting isil. host: congressman sherman? guest: he explored the difficulties of the situation. we have got to get a better government in damascus. sad.can't have a sod -- as
on russia instead of being our side of the table is on the other side of the table, that i think it is important for the entire world that we get a change of government in syria. that would be de-single most important thing we can do to get rid of isis -- isis because as s sunnis believe that the real choice is between isis and aside -- assad, they will back isis cared host: john mccain -- isis. host: john mccain said yesterday he welcomed the task force creation, but compared white house actions to the gradual extension of u.s. involvement in vietnam. do you agree? guest: there is certainly a risk, and that is why presidents will deploy more than we should. and we've got to consider an authorization to use military force. the president is still operating under the one we passed in 2001. and it will be difficult to
craft because we want -- we don't want to give the president a blank check. that being said, -- the prior lives,nt cost us 4500 not to mention those wounded and scarred, in an unnecessary war in iraq. when you start criticizing this president, the first thing have to do is give them credit for the fact that we haven't gotten into a big war costing us thousands of casualties. well, ourn say, current policy isn't working. it is at least a policy that doesn't lead to a thousand american casualties every year. host: however, has this strategy defeated isis or diminished them? guest: it has contained them to some degree, but the strategy is really flawed. we are bombing maybe 5% as much as we did with iraq, maybe 10% what we did with syria or libya. the reason is we have this
bizarre zero civilian casualties will. you cannot run an air campaign that way. for example, we should be hitting the oilfield. they say there are workers there who are technically civilians. isisu work for isis in the oilfield, compare that to world war ii. imagine we had had a role that we didn't hit german munitions factories because the people working in those factors were not soldiers. host: what about the issue that forcesns in the iraqi are about to take hammadi -- rah madi, but isis threatens to kill them and they leave. guest: that is correct. and especially the way we wage war, but in any were, there can be civilian casualties. but if you are going to have a bombing campaign and you want --
won't take out high-value targets because they brought some human shields, then you don't have a bombing campaign. and no one is anxious to have a ground effort. there are some elements in syria that we could do a better job of arming. that has been another problem. when we go to forces on the ground, we say you have to swear you won't go after assad, and then we will help you. any reasonable syrian sunni wants to go after assad. this man has killed 200,000 people. of course, we have been unsuccessful in building a reliance with ethan reasonable syrians paid host: so they should -- syrians. host: so they should release the full force of the air campaign? guest: we should have a more robust air campaign, but we cannot stop every bombing effort because there may be a civilian casualty. and we have to arm reasonable elements and as many of those
are going to assist on fighting assad as well as i says. host: tom is first in massachusetts, and independent. caller: high, greta. thank you for c-span. representative, i would like to ask you what are your stances on gun control and do you own a gun? guest: whether i own a gun or not this something capitol police would not want me to tell you on television. my stance is we ought to have some reasonable gun controls. we ought to make sure that those on the terrorist list at least have to go through the process for they buy a gun. i don't think as a matter of due process you can say we take away their second amendment rights, but it shouldn't be easy -- it shouldn't be easy for someone -- it shouldn't be easier for someone on the terrace -- list to buy a gun than it is to get on a plane.
we can have loopholes in the system. we do havenize that a second amendment. we need reasonable gun controls. and whenever one of these incidences happens, one of the issues is how do they get the weapon? host: why would the capitol to saynot what you whether or not you own a gun? guest: i try not to tell people where i live. i guess folks might be able to find out. want everybody in the country who cares to know what security systems do or do not exist at my home? and the home of my family. host: we will go to washington, a republican. caller: good morning. i have a few comments to make and then i will hang up. i would like to ask the congressman, why shouldn't we just held in a humanitarian --
help in a humanitarian way these refugees secure their freedom, their security in camps in their own nation? we don't need to bring them here. we don't need to look around the world and see who is under distress because they can't handle their own civil war and move them here? and we shouldn't, from a macro view, be somewhat deciding who is in power and who is not. as much different as it is in the u.s. where we have peace on our streets, relative peace and tranquility, we can't bring. around the world by the point of a gun or bomb strikes. my theory is they need to be left alone to fight their own civil war. if we secure and the free people that are not violent muslims in that nation, we can build a force and demand that the adjacent countries, who are simpleminded people, contribute to that. and i don't want to see american boots on the ground doing that, helping train, etc. providing arms, that is fine. but in that scenario, we are
still picking winners or losers. and i think that that is an organic problem in islam. the religion itself is to go through sort of the christian old testament to the new, where all the violence is purged. i do not know a bunch about. you can google it and find out that their central profit of their religion, mohammed, was a warlord. he was an incredible warlord. and the crusades were a reaction to that action to free the slaves that he took from europe. so their religion needs to go through a transition from the old to the new within new testament. and you can't force that through military. you have to let them organically on their own soil solve it. host: ok, got your point, cameron. guest: you have said so much. first, as to whether letting refugees into the united states is our primary response to the
syrian refugees and displaced persons, obviously it is not and it can't be. the number of displaced syrians approach is 10 million people. 99.9%estion is whether follow the policy you have outlined, which is to try to provide humanitarian aid but not let people come to the united states, or whether it is 100.0%. in other words, the president is talking about bringing in 10,000 people on a highly selective basis as a sign of solidarity, a sign of our humanitarian intentions. that is not going to solve the problem. it is one out of every 1000 displaced persons. as to the other 999, even if we go with the president's program, our focus has to be humanitarian. as to picking winners and losers, you cannot just leave the middle east alone because if you ignore the middle east, that doesn't means the -- mean the
middle east is going to ignore you. in order for isis to be a loser, assad needs to be a loser as well. as to your history -- to say that the crusades were in response to mohammed's rule in saudi arabia ignores the fact that there were several hundred years difference. i think you have your history a bit wrong, but i think you are right that a major effort for the syrian people is what we do in the middle east providing humanitarian aid. host: virginia, mike, independent caller. go ahead. caller: good morning, congressman. and thank you very much for c-span. with all due respect, sir, i could not disagree with you more on your approach to solving the syrian crisis that is spreading everywhere now. simply put, let's learn from our
mistakes. this administration very prematurely, when the egyptian people took to the streets, the administration took a very strong stand against egypt in government. the egyptian government was for 30 years a u.s. ally. and it was replaced by what? the muslim brotherhood. it could not get any worse than that. then the people took to the streets again and replace the muslim brotherhood because they realized the mistake. that brotherhood government was elected democratically because the people of egypt realized their mistake. if we take the same approach in syria, you would create a worse problem. regime,umble the assad we do not have a replacement for it. to think naively that if we remove him from power we would have a very good government in place that would just purchase violence and eradicate isis, i'm
afraid this is a very grave mistake that we would do. there is no replacement for the government as we stand right now. and most of the syrian people on the street are violent. radical muslims. this is a fundamental problem that we have to look at. you replace the government, who do you have in place? the same thing happened in egypt. so many years of dictatorship that these people went through have completely erased any replacement for the government to have in place right now. host: congressman. on egypt, egypt's, -- i certainly was pushing the administration to recognize and support general sisi. it was clear that the brotherhood was elected in elections. they did not respect the democratic process. they were in the process of imposing a dictatorship and the
egyptian people stopped them. i did not agree with the administration when they tried to cut off the sisi government paid and they are moving in the direction i think you and i would agree with. i do not think you can take that example and apply to syria because you cannot say assad is the government. assad is one of the military forces in syria. there is a civil war. he controls way less than half the country. and to say that if we just a point, if we just leave things, then assad will restore order and peace is simply not true. host: who would take over? guest: that would have to be negotiated hopefully in advance. because of thet very strong hand that russia and iran have -- i used to think of his entire regime going, now i
think there will be elements of this regime that are in a coalition. but to say that you can have a government made up of -- and no one else would condemn syria to continued civil war because the majority of people who live in syria or used to live in syria will not accept that. host: and they are sunnis? guest: yes, the overwhelming majority are sunni. and this regime has been a very andressive -- in general -- oppressive to all in syria. get your reaction to the front page of the "washington post" yesterday. ordinary people have seen videos, heard stories, and reached the same conclusions, one that might seem absurd to americans, but is widely is.erved by iraq
if reading that paragraph, you are saying that they view as both as an ally of and the most radical sunni, ishink the greater issue having taken side with the shiites against the sunnis in this conflict. there was a time when there were various -- there are various sects of shiite islam, but this conflict has needed them altogether. -- has knitted them altogether. it is likee now -- there are no differences between them. it is like wen, don't even notice there is a difference between shiites and sunnis.
and much of what we have done in the middle east has dramatically aided the shiite side. we took out saddam hussein, the reached thisave deal with iran which will give them access to $130 billion of their own money, but that is money they will use to kill a lot of sunni muslims. and so you go down the list and our going into syria and say, well, we will help moderates, but only if you swear that you d, that wholeassa package makes us look like we are hostile to sunni islam. host: so, the city's that are part of isis -- are there cities part of isis part of the former saddam regime? guest: this is a rebranded al qaeda in iraq. and they are a combination of
bathistbaptist -- officers from the iraqi army, which we disbanded when we should have kept it together in iraq. we should have rewarded those soldiers were turned over their weapons. instead, we said there is an effect no future for you in iraq, so he took the weapons on. so we created this problem. we control the debate with the surge, but that was a very temporary situation. that organization, whose ranks were swelled by the oppressive actions of maliki, we installed him, and he oppressed the sunnis in his country. syria, andoved into capitalstablished the because they saw a different sunni rebellion against what was regarded as an oppressive shiite regime. so this is an organization that
goes back. and, of course, the president's legal position is we can bomb isis because they really are the al qaeda on iraq. and in 2001, we authorized the administration to go after al qaeda in every -- any way they chose to. we haven't provided clear direction of the administration ever since. host: illinois, tony, a democrat. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. i would like to make three quick points. gentlemant is the that is discussing islam being a violent religion -- i would just suggest that they read the old testament because there is plenty of violence in it. and i am a christian. the second point is this is a war of ideology comes i disagree with your premise that civilian casualties are not problematic.
civilian casualties will turn the people against the u.s.. they can use it as propaganda to recruit terrorism. my third point is for those who would like us to have boots on the ground, bill gates stated that isis would just blend into the population and use that. so we would only be an occupying force to stay there indefinitely, but you cannot destroy isis simply by having roots on the ground if they are going to assimilate into the population. find parts of the scriptures of any of the great religions that clash with modern values. christianity and judaism have process, some
colored a reformation, some use other terms. and there are those in the muslim world who believe that there needs to be some theological re-examination of -- islam takely some in positions that are hostile to modern, peaceful life. that being said, it is a religion that teaches peace. passages in the koran are fully consistent with that. assadcivilian casualties, creates enough civilian casualties on purpose every day to do all the recruiting isis needs. we should be minimizing civilian casualties. but if we have a process that says you can't hit a high-value target because you may kill ,omeone who is working for isis
in their oil operations, but isn't technically a soldier, whatever that means, it is not like they are wearing uniforms in any case. if you adopt that, then you really have the very weak air campaign that we have had so far. host: los angeles, tom, a republican. caller: good morning. congressman sherman, i am very pleased to find that i agree with you. usually ih 100% which don't. but i do have a favor to ask. when you have your open houses, would you just have one for a couple of hours and take questions from the people? i have tried to get there. i have been told there is a lottery to speak to you. they are carefully scripted. i have been there several times. if you could just open it up to the public, that would be absolutely great. i want to thank you, while i have you recorded here, for your
thoughts and your policies on the syrians and on what is occurring in the middle east. i have a friend of mine that works for the state department and is now retired. i asked him what you think? he said, look, there are one billion people other who are muslims and hate us and are killing each other. don't get in their way. but that is an inhuman way of looking at things. again, i want to thank you and keep up the good work. guest: thank you. we do have townhome meetings in the san fernando valley. we had one in sherman oaks. just a few weeks ago. allow everyone who shows up to talk, and we certainly cannot allow everyone who shows up to talk for as long as they would like. because we attract hundreds of people. and the people who come to our
town halls are vocal, they are articulate, and passionate. and that is why we have a system where we usually have a veteran or one of the cadets take a lottery -- you know -- tickets, and whoever is selected can ask a question. some people who are selected choose not to ask a question. we go on to the next. but if opening it up means that i will stay there until the last constituent has said everything they want to say, the townhall that begins on sunday would interfere with the 8:00 a.m. flight that i have on monday morning. host: new hampshire, matt, an independent. caller: yes, good morning, mr. sherman. and good morning, greta. thank you for c-span. host: morning. guest: my first -- caller: my first comment is in regards to
the medical fund for 911 first responders. i made yesterday in the press that senator mitch mcconnell has pulled this out of the transportation fund. these people -- a lot of them are volunteers. i would like the american people to understand that. there is only one congressional district in the united states that does not have somebody affected by the ones who work after 9/11. swore up and down the air was care. it wasn't. we don't put politicians in jail. but to -- i see these people going to the hill day after day after day. these people are dying in make it a permanent part because there are only so many people, and they are all dying. none of them are going to live a prosperous life. that is my comment on that. host: ok, matt. congressman? guest: i agree.
host: ohio, a democrat. caller: good morning. good morning -- i would like to express my thought to this gentleman with isis. syria, thee to see country, to let all the people out of their one by one and take them to a country. an empty that country out so isis can get in there and take it over. and then get the drones in and wipe them all out. on that one. host: congressman? guest: i think that syrians need to live in syria. europe has been extraordinary in the number of refugees they have taken, just as we were extraordinary with the refugees that we have taken from the central american conflicts that we should still remember.
all of themt move out of syria to and where else in the world. are going toy, we have a syria that syrians can live in. fund, has been1 stripped out of the transportation bill? guest: i think that is accurate. we are trying to make it permanent whether it should be in that bill or some other bill. most democrats have lined up that we need to take care of these people. host: mike in virginia, a republican. good morning, mike. caller: yeah, i wanted to ask him where he stands on sanctuary cities and why was it such a bad thing of -- [indiscernible] -- coming back in the country check of if it -- country checkup if it was -- country?
vet people from syria when they come here, what would be wrong with the saison in syria? host: i am going to leave it there for the congressman because the houses gaveling in early this morning. guest: we need comprehensive immigration reform, and in order to get that, we need to agree on enforcement. and part of that deals with the sanctuary city issue. but also, with a pathway to citizenship for those have lived in our country, have solid records of working, and of course abiding by all of our criminal laws, etc. yes, --saison in syria, yes, that issyria, what we need. and as to vetting, that was put
it on just a couple of weeks ago. bill voted against that because i read it. and the bill that was sold to clauselic as if it was a or reevaluation of a process of allowing syrian refugees in the united states actually was an and itble boon to isis would have immobilized our national security agencies. the bill actually said, if you look at section 2 that, the head of the fbi and the secretary of homeland security would have to personally review every file. if they spent just an hour on every file, they would do nothing else. and so while isis might dream of decapitating one of our national security agencies, that bill would have completely taken off line all three. host: i want to get a quick
reaction. nato invitation to montenegrin props angry russian reaction -- montenegro props angry russian reaction. of all the things russia is worried about, montenegro cannot the among the top 50. you would expect them to issue a press release. but i'm sure that it won't really guide their policy. their policy is first and foremost oriented towards the ukraine and perhaps the baltic states. and while they are supporting assad, which is their ally, i believe we have to look to see whether iran is financing that effort. host: we will go to dee in ohio, an independent. if you could make it quick. dee, good morning to you. sorry, roger, in tennessee, a
democrat. caller: -- [indiscernible] host: sorry about that. apologies. the house is about to gavel in here. dee, are you there? ohio? well, sorry about that. a mix appear with the phones. -- mixup here with the halted what is your prediction -- here with the phones. what is your prediction echo guest: we -- prediction? guest: we have needed it for a long time. congress would have to agree on what level of authority the president should be given. and also, which enemies he would go after. is thatis position now he won't -- you know -- that he has no authority to go after assad, and total authority to put in hundreds of thousands of troops to go after isis.
i think what we need is a similar policy to both those enemies. host: congressman brad sherman, always appreciate your time. guest: good to be with you, greta. host: that does it for today's "washington journal." the house is gaveling in at any moment. live coverage here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. father of us all, thank you for giving us another day. in so many ways the world is exploding with crisis after crisis. we ask your blessing on the people and city of san bernar b