in arizona congressman paul gosar will talk about the ongoing congressional investigation into the justice department's fast and furious gun program. and then jesse ellison talks about a survey on the economic rights of women around the globe. >> today, the department justice is that the mounting charges against two people that allegedly attempted to carry out a deadly plot by factions of the iranian government to assassinate a foreign ambassador, here in the united states. ♪ host: the u.s. says that the two men accused of terrorist plots, they say that it was conceived, supported, and directed by elements of the iranian government.

good morning, everyone. this is wednesday, october 12. we want to get your reaction to this story this morning. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. we will get to your phone calls in just a minute. joining us on the phone, a u.s. foreign-policy national security editor. let's begin with what we know about these connections to the iranian government. caller: a good question. iran has not been known to attack targets in the united states. certainly in recent years. while we are all skeptical, evidence seems to show significant ties to iran. host: what is the evidence? caller: one of the main suspects says that he was working with

people that he believed to be part of the elite arm of the islamic revolutionary guard corps. i will not say wiretaps, but there appears to be elements in which there were plots discussed their and money transfers. host: what parts of the iranian government? there are different parts there now. caller: this reminds me of the curve awful a few weeks ago in cobble -- kabul, where pakistan was allegedly involved, but it was elements of the intelligence agency. if this holds true, it is elements of the islamic --

iranian military guard corps. it has grown and now controls vast amounts of business and entities within iran. that is sort of the paramilitary arm that officials have alleged undertakes terrorist activities are around the world. supporting hezbollah and providing arms to militias in iraq. host: what you make of the words coming from the state department, yesterday? caller: the evidence that a rock -- the evidence seems to support that at this stage. which is quite remarkable, as one of our reporters.

this force has not been known to do this kind of thing in the united states. certainly not for many decades. if it is true, it raises two questions. they have decided to broaden their better fit -- battlefield, as it work. the other possibility is that there is such a fracture ring for a power struggle in the iranian government. host: why would you say that there are factions in the government? caller: there is no one person or institution in control of that country anymore. for the last three decades, especially since the disputed election of june, 2009, the elite of the country have been fighting amongst each other for

security and power. you have factions within the irgc. it is possible that this plot -- i am speculating a bit, but this plot may be the result of those factions and fighting, as it were, conceived by one part of the government. host: why a saudi ambassador to the united states? why him? caller: since the revolution, iran sees saudi arabia as a throwback, retrograde government. the saudis are very worried about a shiite-led iran, in lebanon and bahrain as well. these countries are not friends,

by any means. it is remarkable. to do this, i guess, would be sending a big signal to the saudis. there are reports of other targets of consideration. we do not know how far along those plot scott. host: who is adel agebere? caller: a well-known figure in washington. he first came to attention as the spokesman for the saudi embassy during the first gulf war, in 1991, under the first president bush. he has since moved up the ranks.

after the previous ambassador made some indelicate comments and was removed from his post for about a year, he has been there for three years or four years now. host: let's go back to the attorney general's statement yesterday. what did they not say? were there things that they held back on? was there anything from that prints -- press conference where you fear they did not go? caller: more links to iran is

certainly one thing we would like to see. it is not clear as to why they arrested the initial suspect in september without releasing any other information. host: what comes next for you? what are you looking for? caller: i do not want to reveal what plants to my competition, but we do plan to convert it intensely over the coming weeks and days. looking closely at the ties to iran. looking closely at the effect on the stability in the persian gulf. tensions further inflame. we will do more stories looking into the force itself.

host: what do you expect to hear from the government? caller: more detail about what they know and how they knew it. second, what do we do now? there was a meeting with hillary clinton yesterday in which she talked about helping those countries that may be on the sidelines, and forcing existing sanctions against iran, going full tilt on that. she said that it may help saudi arabia and other persian gulf emirates to work together more closely on security matters. host: have sanctions worked so far against iran? caller: that is a hard question. certainly, not a black-and-white question. it has caused political and

economic pain for the elite in iran. it has isolated that country from the mainstream. i have to say, most irani and do not want to be isolated. -- iranians do not want to be isolated. they consider themselves cosmopolitan. host: what about those on the sidelines? caller: we ask for the same thing of secretary clinton. she would not name names. countries like malaysia, sending weapons technology into iran, either wittingly or unwittingly. china has actually been better about not investing in energy projects there. those would be the big ones. host: thank you for your time. caller: thank you very much. host: we want to get your

reaction to this developing story this morning. if you are interested about hearing more from the saudi arabian ambassador to the united states, go to our website. if you put in his name, we have a few entries on him. larry, good morning. caller: we have two wars that we never should have been involved in. if you follow the money, these people have made almost $1 trillion between the two wars. they are winding down and they want to keep on making money. the officials that they give

kickbacks to, to continue war -- there are people in the united states without jobs. they want to go into iran so bad, they can taste it. they want the people poor and helpless. do not let this war happened. host: to your point, abc news has the report -- the u.s. will not respond militarily to iran. that was just on the jake tapper blog. inside, he writes this.

from next, let's hear mark, pennsylvania. caller: yes, can you hear me? host: we can, you have got to turn down that television. caller code yes. basically, the saudi arabian tavis much blood on their hands as the iranians do. we should cut off all ties with the saudis. i have no sympathy for adel al- jubeir. he has hamas blood on his hands. he is anti-israel, anti-woman, anti-19th century, let alone 21st century. this is an awful plot, it shows how fearsome and dangerous iran is. it is.

but we should not dismiss this and say -- well, they were attacking our friend. he is not our friend. saudis are not our friend. suny and portia, there is no difference. they are evil -- sunni and shia, there is no difference. they are evil and want to eliminate all americans. host: why do you make that statement about all moslems? caller: i did not mean to say that about all muslims. i may have misstated my thoughts. i meant to highlight these countries as rivals in the region. i will respectfully retract any blade hit statement about the entire religion. that was not my intention. host: we will leave it there. a reminder to all of you, turned

down at television. eric, democratic caller, benson, ariz.. -- arizona. go ahead. good morning. caller: does anyone realized the impact of this story? it is tremendous. it seems kind of hard to believe that a country like this would, for one, choose a drug cartel who is usually not very adept at this sort of thing. assassination. for a major country, it borders on in credibility. i think that within a week, israel may attack.

host: based on this? caller: i really do. because they look for no excuse whatsoever. they do not need much provocation. i am not an anti-semite, but this is how it is. host: more about that mexican drug cartel connection. this is from "usa today."

host: also in side of "usa today," it says -- host: stark, louisiana. bonnie, independent. you are next. caller: i cannot believe what you just read. now that i know it has something to do with eric holder -- i did not believe that before, but now i really do not believe it. we got into the vietnam war over a lie. we got into the first gulf war because they had a lady to come up and say that the republican

guard was throwing babies out of incubators. we got into the second call for because of another lie about this white cake stuff that they were supposed to have, when all along we were the ones that sold these chemicals to iraq in the first place. anything this government says, by and not believing anything that they say any more. they are being caught with their pants down on too many domestic issues, and they need something to cover their butts. host: if you go to "the saudi this morning, they have a headline about this foiled plot. missouri, good morning. how're you doing? caller: it seems to me that

after the slobbering in iraq that are based on lot -- that was based on lies, if anyone believes what comes out of the mouth of this government, they are crazy. everyone knows that the no. 1 terrorist in a neat -- in the middle east is the nuclear- armed israel. host: why do you call them terrorists? caller: because they assassinate people all the time. host: los angeles, independent line. caller: but i would have to agree. as soon as i heard about it, there was no way that i would believe that. eric holder is being investigated in mexico, and all of a sudden this comes up? the government is lying about what is going on. i think that they set it up themselves.

that is about it. host: all right. larry, the democratic caller. caller: yes. this is just a plot from israel. israel is the troublemaker. host: what is your evidence? caller: i am not a young girl, like you are. i have a long experience. i am not young, but i am wiser than you are. i say that i am going to call c- span. i am now going to call some authority that regulates these television broadcasts about the role that you are playing in the problems with the israel, ok? you are going to hear from me,

sometime soon. host: because i have a question to the evidence? caller: your profession is always in favor of israel. i do not know if they pay you, but you are always in favor. host: we are going to leave it there. the headline here, "eric holder holding iran accountable for its action." host: then, next to that, an analysis that starts out like this --

host: democratic caller, oklahoma city. your thoughts on this? caller: we, as americans, need to start living up to being americans. we found ourselves as a country that takes pride in and taking in all creeds, cultures, and religions. we need to start understanding other countries and their way of life, allowing them to live here peacefully, amongst themselves.

europe, saudi arabia, we would not have the problem that we have today. but for the fact that there was an assassination attempt on the ambassador? how many people do americans higher to kill other diplomats or political influences around the world? the only problem is that we to kill a shiite. all with american dollars. that is wrong. host: sacramento, california. caller: i think we should take this very seriously. the government of iran has done this before. they will do it again. i believe that that is their nature. they have kidnapped 500 iranians

outside of iran. they are pretty dangerous. we should take that seriously. we should support anything that is in opposition to iran. i am not saying that we should attack them or anything. as long as they exist. host: argue a former iranian? caller: i am an iranian- american. host: when did you come to the united states? caller: 30 years ago. host: why did you leave? caller: i have contacts there. i know everything about what they're doing and what is going on there. host: let me get your reaction

to this "the washington post," article. host: what do you think? caller: they are always looking for attention outside the country to hide the internal problems that they have. also, there is a new competition in the region. also, iran wants to dominate the

area in the kind of innovate. that is why they are doing this. host: a little bit more from "the washington post." other experts said it -- -- host: pendleton, south carolina. dixie, the morning. caller: good morning.

someone was saying that c-span was against everyone. i had problems even with your taking my call. all i have heard for the last 57 calls were independents and democrats on her side. you just gave us something to think about by reading those things. i do think that there is a possibility that the administration was trying to focus on " we were doing. that is viable. it is also viable that other states could be involved. but to say that c-span and the media in general is anti-muslim, that is ridiculous. we see nothing, anywhere, about

the christian assassinations in the killings everywhere. look at egypt and what is going on. to think it we are pro israel to the degree that we are pro- muslim? it bothers me not only that they do not share these plot in the media, which is rare -- and i do not say that israel is always correct or anything, but i am saying that they are the ones who are exposed from all sides. the fact that they have a nuclear weapon is a defense of thing. host: alexander, texas. caller: the plot that they discovered is a fabricated lie, once again, by other middle east countries.

we already made a mistake in iraq when we said that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. why would we believe another lie, invading iran along with saudi arabia? if saudi arabia is crazy enough -- i mean, the u.s. joining forces with them to invade iran? that is what i think. i do not think that we should have another wartime economy. host: to give you an idea but what is happening in congress this week, "obama jobs plan hits a wall."

host: other publications saying this morning that the jobs bill will be split into smaller packages and they will try to pass it that way. on china and valuations -- host: also in the senate, they cleared a hurdle for a free- trade pacts on an expedited schedule. fearing the way for a vote today in the senate. the house will also vote on that. we will get more information on

that in about 10 minutes. we told you about this yesterday. the top democrat in the senate that oversees education policy came out with his bill yesterday. here is the headline from "the new york times." host: that is more about what is happening in congress with

different legislation activities. george, democratic caller, st. louis, missouri. we are talking about iran being accused of a terrorist plot. caller: the intellectual level of your program is amazing. i just cannot understand this nuclear situation in iran, and diplomacy. that fellow from iran, i cannot pronounce his name, but he has expressed so many good things, he and our president should meet and talk, sharing confidence towards a peace in the world, i think. india has the bomb. everyone has the bomb.

if they set off a bomb, it would be a disaster for the country. caller: john, republican, texas. caller: -- host: john, republican, texas. caller: this has to do with the apologetic nature of obama. this is invited upon us because he is apologetic. if we had a strong president, like reagan, they would have retribution. obama will just apologize again. host: all right. there was a debate last night, among others, for gop primary candidates in new hampshire. you want to show you a few moments from the debate, where candidates were asked about the economy. this is one exchange between

herman cain and mitt romney. >> can you name all 59 points of your plan? does that satisfy the criteria of being transparent, efficient, fair, and neutral? >> i have had the experience in life and take on some tough problems. simple answers are often elegant and inadequate. this will have to be more than just tax policy and energy policy, even though these are parts of my plan. one, make sure that we stop the military credence in washington. all of the obama administration's that we say no to, we reverse the ones that cost jobs. two, a trade policies to open up more markets to american goods. of course, stop the cheating that goes on.

and we need to have the rule of law. you could not have the federal government saying to a company, like boeing, that you cannot build a factory in a non-union state. host: of the herman cain economic plan, here is open quote the usa today -- here is "usa today." "the plan is likely to transfer the tax burden to lower income americans and the eye -- be a financial boon for the wealthy. the problem with the analysis is that it is incorrect."

that is from last night's debate. rick perry, governor of texas, was also asked about the economy. here is what he had to say. caller: we need to focus on in this country, not this policy or that policy, but getting america working again. we are sitting on this absolute treasure trove of energy in this country. we do not need any plan to pass congress. we just need a president of the united states is committed to calling back the regulations and freeing this country to develop the energy industry that we have in this country. i promise you that if we do that, we will create an environment where manufacturing comes back to this country. in texas we had manufacturing that brought business in china back. all entrepreneurs, they know that they can risk their

capital for investment. all of this conversation today become substantially less impact will. host: according to washington post, "mitt romney keeps solid footing in gop race." "poll numbers had been sinking, but he is on his way to reassert himself. at times sidelined as others took over the debate, at times caught in exchanges that turned unexpectedly against him." host: here is another moment from last night's debate with governor mitt romney. this is about the bailouts. >> i am not interested in bailing out individual

institutions. there are wealthy people that want to make shares -- make sure their shares are worth something. i want to make sure that we have a national currency across the country, supporting the american people over one institution. there is no question that the lactation suppressant bush was designed to keep the currency of the country -- no question that the work of president bush was designed to keep the currency of the country high. we would have had a complete meltdown of the savings of the american people. action had to be taken. was it worth it? no. was the oil-implemented? absolutely. bailing out general motors and chrysler was the wrong source

for that funding. host: kathy, democratic caller, new jersey. let's get your thoughts on the headlines this morning. wellhead. caller: i have a son-in-law who is a marine. he has been in afghanistan and iraq. he will be deployed out on a navy ship in kuwait and a few other places for the next nine months. i believe that we need to close our doors to the immigrants that are coming from those countries. we need to screen them and make sure that they get deported back. we need to take our country back. we need to get our manufacturing from china back into this country. nixon opened the those stores years ago, to china.

they had said back then that they would make the united states a service country. we cannot be a service country. there are so many people that are unemployed. i have a girlfriend who is a member of the painters' union. my father was president of the plumbers union, for years. the unions are being completely destroyed. most of them are out of work. host: we are going off on a completely different subject here. roots, alabama. caller: i feel like that leaders should study this country's own history. [unintelligible] [unintelligible] order the to be released from

captivity, 500 years before -- the jews to be released from captivity. that was 500 years before christ. host: all right, that was ruth. the front page of "the wall street journal," with this headline -- "u.s. accuses iran in plot to kill ambassador." "a bitter feud, rooted in history." this is from "the washington post." "regional powers that have wages

host: here is a quote from the professor of political science at the american university in beirut. and host: it goes on to say -- "

a democratico to caller, austin, texas. caller: first of all, i am a vietnam veteran. i supported the president when we did the mission to assassinate the lot -- osama bin laden. let's think, did that not give other countries the reason to plot, go into other countries and get assassinations? you have to reap what you sow. i supported taking out been -- osama bin laden, but that just made it so that other countries can justify coming after people in other countries. host: earlier we mentioned that hillary clinton said yesterday that she would try to ask countries, countries who had been sitting on the sidelines,

to up the ante when it comes to iran. here is senator dick durbin, also talking about-sanctions against iran. host: -- >> this is an outrage, that they would reach this far into the united states. this is recognized by the government as a state sponsoring of terrorism. we need to-sanctions and make it clear that this will not be counted. just a few days after 9/11, terrorists decided to again strike here in the united states. for the united states, it is in the united states. this is a protected property of our nation. i would say to the administration to back up my colleague from illinois and look for every available means to let

the iranians know that this conduct is not only unacceptable, but we will do everything that we can to disable them through sanctions from further action along these lines. host: talking about this story that we are get your thoughts on this morning, the u.s. accuses iran of a terrorist plot. here is what he had to say yesterday. >> we have 92 senators, just about the entire set, sending a letter to the president -- just about the entire senate, send a letter to the president to collapse the central bank of iran. these are the paymasters of the iranian revolutionary guard corps. the intelligence service in iran appeared to be involved in the plot that the attorney general

revealed today. host: nicholas, republican, new york. your thoughts? you are on the air. moving on to hammond, indiana. jeffrey? caller: i wanted to comment on your topic today. host: please, go ahead. caller: is this like when iran took the american hostages? host: what do you think, jeffrey? caller: my opinion, same as today. host: all right. we will continue to take your phone calls as we finish this discussion. jim abrams is joining us on the phone. he is a congressional reporter with "the associated press."

we told you about those free trade deals. do you expect all free to pass? caller: they should all passed by fairly easy margins. columbia might be closer in the house. host: what do these deals do? what do they say? caller: basically, american goods, many countries already have lower tariffs when they ship to the united states. namely, that benefits u.s. producers. host: what will be the outcome of this, when it comes to jobs? caller: they are sensitive over how many jobs it will produce. the administration does say that tens of thousands will be

produced. host: when is this expected to be signed into law? caller: id should be signed by the president very quickly. i believe that the south korean parliament still has to vote on it and of the deal. host: what happens after that? once these are signed, what does it take for them to get implemented? caller: it should take a couple of months for them to work out the final details for the other side's parliament to to sign off on the deal. once that happens, it depends on the agreement. some tariffs are only immediate. some, five years and 10 years, depending on the product. host: which american companies will benefit from this trade deal?

host -- caller: a wide range. service products. manufactured goods. adjustments that make it easier for american investors. there have been many obstacles for u.s. investors. host: what about the taa program? was that included in these deals? caller: not directly. it helps workers that were displaced by foreign competition. the democrats and the white house were very consistent on the expansion of trade adjustment assistance. the senate has already approved. the house will do that today. host: jim abrams, thank you. caller: thank you. host: next, we'll be talking to

two members of congress. jan schakaowsky is our guest, next. >> of course, i am delighted, but not surprised that the repeal of the 18th amendment. it had no place in our constitution. >> he was a governor of new york four times, although he never attended high school or college.

although he lost his run for president, he is still remembered to this day by the alfred smith memorial charity fund-raiser dinner. one of the 14 men featured in the new c-span series, "the contenders." >> it has been almost 30 years since a small group proposed building a memorial to honor dr. king. what's the official dedication of the martin luther king jr. national memorial this sunday. >> to meet current and future threats, our military must remain the finest in the world. it must remain agile, able to deter conflict, and win wars.

that is a great challenge. that challenge will bring about difficult times and decisions. i will also tell you that it is an opportunity to shape, change, and transform the army. not just to come to terms with fiscal constraints of the day. but to better meet the challenges that we know we will face tomorrow. host: with possible -- >> with possible defense cuts in the future, army general john mchugh discuss the issues. watch the video online, c- span.org. washington, your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jan schakaowsky, a democrat from illinois, sitting on the house intelligence committee. were you informed on this terror

plot? what do you know about it? guest: only the chairman and ranking members were briefed at a time. you know that this information came up a few days ago. sort of a gang of eight. yesterday, we were given a cursory briefing. we wanted to hear more about it. it is clear that the fbi and its manner of interrogation -- the fbi is the cadillac standard of doing these kinds of interrogations'. they do not use these enhanced techniques. it was clear that the suspect cooperated. we got lots of information. not only about this plot, but other things were learned. it is a great example of good

work that was done by the fbi. the other thing is that it seems pretty clear that this is connected to the iranian army. clearly, there will be follow-up with the iranian government to hold them accountable. russia and china, in terms of cooperating with our sanctions against iran. host: you say that it is clear that there is a connection to the iranian government. what makes you confident? guest: let me put it this way, the information that we have right now, pertinent to what the secretary-general said, the iranian government was a part of this plot. i only know what i was told.

host: what do you expect to hear next? more? guest: there will be more. i think that the issue will focus more on sanctions. stricter sanctions on the iranian government. which, right now, is denying any kind of plot. host: the iranian government declare this to be fabricated by the united states. your reaction? guest: i think that we have good information that was carefully worked to establish this connection. they are still at large and i think we will continue to get more information on this individual. it will probably be a movie. host: this is from "the wall

street journal," editorial page, this morning. host: do you agree with that? guest: i do. when you want to do an assassination within the united states, within an embassy in the united states, it is certainly an act of terror. i do not know if that implies an act of war, but it is a serious act of aggression. host: this is also what they say. host: does more need to be done? guest: i do think that all of those gaps will be investigated right now. if they need to be closed, the door will be slammed.

host: with that take an act of congress to do so? guest: i do not know that. but if it does, there will be unanimous support for that. host: what happens next, in the intelligence community? guest: is a good thing for people to know how successful our intelligence network is. the next step is to hold iran accountable. host: how do you do that guest: i do think that we need to employ enhanced sanctions. tying up their finances as much as possible. host: intelligence gathering, how much has it improved since

9/11 in the announcement by the attorney general? caller: -- guest: we have had a great deal about dates on how intelligence has improved since 9/11. we talked a lot about how thought were not connected. we do a much better job out of connecting the dots and communicating with all levels of law enforcement, including at local levels. this way we have people on the ground, local police departments who are informed. host: what about the ties to the mexican drug cartel? guest: that is the interesting, scary thing about this. individuals who are dealing with and plan to deal with the

mexican drug cartel, that connection is also being investigated. host: moving on to jobs, as you are also in the office of manufacturing and trade. looks like trade deals with south korea, panama, and columbia, will pass out of the house. this is the story on the democrats here, divided. how do you plan to vote? guest: i plan to vote no on that deal. we have 65,000 less jobs over the last decade with these trade deals. they only cause more american jobs to be lost. the chamber of commerce says that we need to start creating

more jobs, more manufacturing jobs, here in the united states. that is what i think we should do. just a quick trade deal would cost of 159,000 jobs. that is according to the economichost: so you disagree we who say that this will provide jobs? guest: the deal whip correa, for example, requires only 35% of automobiles to be american made. that means downstream, all the steel manufacturers, parts manufacturers, they can be made anywhere. columbia is the most dangerous country to be a trade union member. 51 people were killed last year.

51 ceo's were killed in colombia last year, the think that we would be doing a trade deal with them? there is very little punishment as a result. host: harvey is a republican in new jersey. caller: good morning, congresswoman schakowsky. it is nice to see you back. i wonder if you would be so kind as to tell us why you were one of the persons who voted against the simpson-bowles recommendations? please be specific. i not only voted no, i proposed my own alternative which did not cut middle-class and low-income people and have an effect on them, but still been reached primary budget

balance, which was the bolt -- the goal of the simpson-bowles commission that i sat on. i made a number of cuts, even, for example, on medical care, we could save a lot of money if medicare could negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices. i looked at cutting expenditures and also of reasonable and fair increases in revenue. i did look carefully at the defense budget, did not do anything to harm our national security, our soldiers, the families of soldiers, but i offered a complete plan that achieved the goal, but there were other cuts that i felt hurt middle-class people. host: david in tennessee.

good morning, you are on the air with congresswoman jan schakowsky. caller: how come a bill that passes 50-49, anywhere in the democratic system, if there are 99 people voting, 50 people voting one way and 49 the other. host: he is referring to the jobs bill that fell short in the house yesterday. guest: the filibuster has really been used to change the rules. now, in order for debate to proceed forward, it needed a supermajority of 60, which really means the minority can block the will of the majority. i think we need a change in this filibuster rule and do exactly what you said. i am understand it was 51-46,

the ultimate vote. all of the republicans voting against the jobs legislation, legislation that even the chamber of commerce says, in terms of creating more jobs and infrastructure, that it would be a good thing to do. host: two democrats also joined republicans to vote for it. virginia democrat jim webb had this to say. he voted to move toward on debate, but he also said this. the bill should be paid for by other means, such as raising the capital gains rate or ending costly subsidies and tax loopholes. guest: the bill wahad an importt part, increasing taxes to

millionaires and billionaires. that is something that is very popular. this would actually lower taxes for working families by a holiday, cutting the payroll tax in half, putting money in the pockets of ordinary people. i believe what businesses need right now is not so much confidence, not so much tax cuts, they need customers. they need people to go out and spend. that is why the chamber of commerce says many to create infrastructure jobs. you not only put people to work doing important things like fixing weak bridges, but you're able to put money in the pockets of people who will go spend it. host: 14 million americans unemployed right now according to september jobs numbers. how many jobs could be filled

with construction jobs? guest: my legislation would have put 2.2 million people to work. how do i know? every dollar had to be connected to a job. we are talking about fixing schools, which became part of the president's bill. hiring, retaining teachers, firefighters, police officers. restoring our parks, hiring more health care workers and child care workers. every dollar had to be connected to a job. mark zandi, an economist at consulting with john mccain, when he ran for president, estimates the president's bill would create 1.9 million jobs and reduce the unemployment rate by about 1%.

that would be enough to jump- start the economy. that is the hope. in any case, it would lower the unemployment rate and put more people to work. that is exactly what we need. host: mitt romney at last night's debate talked about the president's job plan. >> the stimulus and bills of the president comes up with that are supposedly going to create jobs, we have seen is played out in the theater. what we have seen does not work. the american people know that he borrowed $800 billion for a stimulus program and they did not see the jobs. the right course for america is not to keep spending money on stimulus bill, but instead, to make permanent changes to the tax code. as the president's bill does, if you give a temporary change to the peril tax, employers do not hire people.

they make an investment that goes over a long period of time. guest: that is one of the most repeated false sense that the stimulus bill does nothing to create jobs. the cbo, all of the objective, non-partisan estimates say that it creates between 1.9 million and 3 million jobs. that is just incorrect. i did not hear one thing about how the republicans or mitt romney will create jobs. all they say is we should end the regulations. not just the ones that are redundant or useless, which the president has already said, has identified 500 of them. they want to and regulations so that mercury can be put into the

atmosphere. i have been putting that on the floor of the house. they want to take away the clean air act, clean water act, and get government out of the way, as they say. but that is a danger to our country. host: herald in georgia. guest: i am -- caller: i am one of those republicans who crossed over to obama over the elections coming hearing high hopes about trade. i hear the president talked about bringing in high skilled workers into the country. i saw this exact same traded steel set up with the expectation that we would get new jobs in our country. these nations ended up siphoning off the exact kind of jobs that we are trying to create.

guest: i do not know if you were listening earlier, i agree with you. i am skeptical about the value of these trade agreements in creating american jobs. i am more deaths same thing will happen. that jobs will be siphoned off to south korea and colombia and panama, as opposed to created in the united states of america. we need to make things. we need to do advanced manufacturing, where we take these great innovations that we invent in our country, and bring them to product, and sell them to the rest of the world. that needs to be the emphasis. i will be voting against those trade agreements. host: becky. democratic caller in south carolina. caller: i just want to say, america is the no. 1 terrorist

nation on this planet. always plotting. dropping the bomb after bomb after bomb. i never hear any coverage of the harlem or march. -- war march. when are the american people going to wake up and stop electing these people who want to bomb and kill little kids all over the world? it is so painful to be part of this country. guest: i certainly do not agree that the united states is a terrorist country, but i do agree that we have to wind down the wars, which we are doing in iraq and afghanistan. we need to not just build schools in afghanistan, money to build schools at home. we need to bring our young men and women out of harm's way.

we need to do it as soon as possible. host: anaya, republican. poughkeepsie, new york. caller: i do not believe a word of this iran stuff. i have read about too many falsified missions, -- it has all got a translucent the near to it. it sounds artificial. i do not know if the guy said the iranian government was involved because he wanted to try to get out of it. it is too convenient for the united states. it strikes me as a lie to try to -- host: we heard that sentiment in the first part this morning, this distrust of the american government, what they are alleging here. guest: we are certainly going to

see a trial, a full investigation, the evidence. i do have trust in the attorney- general. that is not how we do it in america. we want to see the full details, as they evolves. i do not think you will be correct, but all of us will be able to see whether you are. host: james writes this on twitter -- referring to the "fast & furious" investigation. guest: there will be investigations to find out what happened there. i do not have the inside story on that. host: to you have confidence in attorney general eric holder? guest: yes, i do. if anything happened, we will find out.

host: chris is from new jersey. caller: if you go into these countries that we have trade agreements with, you will not find anything with made in america on it. the only thing we are trading with these countries is raw material. these countries bid and by our jobs from us. they buy the raw materials from us to assemble the work for cheap labor. so these trade agreements are all about us removing the tax. they charge us a tax for the raw material that we send down to their country for them to assemble. it is all about outsourcing jobs at the end of the day. guest: i do not think these trade agreements are a good thing. especially when you look at the average income of consumers in those countries, it is hard to

imagine the kind of products that we want to export, other than raw materials and agricultural products, are things that they are going to buy from us. i think it can have a downward push on manufacturing in the united states, as we have seen over the last decade the flood of these companies taking their jobs overseas. host: 0 this is next. independent in nebraska. -- otis is next. caller: was your husband a convicted felon? what was he convicted of? guest: my husband was part of a public interest organization that was convicted of check writing, borrowing.

no institution lost any money. he went to prison for five months. he paid his debt to society. there was no money owed because nobody lost any money in the deal. in order to prop up an organization, he served his time, and that is in the past now. host: walter, democratic line. long island, new york. caller: i wanted to comment on the iranian situation. i have family who does overseas intelligence work. the current situation, in terms of the privatization of intelligence park, is insane. there is no such thing as a

loyal corporate spy. the cia may have been corrupt, but at least they were loyal to america. the term privatization of intelligence work is going to mess things up. guest: actually, i have been a great proponent of stopping our outsourcing of our intelligence and security work in iraq, afghanistan, to private companies. i am constantly talking about it, asking our intelligence agencies whether or not we are moving toward people who -- who wear the badge of america, not contractors, and i think you are right. there are certain things that are inherently governmental

functions. we should have people that are explicitly hired by the united states of america, accountable to us, loyal to us, and the intelligence area is one area where we need for fewer outside contractors. host: edward is calling from savannah, georgia. caller: i feel the united states needs a new form, a branch of bank. anybody that wants to can put money into it. it would not be like wachovia or suntrust, where you have an atm. you could have certain groups form this new bank. this would be mainly for the existing banks that are there today. that is my main thought on that issue.

host: falls church, virginia. doody, democratic caller. -- judy, democratic caller. caller: i want to thank your guests for her work on clean air. most people are ignorant of the facts of what we can breed, what affect it will have on us. my question is, what can we normal people do to let our representatives and senators know how important this is to us? guest: i really hope you do. i do not think the members of congress are hearing enough from people who are concerned now that we are turning back the clock. we will be poisoning our air with things as toxic as mercury. i ask my colleagues yesterday, you do not want to leave a debt

to your grandchildren. well, do you want to leave brain damage? that is exactly what -- mercury, for example -- just one example. that is a neurotoxin that affects pregnant women and their fetuses and children as they develop. many women in the united states already have mercury in their body because they had eaten fish that are contaminated. i do not get it. i do not understand how we can sacrifice these health regulations in the name of job creation. that is false. when you ask for pollution controls, those are job creation industries. we have built them up over the years and now we are seeing a complete rollback of decades of work to get our air, water, and planned to be cleaner.

please contact your legislators. host: phyllis in countryside, illinois. independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to discuss the war and imports. as far as the war is concerned, greta, i told you back in 2003, i told my girls club, do not vote for president bush. we are going to go to the middle east for oil. bring all of our troops home. that is $2 trillion a year that we would save, and the lives of our children and soldiers. as far as imports go, let's have a big import tax equalizing $20 an hour. we need more jobs here. guest: we certainly need to do

have fair trade. the president has promised that we could save $1 trillion by winding down the wars, as part of the budget proposal. i think we need to move faster and more aggressively, burning our troops home from afghanistan. but i am worried that they would be replaced by private contractors. we want to make sure that our footprint is smaller in those countries. host: joe is next. democratic caller in orlando, florida. caller: i would like to speak a little bit how congress has not been able to get much done. the first day of the session, the house of representatives, if you recall, they read from the

constitution. as far as i am aware, the word filibuster does not appear anywhere in the constitution. i believe the filibuster is being used -- charity of the minority has been used, presented to us. i know senator harkin has been trying for many years to change the situation. he has been unable to because it is inconvenient for both parties. i hope c-span could do a program about this. i really think our nation is in danger because we are coming up with some-optimal solutions, asked thomas friedman says. guest: i agree with you. there are some changes that should be made to the filibuster rule.

i do believe there is a reasonable amount of time that people ought to have debate in the senate, but once that time has elapsed -- and that was part of the harkin proposal -- you need to have a majority vote to get things through the united states senate. he elections matter, elections cow when you have a majority. we ought to change the rules so that the majority can work its will. host: congressman schakowsky represents illinois. alfred. are you there? go-ahead with your question for the congressman. caller: thank you. good morning. i just want to ask you -- first

of all, the philosophy of people like yourself and the president, has failed. why is it that you continue to try to extract money from productive people in our country? the money that you have spent and wasted is humongous, creating a gigantic debt. yet, your position is let's continue to tax the successful people. guest: first of all, and george bush was handed a surplus, and he came into office. by the end of his administration not only was there a huge debt, but the markets had failed, a blind eye to wall street had allowed the economy almost to go into a great depression. now to blame barack obama for something that was inherited by his the administration, and the

republicans blocking all efforts to try to make the economy better. you are talking about taxing productive people. the tax rates on the wealthiest americans are at their lowest well for some 50 years in our country. the idea is fair taxation. to allow people to pay their fair share. this is not about punishment or revenge or envy. it is about making sure those who have benefited from the common good -- elizabeth warren had a great comment. great, you have a factory, your business makes a lot of money. your employees were educated by the public, by our tax dollars. you take your goods over wrote that all of us have paid for. you are protected by police and

firefighters that all of us pay for. now you can keep the bulk of your money but you need to pay your fair share. that is all this conversation is about. 81% of americans agree that we need to tax the wealthiest americans right now. we have the greatest income disparity in our country since 1928. middle-class incomes have fallen, the middle class is disappearing, and the very rich are getting richer. the poor are getting poorer. this is not good for our economy, not good for our democracy, not good for our competitive edge in the world. we need to have economic fairness in our country, and that means everybody, everybody has to pay their fair share. host: "usa today" front page.

senate rejects obama's jobs bill. among republican senator, tom coburn of oklahoma, did not vote. there are other news reports this morning that the next strategy in the senate will be to break up the president's job bill, tried to pare things up that the democrats like with things that the republicans like. guest: i am concerned that the part that republican do not like is creating jobs and putting people to work, doing things that we need. this is one of the issues that i do not get. don't republicans drive over a creaky bridges as well with kids in the car? don't they want to see these things done for their own families, as well for the country? i do not understand why there is

not support for direct job creation. these would be construction jobs, union jobs, teacher jobs, all kinds of good work in our community. i am a little concerned about breaking up the package. i would like to see it all as one piece, but we will see as we go forward, what we can get done. host: fred is next. democratic caller. orlando, florida. caller: i would like to know if that jobs proposal does not pass, what would we do? or we going to get the country moving forward or we just going to wait until after the election? guest: you heard the president and his speech. americans cannot wait for -- now 13 months -- to get back to

work, the economy getting rolling again. that is why he proposed his bill when he did and asked congress to pass it right now. my concern is yours. the republicans are so much against creating these jobs and helping the economy because they want to defeat barack obama, they want to defeat the democrats, they are willing to vote against the economy and jobs and wait for the next election. frankly, that is a risky political decision on their part. americans want to see something happen. people from all walks of life right now are really suffering, losing their homes as well as their jobs. i think we need to move ahead, not wait for the next election. i am hoping that they will see the light when their

constituents let them know, we need your help. host: a tweet from one of our viewers -- guest: actually, if the president had not done what he had done, i believe we would have been in a full-fledged depression. the kinds of actions he took, including the stimulus bill, which put up to 3 million people back to work, prevented layoffs, i think, was the thing that saved the economy from falling into the abyss. i disagree the tweeter that this is a blame game. this is just a fact. people forget just how bad things were when the president took the oath of office. i do not believe the president,

in any way, has made the situation worse. host: darrell in detroit, michigan. republican. caller: i would like to make a comment and then ask a question. we have not run a balanced trade since 1975. almost every president wants to expand our export markets. none have had any luck. right now, even the current president said he wants to double exports in the next five years. that is not possible. this year's trade deficit is $600 billion. that is $150 billion more than the president's jobs bill. what is happening is we are filling this great sucking sound of our trade deficit. people say if we do anything with our trade deficit, it will start a trade war. in fact, china mention that. i think we should put a 20%

import tax on everything. guest: and certainly want to deal with the currency manipulation issue with china. that is the legislation that harry reid and other senators are supporting. i hope that we can do the same in the house of representatives. i agree with you, the trade deals have been a problem. i hope i'm wrong, the president is right, that need to do more exports, that we need to have fair trade, not what we call free trade. 99 republicans have supported that in the past. we will see what the republican congress does. host: steven is an independent in utah.

caller: i have a comment on putting people to work on highways, things like that. every time i drive by those sites, i do not see 100 people working, maybe 10 maximum. i went to the bureau of labor statistics and looked at how many people in the country are working in construction, a construction laborer. in 2008, a total of 460,000 people doing construction work on highways and infrastructure. if we increase that by 25%, we will put 115,000 people to work. if we increased it by 50%, which we cannot do, would only increase it by 200,000. operators of equipment will need to be trained before you can put people to work. host: let's take your point.

guest: in the jobs bill that the president has proposed, there is school modernization, which is not thought of as infrastructure. you can put people to work all year round by maintaining schools. he puts more into teachers and firefighters. $5 billion for low income youth and adults, to put them back to work. there is a project to have people work in distressed communities, repair residences, and doing more with the reservation programs. yes, there are $50 billion for creating an infrastructure, but those resonate throughout the economy. when you have a job in construction, that means those people have money.

they can go to the restaurant, they can buy a car, they can put money down to buy a house. it does ripple through the economy. this bill is not just infrastructure, it goes beyond that. host: congresswoman jan schakowsky, thank you. in 45 minutes, we turn our attention to this magazine cover story from "news we" in september. where women are winning. up next, we will speak to congressman paul gosar. he represents the first district of arizona. >> more reaction to the plot to kill the saudi ambassador. vice-president joe biden, in appearances this morning, said the alleged plot by iranian government agents was really over the top. and the u.s. response could involve sanctions, but in his words, nothing has been taken

off the table. also weighing in on the issue, republican presidential candidate herman cain. he says the united states needs to clarify who its friends and enemies are. he went on to say the obama administration is failing to make clear who the u.s. would stand by, and that that was one reason to kill the saudi ambassador in washington. reaction from china on an american currency bill. beijing is rejecting the a measure passed by the senate yesterday as a form of damaging protectionism. the bill would allow washington to raise tariffs on chinese imports, but the bill is not likely to become law because it lacks support in the house of representatives. >> of course, i am delighted, but not surprised by the final repeal of the 18th amendment. i felt all along when this matter was properly submitted to

the rank and file of our people, they would readily see that it had no place in our constitution. >> he served as governor of new york four times, though he never attended high school or college. in 1928, al smith became the first catholic nominated by a major party to run for president. he is still remembered today by the alfred smith memorial dinner, for a fund-raiser for various catholic charities. al smith is one of the 14 men featured in "the contenders" live from the state assembly chambers in albany. >> find the latest releases for your book reading list. taped conversations with the arthur schlesinger jr..

september 1957. david margolick looks at their lives. daniel yergin on the impacts of the oil industry on the environment. >> current and future threats, our military must remain the finest in the world. it must remain an agile and full spectrum force that can deter conflict, project power, and win wars. that is a great challenge, and that challenge will bring about difficult times and difficult decisions, but i would tell you as well, it is an opportunity to shape, to change, to transform the army, not just to come to

terms with the fiscal constraints of today, but to better meet the challenges that we know, somewhere, sometime we will face tomorrow. >> with possible defense cuts in the future, the u.s. army secretary talks about how the army could shrink and still maintain its capability. watch the entire video at the c- span video library. host: we are joined by congressman and dr. paul gosar for a conversation on the "fast & furious" investigation. let's start with the announcement yesterday on the attempted assassination plot on the saudi ambassador. guest: first of all, we would like to congratulate our investigators for foiling this plot. that shows the best of what america does in our intelligence

agencies. that is very important and we need to have that aspect. but we also need to make sure, with our successes, we also look and our mistakes. host: from the information you have seen, do you agree this is conceived, sponsored, directed by the government of iran? is that the impression from the information you have been given? guest: it seems to be. we do not see a lot of trust coming from iran. basically, they have never kept their promises. host: there has been a lot of speculation about motive. your thoughts about what you have seen so far? guest: we do not know. speculation is an awful lot. we need the facts. that is how we build on successful discovery, having facts. any time you money the waters,

you confuse people. host: i want to turn to an editorial in "the wall street journal" talking about the terror plot. it says -- your reaction to this editorial? guest: we need a conscientious dallas -- balance. we need to have a presence worldwide and be one of the strongest people and forcing the loss. but we also have some domestic reality checks. there has to be checks and balance. host: you have called for the resignation of eric holder. what has this plot bust done for your confidence in him?

guest: i am all for taking credit for the notoriety of the success, but that does not change oversight and responsibility we had with other attempts. when most americans find out about these botched attempts, they are outraged. host: let us listen to a bit of eric holder's press conference yesterday. he was asked about the "fast & furious" investigation. >> we have sent thousands of pages. what i want the american people to understand is, in complying with that, in dealing with the inquiry, it will not detract us from the import we have to do -- from the import work we have to do here at the justice department's. . host: 20 expect coming down from your committee?

guest: we have seen some of the books on the ground. some folks in arizona now coming up to the hierarchy officials in the doj. host: we are speaking to congressperson paul gosar, part of the oversight and government security committee. your first term. i want to turn to the attorney- general letter that he sent on friday where he was discussing the "fast & furious" investigation. a lot of criticism has come down against the attorney general. he responded directly to a comment that you made about the law enforcement officials. he said in his letter --

he was talking to you. your response? guest: i am not retracting anything. when the american people found out that we allowed done locking, referring to criminals and drug cartel members, with no tracking, unheralded, never done before that we know of. these were not just ordinary weapons. these were 50 caliber weapons, a k-47's. they allow this to occur. one gentleman bought over 700, he was on food stamps, and he paid in cash we are talking about over 2000 that we know. mr. holder and the justice department says that they comply with subpoenas, but they are severely detected. you can barely get some of the information out there. -- severely redacted.

there was the tracking system, no surveillance. the only way we are to find out is from crime scenes in the u.s. and mexico. this has led to the death of one border agent in america and hundreds of mexicans. you did not use people as collateral in your war. baird is accountability and needs to be taken. not only is he talking from his standpoint, and that is why 10 shares, both democrats and republicans, have called for his resignation. they are out there defending and protecting their individual communities, and they are going up against 50 calibers and a k- 47's to enter the situation. host: explain the term gun walking. guest: somebody can buy a gun who facilitates it to somebody

that should not have a gun. a criminal, someone else. gun walking alas the transfer of that gun from the gun sales person to the strong sales person to the person alt merely getting it. they try to find ringleaders and pathways to the way that guns are moved. but it is never done with tracking methods. host: has there been any success in bringing down these cartel leaders to this investigation? guest: we have stumbled on certain people. we never informed our mexican colleagues on the other side. we did cover up in terms of special agents tried to track these guns from the mexican side. when we tried to find out about tracing guns, we would get these anonymous all the ups that they could not follow up on the sale. we confiscated this.

we could then do a follow-up. there was a hiding of this. we did not even include our mexican colleagues. that is so egregious. he outlines exactly a change in practical form from a previous program called operation gun runner, a tactical changes, more manpower, working on both sides, working in compliance with mexico, but they never did. host: if you want to join in on the conversation. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. if you are outside the united states,! 202-628-0184. joe from new jersey.

caller: i have a comment on this iran thing. the way it is looking, iran has a bunch of idiots and mexico would be even dumber to try to send the money to new york. there would have to sell and 90, visa, and something does not look right here. i have a question about our constitution. congress people take an oath to uphold our security, protect the nation, welfare of the nation. why do the republicans think it is necessary to sign a statement that when they will not raise taxes, when president reagan raised taxes when the deficit got out of hand? host: do you want to respond? not necessarilguest: we have no.

the more you tax the small employer, the fewer the jobs you will be able to do. the uncertainty in that environment is creating an environment where we do not want to employ people. if you do not understand what is coming, you want to have protections so that you can keep the people you have employed. raising taxes does not do a lot of times the things that you intended to be. everybody is for tax reform. we are tired of putting a band- aid on taxes in the way they are adjudicated. flatter lines across the board would make it easier for people to look at with fewer deductions. that would be a better template. but also bring certainty as to how we can make it more fair across the board. host: were you surprised to see

the mexican drug cartel connection in this i ran plot? guest: no, i am not. we have a war going on in our southern border with mexico. almost 45,000 mexican citizens have been murdered in mexico. that is an atrocity. host: tom is from illinois. republican line. caller: i just want to encourage the congressman to concur it -- to continue like this. this is ridiculous. the one thing that bothers me with these investigations, like when janet reno stormed that david koresh compound and they screwed up. she went on tv and said i am responsible. that is all that ever happens. something may go on with this investigation, maybe somebody will take responsibility, but

nothing happens to anybody. it is amazing. everybody wants to read the headlines, but i want to see some responsibility. host: has anybody take responsibility in this investigation? guest: we have not. we have not really seen that at all in this regard. that is why this is so problematic in america today. we see mainstream america being held to a set of rules and bureaucrats to another set of rules. what is so egregious about this case, as american citizens -- one of the previous callers talked about us up all the constitution against those that are foreign or domestic. when we use your livelihood,

property as collateral, that is not what government is therefore. that is what is egregious. if this would have occurred in danger in america, we are in jail, locked up, the case is thrown away. the needs to be accountability. when you allow guns to go into criminals' hands without surveying, without tracking, that is a violation of justice. those who have permitted this have to be considered accessories to the crimes. host: down to the agents on the street who were monitoring these? let them what? guest: there is right and wrong. you have to understand what is right. there is a movie that came out, "a few good men." the marines carried out their orders but it was wrong. that is what is so wrong about the scenario. if you followed our hearings,

you would see -- we have this booklet that shows how to apply the constitution the proper way. they took this booklet, the constitution, and grounded up. that is inappropriate. host: it was a whistleblower who began the investigation. guest: a special agent on the other side of the border was furious. you could tell he was really involved in trying to do his job to the highest degree of protecting people on both sides. he was on the mexican side, if i am not mistaken. there will be more innocent victims'. more than three-quarters of the guns that we have allowed to walk are unaccounted for. we will probably see more of them.

host: you talked earlier about the u.s. agents not informing the mexican colleagues that this was going on. a question from leon on twitter -- guest: here is the deal. this is an international border, a foreign country. the last time i looked, all americans want us to respect the laws on our side of the country, and we should have the same respect for another country. we should then be going into another country unless there is a declaration of war, not discussing this with another country. we started discussing this in april 2009. the attorney-general and the president was there. politicians and myself, we are here to all people accountable.

we are going to do that and hold people accountable for their actions. host: let's go back to the phones. on the independent line, michael from detroit, michigan. caller: i have watched this whole thing unfold. i've watched hillary and obama get on the television and say that we need new gun regulations because all of these guns were going into mexico. it is my opinion that all of this was done intentionally. i would just like you to comment on that. guest: you bring up a wonderful point. in his 2009 letter, statement, speech, they outlined problems with the oversight of guns. we allowed this to occur, it would have precipitated is a roundabout manner that in reverse to the sales of guns.

an increase in the amount of paperwork that you have to do. we have had numerous federal licensees that have had spot checks at their residences in the middle of the night. all those folks that go to gun shows, i hope you realize that you are being taped and shown to. that is an aspect. -- filmed. there are two ways of doing things. create a set of parameters to justify the end. there is another way that seems to be extrapolated in today's world. come up with a conclusion and then work your way backwards. that seemed to be what we're talking about. the president, in his speech, in april 2009, talks about 90% of the weapons used in mexico come from the u.s., but the facts do not merit that. only about 15% is true. that is the problem.

we misrepresent the facts. that is the problem americans have. when you have this aspect, where we were used as collateral damage, we should be outraged. that is why when i vote -- talk to folks at home, do not trust me, take what i tell you, and go look for the facts. that is part of your responsibility to american. we do not understand what the facts are in mainstream america anymore. host: i want to go back to the attorney general's letter. it is the first time he has spoken out and responded in depth to some of the questions you all have been raising. you talk about responsibility, that congress has fallen down on the responsibility when it comes to gun control legislation. he writes --

he is calling out you again. guest: it is funny how we can take a shiny mirror and tried to distort the facts. the folks that have these firearms are dependent on those mechanisms to the atf. when a gun salesperson suspects something, they have to go through a fast response data aspect. why, when we have documented aspects of multiple guns taken or sold, the gun sales people and reported them to the atf as

suspicious activity, and the atf said sell them anyways? we also did a tracking mechanism, when the agents started tracking these guns, why is it that the atf and department of justice said stand down? they are dependent upon their license from the atf and then they have to be complied with the atf. we have a body that gives them a reason to exist but can also retract that. the facts are wrong. mr. holder, he failed to realize that over 700 guns were purchased by just one individual in this case on food stamps, andand over half of a mn dollars transpired here. it was reported numerous times. i am not from law-enforcement. i have a health-care provider, i am a healer, but this does not

make sense. when something goes wrong, there is an accountability personally and from the top down. the option of not knowing this, that means there are vigilante'' out there. and that is even worse. that is incompetence. do you think there is anything to james' tweet here -- guest: that is exactly right. to bypasser seems everything that we want to keep and do in a proper fashion. there is a proper mechanism to congress, but itthrough seems that all they do is bypassed. we do not pick and choose the laws we uphold inviolate.

maybe we got confused on what is the law and what is not a lot. you cannot tell me mr. holder does not understand what transpired here. i as an individual know what is wright and wrong. host: again, we're talking to representative paul gosar. let's go back to the phones. tom on the democratic line from massachusetts. good morning. caller: i have a couple of questions. [inaudible] host: we are losing you. can you speak of? caller: he stated earlier about the guns and never heard something like this before, but are recall something along time ago back in the 1980's with the guns and drugs that are

traded and things like that, and nothing happened to anyone back then. this is like tick for tack. i am tired of it. they are trying to do their job. sometimes things happen and something goes wrong -- that his life. host: are you worried the politics have taken over? caller: i really believe that is what has happened. one more thing, and they keep talking about the stimulus that we had, and they're saying it did not work, but what they do not say and never say, they always talk about the money that went for the infrastructure, but they never talk about the taxes that were given away where we should have tax people we did not tax people to get the deficit down. we get a tax break.

gave a tax break. host: that was the attorney general's comments that he thinks politics have taken over into the process. he has asked the inspector general of the department of justice to look into that. do you agree that was the right move on his part? guest: absolutely not. we need someone completely outside that appeared in our oversight committee has to do their job. host: you do not think the inspector general is an independent enough body? guest: absolutely not. we need someone independent. just because something happened before my time in congress, does not give credibility to what went wrong here. this is not about tick for tack. this is about the fact that we allowed guns in this country to usedught that were

against us, as citizens of this countryy. we did not even talk to the mexican government about it, and we profess to use them in cooperation. we also covered it up so they could not practice. this is what you saw bipartisan sheriff's in arizona saying we want resignation because this is so egregious. host: resignation of? guest: of mr. holder. it should have been mrs. clinton that understood this. the ramifications are enormous here. this completely violates everything within this country. it is not about tit-for-tat, it wallsout upholding the of this country. that is why you see such a

bipartisan outrage. people in the southwest when they hear about this are outraged, that their lives were put on the line for this issue. that is wrong. it violates all the principle of law enforcement, and that is why you see law-enforcement starting to speak of. host: john r. republican from new york city. caller: i am not a republican, i am a democrat. i think this guy is like a joke. host: do you have a question? caller: [inaudible] working guns are running guns. did they ask the people's country that they sold the guns to if they except [inaudible] ]

guest: what we have done is someone who has the ability to buy the gun but not for their purpose. it is someone who is a non- national who cannot be permitted to have a gun. all gun dealers that sell have to have the ability to run across direct reference with national data bases, as well as report suspicious activity, which is exactly what transpired here. all of the folks that sold the guns follow the law to a tee. it is the justice department and the atf but change the rules. telling the people to sell the guns when suspicious activity was brought up. when there was surveillance done by special agents to follow the letter of the law that is put on the books, there were told to stand down. that is the problem here. it is not about the individual not following the letter of the

law and their sales, they did. it is to register people to find out when they are buying guns up the chain to make sure they can facilitate come and make sure activity occurs,i that you uphold it. host: 1 think the attorney general brought up was the bush era generation that use many of the similar activities that were used in "fast and furious." guest: i am not familiar with that, but as far as we are understanding, do not muddy the water. if there are problems that the bush administration did with wide receiver, let's bring those acts forward. here are the facts. we have something going on that is unheralded. never before, and i suspect we will find the same thing, the guns were not allowed to walk without surveillance and tracking mechanisms.

we heard it from agents. they said it over and over again, this was never done before. this problem change. mr. holder out lines in april 2, 2009, speech in mexico think there will be tactical changes. he outlines exactly what chance ptranspires here. i want him accountable. you have allowed american citizens' lives to be put on the line here. that is unprecedented. we've never seen that before, and we have to accountability. host: question from heather on twitter -- guest: that is our issue. we're going up the ladder in trying to make sure we get all of the fundamental facts, starting from the ground up and working our way. we want accountability. if something goes wrong, i am responsible for my employees. that is what america divans. when you permit something like

this that is so egregious, you have to take responsibility. host: and on the republican line from florida. good morning. -- ann of the republican line from florida. caller: i have been following the hearings. i would like you to tell us when c-span will air the next hearing. the last hearing there were 16 of the guys. they have only found one. is that still the case? also, i think you need to let people know that these guns -- there were other things besides guns and the testimony. there were weapons-grade military that were fully automatic or semi automatic or all of the above. host: on the first question you can go to c-span.org to go to a

full hearing listing. did not want to cut in on you, and give you a chance to respond. guest: the guns that were particular interest for the but the caliber that can be easily modified. these are game changers. we did not even tell the mexican government. what they were seeing in their surveillance is they thought they had a civil war coming with one particular cartel. 50 caliber weapons actually can shoot over 1,600 meters. mile.s close to will vino a they were responsible for bringing down helicopters in the last raid. these are the aspects that they were after. that is what is even more egregious, these are game changers. we can add to the insult. that our law enforcement on the

ground in communities and police forces, they do not have access to this. how do you know when you will run up on this? these of the problems we have seen. we've seen this over and over again in arizona. this is a problem, and we need more accountability. right now more than three- quarters are unaccounted for. these are just by department of justice records that we can find. that is all we have been given. we do not know if there is even more or less -- or is there more out there that we do not even know about it? host: the case that started this investigation, the killing of the border patrol agent -- what were the weapons used in that case? guest: there is a third one being mentioned. that is our problem. that is what our problem is, the information you're getting from mr. holder and the department of justice is severely redacted.

it is hard to piece all the pieces together. they have been a very, very accommodating to try to do those. they manipulated that. they have also tried to cloud those things by challenging people like me like you're chairman and committee -- like our chairman in committee. we have something more on the details that we are to keep track of right here. one wrong does not make a right. two wrongs do not make a right. next calller from arizona. caller: i am michael thomas, one of your constituents. everybody says the worst thing is that i got shot, and they were letting them go down there, but at the time no one was theyg anything, but geyet

are saying dendrites are bad. here is the reason why we should have stricter gun laws and all of this. that has not been addressed. that was like a sneaky way of eroding our gun rights a little bit at a time. guest: you are exactly right. this is the methodology of how you follow up and come to a conclusion. there is one way where you build a fax and build a case. that is what seems to occur here. the ticket when you start looking at this operation from the conception. when you look at the documents, mr. volcker talks about what is coming from of the tactical changes. we see the president talked

about the same type of dissertation. last friday we see the president told exactly what attorney- general holder is talking about, this really aggressive oversight of the gun that situation. this is exactly what has transpired here, because we have not seen a result, a compliance. yet we have seen an increase in paperwork, oversight. we have seen surveillance. all within our side in america. that is what is egregious about this. host: i want to get into the timeline so everyone is on the same page. some of the recent documents indicated the attorney general knew about that investigation well before you told your committee back in may of this year. tell us a little but about what you think he knew and when. guest: i go back to the

timeline. he talked about a major initiative that we are hearing and seeing all about, this major new initiative about taking on the drug cartel. host: the first documents that show the actual names -- guest: we're seeing it in march of 2010. he says i see thousands and thousands of these things, so my folks could not breathe free appropriately. that is sad. that is what we're going on? this is a major initiative that talks about. it talks about violating another country's rights and their rules of law. you should have known. host: what he said to you last week was that fast and furious may have came up some of the specific tactics were not discussed. you simply do not believe that?

guest: the callers have talk back and forth about how they do not believe in the government. over and over the testing we do not trust the federal government and what they are discussing. this is exactly what i am saying. i ask all america to go back and holder's tockholders get mr. testimony delectably pick certain words very carefully. listen to his statement. he is very careful about his words on there. he knows exactly what he is talking about. the further we get into the documentation, it will uphold what we said all along. host: a few more calls. dan from michigan. caller: did you sign grover norquist's pledge? guest: yes, i did.

host: 50 of a question about fast and furious? -- do you have a question about fast and furious? caller: what do you think about black water and access to the military equipment? they are a private company but they have military rights. as far as i know, they run around with m-16's. aren't they suppose to be under the same laws as any other private citizen? guest: my understanding is they have to go through the same notoriety of tracking what weapons they have. this is my first term, so i am not fully sure about the full ramifications of that, but i would suspect that is exactly the case as well. host: mike on the republican line from woodstock, va.. caller: i have a quick question.

where is the outrage from the left regarding this incident? that is it. i would like to know that. guest: i am asking the same question. i think what you have already started to see is a bipartisan effort from the sheriff's in arizona. we talked about it in tucson here a couple weeks ago. there was horrible our rage in regards to being used as pawns in this in their lives were put on the line in their constitutional rights. we should be seeing a better response from our colleagues on the other side, because look at what transpired here. and over 100 innocent victims in mexico who are already going through a civil war with the cartel, already 40,000 had already lost their lives. we facilitated that. we put a gun in their hands that does even more harm. it has the potential to do more harm when we have law

enforcement trying to protect those citizens. we made it even worse on the people on the ground. that is the problem, the victims not only in our country but those in the country but are undergoing a civil war with the cartel. that is what is shameful. that is why we have to speak out and must hold mr. holder and those responsible for their accountability. host: there has been some push back the democrats to talk more about gun legislation in congressman iened pushed up back in the committee meetings. guest: we throw out these things, and supported documents or numbers, like the president did say 90% of the guns and mexico come from the united states. the facts do not pull that at all. the most we can find is roughly

between 50% and 17 percent signed were that occurs. we have the most accurate aspect of gun registration and markings of guns. let's have a discussion based on the premises of the facts. it seems like the left and never once you have those discussions, particularly in done operations. -- gun operations. in 2010 they wanted a discussion of the facts. host: we have to leave it there. i appreciate you for coming on. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> an update on the 2012 presidential campaign. republican presidential campaign mitt romney in an appearance earlier said in new jersey governor, chris christie, would be on anybody short list for a vice presidential running mate. calling him an extraordinary

person and one of the leading figures in the republican party. gov. christie says he has not been promised a spot on the ticket or anything else in return for is in force yesterday. meanwhile, joe biden speaking earlier on "the today show" says there is no question that he will be in the no. 2 spot for the democratic ticket. acknowledging there had been speculation about whether he would be replaced, acknowledging that he would be back on the ticket. turning to global economic news, european economic affairs commissioner said the region is moving toward a consensus on resolving what you calls"the calamity of the sovereign crisis." slovakia will take a second vote after failing to approved the package as it. the area leaders said they will have a plan by november to

recapitalize the eggs. kigalbanks. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> it is a fact-based storey on a topic of your choosing. every good story has a good beginning, solid metal, and strong ending. -- solid middle and strong ending. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> you do not need the best video equipment to have a winning project. if you do not have access to better the deal of what it, do not let that stop you. if you need more help, go to studentcam.org. >> i find it useful to read the rules very carefully and make a checklist of what you need to

do, but do not worry, the process becomes clear want to get started. >> you could work alone on the project or work in teams. if you are good writer, they get a friend to help out. not only will you learn something, but you will increase your chances of winning. >> you do not need to be an expert to make this work. you could use parents, teachers, and c-span as resources for you along the way. this process is fun and extremely rewarding. with a little bit of effort, anyone can do this. >> watch for video of the candidates. see what political reporters are staying and track the latest campaign contributions was c-

span website for campaign 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape would twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaign and the latest polling data, plus links to c-span media partners. "washington journal" continues. >> every wednesday in the last hour we are taking a look at a recent magazine article. this is an article from " newsweek" in september. joining us is author of the cover story, jesse ellison. let's begin with the criteria for the story. the first one is justice. guest: we looked at a loss in place for protecting women from marital race and so on in their

access to land, a bank accounts and that sort of thing. host: the next one is health. guest: this is maternal mortality rates, a child mortality rates, and hiv rates. then education, which is average level attained. a literacy rates in gender parity in school. and economic power, which is a percentage of the label foror fe and the ability to climb the corporate ladder. host: you took the five criteria. where does the criteria come from? guest: we use figures from all sorts of places. the united nations, world economic forum, a world bank. we picked and chose from our favorite places to assemble this. host: why did you choose those

five? guest: a bunch of us that are familiar with this area got together and talked about the most important criteria essentially, and we did it that way. host: the best countries, and there are about 20 that make the list. iceland top it at #one. why? guest: mainly, they have made gender parity a clear goal for three decades now. they look at corporations and go into companies to make sure they're not paying men more than women. they are very forward-thinking in this whole realm. last year the band of lawyers from profiting off of employees nudity, which means that they

bandit strip clubs and at some people think the sex industry took a real blow. and host: the five criteria are based on a scale of one to 100. there are 95.7 education. on education, what are they doing that makes it a score of almost 100? guest: education was one of the area that was pretty consistent among the top 20. just about everywhere got in the '90s for that. it is just that girls are in school at an equal rate of boys. i do not think they're doing anything above and beyond some of the other countries, it is just more reflecting their overall policies and progressiveness.

two is we did. wo domestic violence rates are relatively high. -- number two is sweeden. guest: that has been an issue for them they have been compared to other countries that do well by the other metrics. their rates are surprisingly high. 3, 4, 5, and six are canada, denmark, finland, in switzerland. what do these countries have in common? guest: they are making across- the-board efforts to make sure women are in gauge the end of power politically and economically. denmark is interesting because they spend almost 3% of their gdp on government-funded health

care, which is mandated. finland was the first country to give women the right to vote and run for office. canada does blow across the board. their walls protected women are incredibly strong, and they do well in terms of intimate partner violence and veritabmarl rape. -- their laws. the interesting thing is according to our -- the way that we looked at this, it is separate -- basically on the power metric, these countries did all across the board. some of them were in the top 20. some of them scored 90, meaning they have high rates of women in political roles.

other scores 60. the ad -- united states, only 16% of our legislature is female. that is largely separate from how the average woman is doing on a day-to-day basis. really what is more unfortunate is the walls that are in place to protect women inside their marriages or outside their marriages. it is access to health care, attendance when they're giving birth, that sort of thing. host: no. 8 of a list is the united states. why number eight? guest: we do well in some areas. education is incredibly strong. girls are outpacing boys and almost every degree in metric. we do not do so well in terms of justice. if you look at canada -- of the top 20 and top-10, especially by a large the slavic countries and

nordic countries of europe, the exceptions are canada and the united states. we do not do as well as canada. that is partly because they have much higher rates of violence in marriages. host: john is a democratic calller id mexico. you are up first. -- john is in the democratic calller id new mexico. mexico. secaller: we always see this disparity between men and women in the work force, that there is a huge gap in pay between equivalent jobs and the assumption is that men that support the families. i will give you another alarming statistics. the average age of the homeless

person in new mexico for statewide statistics is 9 years old. you go to a homeless shelter and you see some men, but mostly it is mom and a bunch of kids come into knows where data is. he is not out supporting the family. this is not every case, but there is a disparity of pay of the work force. host: jesse ellison, what did you find in these countries when it comes to pay quality? guest: there is a pay gap that persists across the board basically everywhere. i think what john was getting at is one of the things iceland has done well is they really targeted that. they go and they look at companies idea to records and

make sure they are not playing -- paying men more than women. and they really are intentionally challenging that and making sure it is not resisting. here in the states women still earn 76 on the dollar. this is how many decades after the equal pay access pass? >host: here is a tweet from a liberal mom -- guest: no, to the first part. i am not clear on the rest. the united states is among the top-10, and we did not have any of that, so no. host: the worst places to be a

woman. what you write is women have made some strides that even in the poorest nations come out of this survey has found these 20 are lagging on basic issues. guest: that is always the jarring part of doing surveys like this is the pay gap problems and so on, and so much of the world where women have no protection and not even recognized weekly. you cannot open a big account without your husband's permission. the countries at the bottom of the list for all countries where that is the case, where women have basically no legal protection. afghanistan has unbelievable race and maternal mortality. if they continue at this pace is expected everyone and in afghanistan will lose a child at some point in her life. host: chad tops the list. y chad?

guest: they did terribly by every measure really. girls are forced into a range of marriages often at 11 or 12- years-old. basically no laws protecting them. hardly any access to health care or education. it is not just growth that are having a hard time, it is the country as a whole. that is one of the things that emerges when you look at these numbers and you look at how countries feared in terms of how they're treated women, it is often have their caring and training -- in terms of how they're treating men as well. there is an undeniable link between women being economically empowered and a country achieving overall and doing well overall in general. host: if what we've been showing you is an interactive map that you could use of the website to look at these countries.

we have been showing your chat tops the list. if you click on the worst countries, which is above that, you will see the overall map of the worst 20 countries, in you can see most of them are in one area, mostly after cup. why is that? -- mostly africa. guest: it is war-torn, destabilized, fighting, problems that are much bigger than we might think of just gender parity issues. that factors into all kinds of destabilization. one of the interesting countries that does not appear on the list of the top 20 or bottom 20 is rwanda. it is going to be an interesting place for a lot of reasons.

in 2003 there coming off of decades of civil war, genocide committed date instituted a requirement that parliament had to be at least a third female. shortly thereafter parliament came over 50 percent signed. for what has the highest percentage of female parliamentarians in the world. they also have been doing incredibly well economically. relief of momentum there is pretty phenomenal. last year the world economic forum recognize them as a leader in innovation. the u.n. has publicly commended them for reaching the millennium cold at remarkable speed. the fact that women are now making up a big portion of decision makers, and they are also having such growth, i think there is no question those things are linked.

host: if we're talking about the best and worst countries for women. of the worst list our chat, nigeria, pakistan, ethiopia, in sudan. walter republican ed butler, indiana. things i have noticed. in the united states in the black communities to have a tremendous amount of abuse. what i do notice is all of the major top countries that treat women well are all, that we white countries. norway, denmark, sweden, america, canada, and all of the bottom ones are all non-white countries. africa, somalia, and afghanistan. don't you see a racial thing would you have dominant we-like countries christian governments, women are taken care of better than all of the not-quite?

-- non-white? guest: i cannot speak to what you're saying about domestic violence among black communities in the united states. we did not break it down by race. i do not think that is as much of a factor as the larger issues -- war, economic problems and so on. this tweet for you -- guest: as i said, the most predictive factors are an economy where women are able to take part. that means they have access to loans and business opportunities of the same levels of men, and also democracy. free and fair democracies are

preach for women, and the ability to make demands and have a movement is very good. -- are great for women. host: rob, democratic calller from new york. caller: i always like to see when i see a woman in new york city, but besides that, i would like to know the status of women in israel. would you be able to tell me something about that? guest: i do not have that offhand. if you go to our web site, there is a whole ranking of the whole world. it is there, and you could see the breakdown, but i am not sure offhand how israel ranked. host: no problem. we do not expect you to be a

walking encyclopedia of all the countries. caller: hello, greta. i want this as a freedom thing. we have migrant workers coming across the border being enslaved by the mexican cartel because they have to pay them to be here. our country is not doing anything about it. they are being sex slaves and slaves. killed if they do not do what they're supposed to do, and it is just wrong. host: here is a tweet. you did take a look at several emerging female leaders across the world. let's begin with thailand. who is the leader, and what did you learn? has a new prime

minister, the young guest -- #sister of an exiled prime minister, and people have some skepticism about her abilities there, but i think she is doing well, and she is certainly one to watch we think. it is interesting, because it is true that the united states and canada has not elected a woman into the highest office. the first female prime minister, shrilanka. was in tree lot o it is counter intuitive the places that have female leaders and those that do not. host: what are some of the surprising countries, and talk about their leaders. guest: the ones that we featured.

the election just happened, and she did not win, but she posed as a very strong candidacy, and some people think if the elections had been free and fair, she would have actually won. she is part of an emerging generation of young women leaders in sub-saharan africa. i spoke to her a couple of months ago, and she told me that one of the things people do not realize is that there is this long-standing tradition of people coming in when things have really gone awry and everything is a mess, and women stepping in and taking over and cleaning it up. she talked to be about how it is about most of the country's approaching 50 years after colonialism, and now is time for the women to take over.

the president of liberia who just won the nobel peace prize is also the first president in sub-saharan africa. there is this sort of -- she is like the leader of this next generation of women in that's generation of women trying to come in and clean things up. host: coaster rico's president? guest: she won in 2010. she is socially conservative. she is incredibly popular. when she won, the whole region, women throughout the region talked about how inspiring it was and how could they felt about it. host: the cover of the magazine shows the brazilian president.

guest: right. she opened the u.n. general assembly. it was the first time a female had opened the general assembly. that was a real watershed moment. antonio next. caller: my question is, do you think there should be more women president? host: difficult to hear you. more options for what? caller: do you think there should be war options for a woman president? -- hebe more options for a woman president? host: do you think there should be?

caller: me? yes. host: chicago, illinois. bill, independent calller. caller: i have worked with youth for a long time. we are being discriminated against by a health care and financing for homes, cars. the impact on millions of children in this country. we have republican party, women and the republican party that will not even mention the us. take your point about access to money. that is one of the criteria you look at. guest: it is.

it is true in the united states the pay gap. more and more households relied on two incomes of the pay gap does have a direct effect on children and husbands and entire communities really. the countries that scored on the bottom, a lot of those places -- get theird to husbands' permission to even open a big account. they do not have access to loans. all of the other studies have looked at how women contribute economically to their communities, and women tend to reinvest 90% of their income right back into their families and into the communities. vs 40% that men do. house there is of economic

incentive to invest in women financially and make sure they could run small businesses and fully participate. host: this tweet for you -- i am not entirely s ure. that is the big take away with everything we looked at. women reinvesting in come, it is just as smart move economically to empower women that way. host: scott, are republican and florida. caller: hi. the one guy took my first question. i see people that want to elect

a president because she is a girl is totally wrong. i think they should hire her if she is capable of the job. you cannot just look at people because of their sexual -- because of their sex. my question is, can you address the guy from indiana that said the first five states are all white countries and all the ones on the bottom are non-why? i am not talking about no domestic violence. i am talking about the fact is all the countries are on the tops are all white countries. host: jesse ellison did address that. let me ask you about the first part of the comment where he said -- he talked about electing a president because she is female. what about these countries that do have female leaders, what is it about their culture and the

way their election systems work? guest: that is a good question. i cannot speak into much doubt about that, but i agree with the caller's point that we should not put a woman in office just for the sake of having a woman in office. i think ideally moving forward as we see more and more women taking up leadership roles and the german chancellor and people like that, it will become normalized in a way that maybe it is not now. and we azo world culture might lose -- we as a world courtrooue might lose this. caller: maternity leave on par not good.a will boleone,

caller: what are we doing with this data that has been gathered? are we going to use this to make our programs and our country better? within that, record to use this to help other countries that are at the bottom, even though we're not number one, are we going to focus how to get number-one? more within the u.s., you said there was not a lot of data or said it was not separate based on race. my question is within the united states and canada, african americans, hispanics are in every country, so it is not about that. how are we working on those goals with the other countries to help them? are we going to model what they do to bring it back into the u.s. to make it something we can do? guest: i think the first

question about what we're doing with it, we have published it, and we are not in a position to implement anything, but i think the reason we wanted to do that and the reason we bought it was important is because we thought was interesting and a teaching moment to look at the facts. and part, the backs of countries that are treating people really well or stable democracies, strong economies. all of these countries are coming out of the arabs bring right now. there are lot of places that are starting from scratch in a lot of ways. -- all of these countries are coming out of the arab spring right now. there are countries amending their constitutions, and making sure women are involved or thinking about gender parity or the pay gap or any of those things might seem like it is low

of the list of priorities or things they need to address, but part of the point of all of this is that the smart thing to do and the thing that will make for a strong, healthy democracy going forward is to make sure women are included. if that means instituting quotas, make sure women are involved in constitutional amendments, that kind of thing. that was one of the reasons we wanted to do this when we did it. host: a week before this issue came out there was an international conference with the secretary of state making a speech about the women's a central role in the global economy, prompting the 21st century of participation aid for women. what did she tell you about her objective, her agenda for upholstery and women around the world? guest: she has made women's empowerment a major point of her

tenure as secretary of state. she has a global ambassador at large for women's issues, and that conference is primarily an economic conference, and the point that she made is one that we're trying to as well, and increasingly people are making all over the place in government and schools is that it is making sure women are empowered economically and is good for everyone. she 15 years ago said women's rights are human rights. last spring she said human progressis -- women's is human progress. it is not a zero sum gain.

host: joyce, a republican in nashville, tennessee. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i want you to address whether it they tried to follow us constitutionally and legally, how do we get them not to follow us morally, because i have a wall of pictures of young women who have gone out to bars and ended up dead or raped? i do not want to see that in the muslim countries. if they follow as legally one thing, but the moral slip. host: those rejoices comets and moscow, tennessee. but we want to florida.

commentswere joyce's in tennessee. caller: about the men and women. host: i am glad to put you on hold. goose creek, florida. barbara and in a democrat from south carolina. i have been engaged in the battle with the justice system for 10 years because of a strong political oil corporations have in the united states, which will always prevent women from getting into a high position. host: jesse ellison, how does the justice system in the united states rank? we rank eight, and that is one of the criteria. guest: i am not entirely sure what the question was there.

host: i ask you about the justice system in the united states. we get a rank of 82.9 out of 100. guest: we do well. in other areas we pull back a little bit. host: we will move on to the democratic calller from florida. caller: good morning. i am a big fan of cspan, and i am watching the show here. i am watching the program here about the women's rights. muslim women are respected by their husbands. we do not go around weeping

other women like the news media want to portray women as being bad and stuff like that. that is not the case. we're just -- however, here in america [inaudible] . there is nothing but government extortion. if you want to speak about justice, look at the example of hillary clinton and the projects. we come back to the same statement that the other guy made. most of these ideologies are perpetuated only for the black community. host: jesse ellison, let me ask you before we go, is this something that, tracking the progress, something that newsweek will continue to do? guest: this is our first year. by every indication we will continue doing i